liliiii: :!l!ili!iil MMf mmm mmmim i I y ,^^2-^^/ SPEECHES, MESSAGES, AND OTHER WHITINGS OF THE Hon. albert g. broavn, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. EDITED BY M. W. C L U S K E Y, POST-MASTER TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES. SECOND EDITION. PHILADELPHIA: PUBLISHED BY JAS. B. SMITH & CO., 610 CHESTNUT ST. BLANCIIARD & MOHUN, WASHINGTON. D. C; GEO. M. WEST, RICHMOND, VA ; S. G. COUKTNY & CO., CHARLESTON, S. C; CLEAVES & VADEN, MEMPHIS, TENN • H. D. MAGINNIS, NEW ORLEANS; J. G. & J. B. MOREY, JACKSON, MISS.; CRUMP, BURWELL & CO., VICKSBURG, MISS. 1859. t33' .8 .B 852, Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1858, M. AY. CLUSKEY, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia. By Transfer D. C. Public Library AUG 1 7 1934 .'. . PRINTED BY SMITH A PETERS, Franklin Buildings, Sixth Street, below Arch, Philadelphia. 1 1 ;?599 EDITOR'S PREFACE. The publishers of this compilation, with commendable enterprise, having determined to reproduce in an accessible form, the speeches and writings of such of the public men of the country as are of sufficient merit to justify republication, present this as the initial volume of the series which they hope- in a reasonable time to introduce to the public. They have honored the compiler Avitli the position of Editor of this new work. He hopes that the manner in which he has thus far discharged the trust, will justify the public in commending the selection of him for that duty. He congratulates himself that the speeches and writings of Albert G. Brown should form the beginning of his labor in this connexion. Having been a constant observer and admirer of the long and consist- ent public career of Governor Brown, it afforded him a plea- sure to be engaged in bringmg before the country a compilation of his able and instructive political speeches and writings. The reflection that the subject of a work of this kind possesses true merit, naturally tends to ease the labor of preparing and (3) I RECEIVED, AUG 2 -1907 IV EDITORS PREFACE. bringing it forth. The contents of this compilation constitute a monument of the mind of him whose productions it contains. It cannot fail to insure a ready endorsement by the country of the enterprise of the publishers. To the people of Mississippi, who have long honored Albert G. Brown, and whom he has so amply repaid by the faithful discharge of every public trust confided to him, the Editor would respectfully dedicate this volume. CONTENTS. PAGE BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF MR. BROWN, by the Editor . . . 5 NATIONAL BANK— Report in House of Representatives of Mississippi, made January 24, 1838, from the committee to whom ^vas referred so much of the Governor's Message as relates to a National Bank . . . . U VAN BUREN'S ADMINISTRATION— Speech in House of Representatives, April 17, 1840, in Committee of the AYhole on the general appropriation bill . , . . • -' FEES OF UNITED STATES MARSHALS AND CLERKS — Remarks in House of Representatives, February 22, 1841, in Committee of the Whole on the general appropriation bill "1° ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF MISSISSIPPI, previous to the guberna- torial election in 1843 50 FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS, delivered January 10, 1844, before a joint meeting of the two houses of the Mississippi Legislature ... 55 -"o ANNUAL MESSAGE AS GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI, communicated to the Legislature January 6, 1846 "O SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS, upon the commencement of his second term as Governor, delivered January 11, 1846, before the two Houses of the Mississippi Legislature 87 FIRST THANKSGIVING PROCLAMATION IN MISSISSIPPI . . 91 LAST ANNUAL MESSAGE AS GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI . . 92 THE WAR WITH MEXICO— Speech in the House of Representatives, Feb- ruary 10, 1848, in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, on the bill to authorize a loan not exceeding eighteen million five hun- dred thousand dollars ■'•""^ BOUNTY LAND BILL— Speech in the House of Representatives, May 8, 1848 119 EXTRA PRINTED DOCUMENTS— Speech in the House of Representatives, May 8, 1848, on the distribution of extra printed documents . . 124 TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT FOR OREGON— Remarks in the House of Representatives, May 29, 1848 128 GOVERNMENT OF THE TERRITORIES— Remarks in House of Represen- tatives, June 3, 1848 129 SLAVERY NO INCREASE OF THE POLITICAL POWER OF THE SOUTH 141 iv CONTENTS. PAGE ANTONIO PACIIECO— Speech in House of Representatives, December 29, 1S-4S, on the bill making provision fur paying the lieii's of . . . 143 SLAVE TRADE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA— Speech in House of Representatives, January 31, 1849 145 NEW MEXICO AND CALIFORNIA— Speech in House of Representatives on the proposition of Mr. Preston, of Virginia, to admit New Mexico and California as states ■ . 149 LOUIS KOSSUTH— Speech in House of Representatives, January 2, 1850, on the reception of Louis Kossuth ■ . . . . . . . . 161 THE SLAVE QUESTION— Speech in House of Representatives, January 30, 1850 162 SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY— Speech in the House of Representatives, February 12, 1850, dissenting from certain vievrs presented to the Senate by Mr. Cass 177 LETTER TO HIS CONS,TITUENTS 178 ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA— Speech in the House of Representatives, June 13, 1850 190 DELEGATE FROM NEW MEXICO— Speech in the House of Representa- tives, July 19, 1850, on the admission of the delegate from New Mexico in advance of her territorial organization 192 HOMESTEADS— Speech in the House of Representatives, July 26, 1850 . 194 TEXAS AND NEW MEXICO— Speech in the House of Representatives, August 8, 1850, on President Fillmore's message concerning the Texan boundary 200 SLAVERY QUESTION— Speech in the House of Representatives, August 29, 1850 208 THE EWING INVESTIGATION— Speech in the House of Representatives, September 11, 1850, on the report of the Select Committee appointed April 22, 1850, to examine into certain official acts of Thomas Ewing, late Secretary of the Interior 215 THE OTHER SIDE OF "THE TRUE ISSUE STATED"— A pamphlet written by the Hon. Albert G. Brown upon the subject of the Compro- mise Measures of 1850 23.^ SPEECH — Delivered at EUwood Springs, near Port Gibson, Miss., November 2, 1850 24'5 THE SOUTHERN MOVEMENT— MISSISSIPPI POLITICS— Speech in the House of Representatives, March 14, 1852, on the Southern Move- ment and Mississippi politics . . . . . . . .261 MISSISSIPPI POLITICS— Speech in reply to his colleague, Hon. John D. Freeman, on the state of parties in Mississippi. Delivered in the House of Representatives, March 30, 1852 273 PUBLIC PRINTING— Speech in the House of Representatives, April 13 and 14, 1852, on the subject of the public printing, and against the action of the joint committee in taking it from the contractor and dividing it between the " Union" and the " Republic" newspapers . . . 289 HOMESTE.ADS— Speech in the House of Representatives, April 28, 1852, on the Homestead bill, and in vindication of the policy of providing homes for the homeless on the public lands ...... 304 RIVERS AND HARBORS— Speech, under the five minute rule, in the House of Representatives, July 23, 1852, on the subject of river and harbor improvements 316 CONTENTS. r PAGE GENERAL COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS— Speech in the House of Represen- tatives, December 20, 1852, on the proposition to establish a general committee on claims 318 CUBA— Remarks in the House of Representatives, January 3, 1853, on the Cuba question 321 NEBRASKA AND KANSAS— Speech in the Senate of the United States, February 24, 1854, on bill to organize territories of ... . 329 INDIGENT INSANE BILL— Speech in the United States Senate, March 2, 1854, on the ?A4 PRESIDENT PIERCE'S VETO MESSAGE OF THE INDIGENT INSANE BILL — Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, May 17, 1854, on the President's Veto Message, and in defence of the bill making a grant of land to the several States for the benefit of the indigent insane 352 ALIEN SUFFRAGE— Speech in the Senate of the United States, May 25, 1854, on the question of alien suffrage, in connection with the Kansas- Nebraska Bill 3G9 THE KANSAS BILL— Concluding Remarks on the Kansas Bill, in the Senate, May 25, 1854 373 ALIEN SUFFRAGE— Speech in the Senate, July 10, 1854, on alien suffrage 375 GRADUATION BILL— Remarks in the Senate of the United States, July 20, 1854, on the Graduation Bill of Mr. Hunter of Virginia . . . 378 JOINT COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS— Speech in the Senate of the United States, December 19, 1854, on his proposition to establish a joint com- mittee on claims 383 PRIVATEER BRIG GENERAL ARMSTRONG— Speech in the Senate of the United States, January 26, 1855, on the claim of the owners of the privateer brig General Armstrong, destroyed in the pjort of Fayal, Portu- gal, in violation of the neutrality of that port 392 LETTER AGAINST KNOW-NOTIIINGISM 394 NAVAL RETIRING BOARD— Speech in the Senate of the United States, January 2, 1856, on the action of the Naval Retiring Board . . . 403 BADGER AMENDMENT— Speech in the Senate of the United States, March 20, 1854, on the Badger Amendment 415 AMERICAN FLAG IN MEXICO— Speech in the Senate of the United States, January 7, 1856, on the claims of General John A. Quitman to the honor of having raised the first American flag in Mexico . . 418 OUR RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND— Speech in the Senate, March 11, 1856 423 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA— Speech in the Senate of the United States, April 25, 1856, on the jurisdiction of Congress over the District of Columbia . 451 ADMISSION OF KANSAS— Speech in the Senate of the United States, April 28, 1856 .455 INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS— Speech in the Senate, May 6, 1856, on the subject of internal improvements by the general government . . 470 THE SLAVERY QUESTION— Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, December 22, 1856 475 THE RHODE ISLAND RESOLUTIONS ON THE SUMNER ASSAULT— Speech in the Senate of the United States, June 16, 1856, on the resolu- tions of the Legislature of Rhode Island, relative to the assault on Mr. Sumner 502 PERSONAL EXPLANATION- Remarks in the Senate, March 20, 1858 . 506 vi CONTENTS. PAGE COMMODORE PAULDING'S ARREST OF WALKER— Speech in the Senate of the United States, January 7, 1858, on the President's Message relative to the arrest of William Walker .... . 508 INCREASE OF THE ARMY— Speech in the Senate of the United States, February 1, 1855, in favor of an increase of the Military Department, to put down Indian hostilities in the West 521 ADMISSION OF MINNESOTA— Speech in the Senate of the United States, February 1, 1858, on the admission of Minnesota as a state . . 528 ADMISSION 0F_ KANSAS— Speech in the Senate, February 3 and 4, 1858, on the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution . . 536 MINNESOTA SENATORS— Speech in the Senate of the United States, Feb- ruary 25, 1858, on the proposition to swear in Messrs. Shields and Rice, senators from Minnesota, elected previous to her admission as a state into the Union 570 REPRESENTATION OF MINNESOTA— Speech in the Senate, March 29, 1858, on the representation of Minnesota in the Senate and House . 571 ALIEN SUFFRAGE— Speech in the Senate of the United States, April 7, 1858, on Indian and alien suifrage in connection with the admission of Minnesota 573 ENGLISH BILL— Speech in the Senate of the United States, April 29, 1858, on what is commonly known as the English Bill, or the report of the Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the admission of Kansas into the Union 576 ADMISSION OF OREGON— Speech _ in the Senate, May 6, 1858, on the admission of Oregon into the Union 581 INCREASE OF THE NAVY— Speech in the Senate of the United States, June 7, 1858, on the increase of the Navy 582 FRANKING PRIVILEGE— Speech in the Senate of the United States, June 14, 1858, on the abolition of the franking privilege .... 585 SPEECH delivered at Hazlehurst, Miss., on the 11th of September, 1848 . 588 PACIFIC RAILROAD— Speech in the Senate of the United States, January 20, 1859, on the Pacific Railroad 599 GRANT OF LAND TO THE SEVERAL STATES FOR AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES— Speech in the Senate of the United States, , 1859, on the House Bill making grants of lands to the states for Agricultural Colleges . . 602 SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES— Speech in the Senate, February 23, 1859, on the question of slavery in the territories .... 604 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.* Albert G. Brown was born in Chester District, S. C, May 31, 1813, and is the second son of Joseph Brown, a respectable planter, who settled in what is now Copiah county, in the state of Mississippi, in the Avinter of 1823. The country was then a wilderness. The white man had not yet taken possession of the "new purchase," and the fire of the red man was at that time smoking, so recent had been his exit from the country. In indigent circumstances, Joseph Brown had sought this forest home, contented to brave its hardships, in the hope of rearing his children to better fortune than his own. His two sons, Edwin and Albert, then small boys, performed such labor in opening the farm as they were able to endure. Albert, then ten years of age, was a sort of man of all work. It was his business to mind the stock, work a little on the farm, go to mill on Saturday, and attend school occasionally when there was nothing else to do. If it should be thought by any that this was an indifferent method of opening the way to the boy's fortune, it must be borne in mind that the family was surrounded by the most trying circumstances, and the future promised nothing but what industry, honesty, and the most rigid economy might yield. Pitching his tent in the unbroken woods, not a tree missing from the dense forest, far from the settled parts of the country, without provisions, and almost without money, and not an acquaintance or a friend on whom he could call for help — it will be readily seen that the whole business and cares of the elder Mr. Brown's life were founded on the single word "bread." After the first two or three years, thanks to industry, economy, and a fertile soil, hard fortune began to relax her iron, grasp. Well-stored granaries, sleek herds of cattle, fat hogs and horses, attested the thrift which followed on the heels of retreating poverty. About this time attention was given to Albert's strong inclination for books, and he was kept pretty steadily at such inferior neighborhood schools as may be found in a frontier country — that is, barring the interruptions which * This biographical sketch was published in the Democratic Review in 1849, with tlie exception of the record of his life since that time, it being from the pen of tho editor of this compilation. (5) 6 ALBERT G. BROWN. going to mill and working on the farm in times of great need would occasionally interpose. In February, 1829, having made tolerable proficiency in the rudi- ments of an English education, and given evidence of sprightliness, hi^ father consented, with as much readiness as was consistent with his limited means, to send him to Mississippi College, then a respectable school, under the management of that excellent man and pure Christian, the Rev. D. Comfort. Here he remained three years, endearing him- self to a large circle of class and school mates, almost all of whom have since been his fastest and truest friends, and winning the confidence and afiection of his venerable teacher, who still survives to witness the success of his pupil, and to enjoy the happy consciousness that his parental cares and sage counsel have lifted a poor boy to distinction, and placed him on the highway to fame and fortune. The writer has often heard the subject of this notice confess with deep emotion his gratitude to his old preceptor, and declare that to him he owed, in a great measure, whatever of success had attended him through life. From Mr. Comfort's school, young Brown was transferred, in the winter of 1832, to Jefi"erson College, where he remained six months — when, becoming dissatisfied with the institution, he left it and went home, under a partial promise from his father to send him for a regular collegiate course to Princeton or Yale. But, after counting the cost, and making allowance for the care of a then rather numerous family of sons and daughters, Mr. Brown (the father) concluded that he should be unable to send his son to college. Thus closed the school-boy days of Albert G. Brown. With an education very imperfect, suddenly dis- appointed in his cherished hope of prosecuting his studies in one of the old schools, he was, at the early age of nineteen years, left to select his future course. This was a critical period, and few young men thus suddenly crossed and thrown back upon their own resources would have behaved better. Mr. Brown, not entirely desponding, but greatly chagrined at being thus cut off with an education scarcely commenced, went of his own choice to the county village, Gallatin, entered into an ai-rangement with a lawyer of high standing (E. G. Peyton, Esq.), and the next day began the study of the law. In less than a year, he was examined before the Supreme Court of Mississippi, and admitted to the bar, with appropriate evidences of his qualifications. Though closely pursuing his studies, Mr. Brown found ample time in his hours of recreation to extend his acquaintance among the people, and by his bland and courteous deportment to lay deep and solid the foundation of that singular personal popularity, which no change of parties or '^ political convulsion has ever shaken. During his six months' stay at Jefierson College, previously men- tioned, he underwent a course of military training; and, recommended by this circumstance, the people of his county attested their confidence BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 7 in him by electing him a colonel of militia before he was nineteen years old. This was the first office he ever held. The next year he was chosen a brigadier-general of militia. Mr. Brown was scarcely twenty years of age when he applied for admission to the bar, and the writer has heard him speak of his extreme anxiety, lest the usual question (where there can be any doubt) — " are you twenty-one?" should be propounded. This was the only question to which he could not have given a satisfactory answer, and by singular good fortune (for him) it was not asked. He began the practice of his profession in the autumn of 1833, and succeeded at once. He took rank with the oldest and most distin- guished professional gentlemen at the bar where he practised. His business steadily and rapidly increased to 1839, when he withdrew from the profession to accept a seat in Congress, in the enjoyment of the ful- lest and most lucrative practice, being professionally employed in nearly five hundred causes during the year in which he retired from the bar. In October, 1835, Mr. Brown (or General Brown, by which title he was then better known) was married to Elizabeth Frances Taliaferro, a Virginia lady of accomplishments, of great personal worth, and of excellent family. She survived the marriage only about five months. Her family have subsequently been among the most steadfast of General Brown's numerous friends and supporters. In this year, 1835, began the political career of General Brown. At the November election, he was chosen a representative to the State Legislature, to fill the first vacancy occurring after he was twenty-one years old. It was an interesting period in the legislation of Mississippi, and there was great competition for the seats. In 1835, Copiah, the county of Mr. Brown's residence, was entitled to three representatives, and he was one of nine candidates, nearly all Democrats, or, as they were called, "Jackson men." Great pains were taken to defeat him, as the aspiring and ambitious thought he would be in their way on future occasions. Some maintained that he was too young, but the great bulk of the opposition rested upon an alleged unsoundness in his political views. For this charge there was no better foundation than that General Brown's father was a Whig, or, as he was not ashamed to call himself, a Federalist of the old school. The election transpired, and General Brown was successful, being the second successful candi- date, and leading his next highest competitor about seventy-five votes. His representative duties were discharged with marked fidelity, and so entirely to the satisfaction of his constituents, that at the next election he was returned without a struggle, the opposition being only nominal. He took an active and leading part in the debates, and in all the business of legislation; and before the expiration of his first term, the speakership having been vacated by the indisposition of the presiding ofiicer of the house, he was chosen speaker pro tern., by acclamation. It is to be 8 ALBERT G. BROWN. regretted that the debates in the Legislature of Mississippi at that period were not preserved, as thej Avere intrinsically valuable, and, if now in existence, would throw a flood of light on the political history of the state. A record of these debates would exhibit, in relief, admirable and bold, the political forecast of General Brown. Though almost the youngest member of the house, he counselled his more aged compeers in many an earnest speech against that system of banking which has since rendered the financial policy of Mississippi so remark- able throughout the world. General Brown took his seat in the Legislature under his second election in January, 1838. The banking system had already given way, and was tottering to its fall. Just then, Governor Lynch, the first and last Whig governor of Mississippi, recommended the Legisla- ture "to express its opinion on the subject of a National Bank," and entered himself into an elaborate argument in favor of that institution. This recommendation was referred to a committee, of which General Brown was chairman, and his report contains many strong views in opposition to the bank, both on the ground of unconstitutionality and of its inexpediency. We have only room for one or two short extracts, as follows : — " Chief Justice Marshall, ia delivering the opinion of the court, in the celebrated case of McCullough against the state of Maryland, lays down the principle in broad terms, ' That when the law is not prohibited, and is intended to carry into eifect any power intrusted to the government. Congress is to be the exclusive judge of the degree of its necessity.' Suppose this to be the settled doctrine upon this subject, the aboli- tion of slavery is not expressly prohibited in the District of Columbia, nor any of the states where it exists, and among the enumerated powers of the general government, is one authorizing it to provide for the common defence and general welfare. Sup- pose then that the Abolitionists of the North, whose strength, disguise it as you will, is increasing with frightful rapidity, should, under this rule of construction adopted by jurists, and sanctioned by politicians, insist that in all cases it was their duty to provide for the 'general welfare,' in obedience to the power given them, and that to carry into effect this specific grant of power, if it was ' necessary' to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and the states where it exists — we ask, whether it might not be competent for them to do so, or how this case is distinguished from the one immediately under consideration, to wit, the power to charter a National Bank, because it is a measure ' necessary' for the ' general welfare ;' and if the Supreme Court thought it incompetent for them to inquire into the degree of necessity involved in the first case, could they undertake to make the inquiry in the latter? We think not. Again, suppose the nation, in the present enfeebled state of its treasury, be suddenly involved in a conflict with Great Britain, or some other foreign power. Congress is called upon to furnish money to carry on the war ; this she refuses to do, b}'' levying a direct tax which shall bear equally vipon all portions of the United States, — but incorporates a company, and invests them with exclusive power to navi- gate the Mississippi river for fifty years, in consideration that the company will pay the Government a bonus of twenty-five millions of money. The power to have sucli action on the part of the general government is well questioned ; it is not, however, expressly prohibited, and Congress asserts that it is ' necessary' in providing for the ' common defence and general welfare' to charter said company, and invest them BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 9 Tfith such powers, for the consideration of the twenty-five million bonus; and the Supreme Court, if appealed to, says, Congress is to be the judge of the necessity, and vre will not interfere. "We ask if such rules of construction, with such arguments to sustain them, may not, indeed if they are not likely to lead to the most disastrous consequences — con- sequences portentous of great evil to, the rights of the states, and threatening at once the stability of our excellent forms of government ? Your committee are of opinion, that this clause of the Constitution furnishes no warrant for the establishment of a National Bank." The report continued with various other views of the constitutional question, chiefly in answer to the arguments urged by the friends of the bank. It set forth many and strong arguments against the expediency of the bank, and concluded as follows : — " If, then, it does not render the labor of the citizens more valuable, we are at a- loss to discern the great advantages which the working man is to derive from its creation. But we are satisfied of its effects, when the redundancy of paper money which it circulates has swelled in a twofold relation the value of every horse, plough, harrow, and other articles of husbandry or family consumption which the laborer buys. Then we find it is an institution which, instead of lightening the poor man's toils, in fact levies a heavy contribution upon the wages of his industry. It is an institution which makes the weak weaker, and the potent more powerful ; ever filching from the poor man's hand to replenish the rich man's purse. Your committee have mistaken the duties of legislators, if it is their province to guard over the peculiar interest of the speculator and gambler, who live by the patronage of banks, to the detriment and ruin of the honest yeomen, whose toils have raised our happy republic from a few dependent colonies, to the highest pinnacle of national fame, causing Indian wigwams to give place to splendid cities, and the whole wilderness to bloom and blossom as the rose. It is well said that ' the laborer is worthy of his hire ;' and the illustrious Burke never uttered a sentiment which better deserved to be embalmed in the hearts of freemen, than that the workingman should feel the wages of his labor in his pocket, and hear it jingle. " In conclusion, we recommend, as an expression of this body on the subject of a National Bank, the adoption of the following resolutions : — " 1. Resolved, That the government of the United States has no constitutional right to charter a National Bank. "2. Resolved, That it is inexpedient and improper to charter such an institution at this time, even if Congress had the constitutional right to do so." This report elicited the warmest commendation on the part of the anti-bank press and party, whilst all the bank interests assailed it with denunciation, attempts at ridicule, and occasionally with something like argument. It was extensively published at the time, and is believed to have had a salutary influence in awakening public inquiry on the sub- ject in Mississippi. In the fall of the same year (1838), General Brown being absent from the state, the bank party took advantage of a general panic in the public mind, growing out of the existing pecuniary embarrassments in i\Iississippi, to get up written instructions requiring him to vote for a bank United States Senator, or resign. He chose the latter alterna- tive. Although, in a moment of panic, seven hundred and fifty out of 10 ALBERT G. BROWN. nine hundred voters had signed these instructions, General Brown did not hesitate to present himself as a candidate to fill the vacancy occa- sioned by his own resignation. He issued a short address, from which we present an extract. " To stand in the way of a free disposition of the elective franchise by the people, in the selection of their representatives, I should conceive the greatest moral and political disgrace which could befall a republican citizen. I am a Democrat in practice as in principle, and it is one of the first articles in the Koran of that political sect, that the people should be represented by whom they will. If my services are no longer desired, /should cease to feel contented in the seat which has been assigned me by your preference. And whenever you shall determine at the ballot-box to dis- miss me from your service, I shall retire with a sense of pleasure, equalled only by the satisfaction which I experienced in entering upon it, and surpassed only by the gladness which I now feel, in having performed at all times as I best could the trusts confided to my care. I have a right to ask, in abdicating my seat in the legislature, that the articles of my condemnation may not be signed and sealed by the people, and handed over to be ratified, confirmed, and executed by my political enemies, before I am heard in my own defence. All I ask, is a free conference with the people. Come set ye down, and let us reason together." He at once entered upon a close and searching canvass of the county. The result was, his triumphal return to the Legislature by a majority of one hundred and fifty odd votes over his bank competitor. The opposition was confounded. They had counted on success as a matter of course. The anti-bank friends of General Brown in his own county, and throughout the state, were of course greatly elated at this signal triumph. The Democratic State Convention assembled soon after, and although not then twenty-five years old, he was unanimously nominated for Congress. The chances for success were anything but flattering. The Whigs had swept the state at the election previous, and the bank interest in Mississippi was in. the zenith of its power. Not dismayed by these unfavorable circumstances, he entered at once upon an active and vigorous canvass of the whole state ; and before the election in November, 1839, he and his colleague, Mr. Jacob Thompson, had thoroughly canvassed every nook and corner of the state. Though met at every step by the most unscrupulous opposition ; assailed with vituperation and slander — with denunciation, personal and political, General Brown and his colleague moved steadily forward, calling the people together, challenging their opponents to meet them in debate, and carrying conviction to the mind of their auditors. The result did ample justice to their zeal and fidelity. The state was redeemed ; bank thraldom was ended. The whole Democratic ticket was elected by an average majority of three thousand ; General Brown leading the Con- gressional ticket by several hundred votes. He took his seat in the United States House of Representatives, December, 1839, being then a little over twenty-five years of age. His speeches while in that position compare favorably with those generally BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 11 made in the lower House of Congress. He entered boldly into the defence of the Independent Treasury, and the other leading measures of the administration. His opposition to the bank, and to Whig mea- sures generally, was maintained with his accustomed zeal and ability. If we had space, we should like to make extracts from these speeches, and especially from one in which the policy of the administration in power at that time is defended and whiggery reviewed. To those desirous of seeing with how mucb zeal and ability General Brown defended his favorite measures at that term, we commend this speech. It concludes with a glowing tribute to the moral and intellectual worth of Mr. Calhoun, a perusal of which cannot be otherwise than gratifying to the numerous friends of that distinguished statesman and patriot. After the adjournment of Congress in 1840, General Brown went home, and entered immediately, and with singular activity, into the presidential canvass. He traversed the state, defending Mr. Van Buren, as the regular nominee, against the growing distrust of his peo- ple, and appealing to them to stand by the measures of his administra- tion. Many of his speeches at this time were remarkable specimens of stump oratory ; and though they failed to carry the state under the weight of Mr. Van Buren's name, they did not fail to add greatly to General Brown's character as a speaker. On the 12th of January, 1841, General Brown Avas a second time married. The lady. Miss Roberta E. Young, the youngest daughter of the late General Robert Young, of Alexandria, Va., had been known in society at Washington as one of the most fascinating and intelligent ladies of the gay metropolis. She has directed with great dignity and propriety the domestic affairs of her husband's household, and especially during his gubernatorial term. She is the mother of two sons. At the close of his term in 1841, General BroAvn was again put in nomination by his party friends. But having taken upon himself the cares of a family, and finding his pecuniary interests seriously involved from long neglect, he was constrained to decline. This he did, in the full confidence that his party, though temporarily defeated, were sure to rise at another election. He was not disappointed. The Democrats of Mississippi, at the November election, 1841, nobly redeemed their state. At this election General Brown consented to stand a poll for a judgeship of the Circuit Court ; and it is among the remarkable evi- dences of his singular popularity, that he was voted for by men of every shade of opinion — political, social, and religious. He was barely eligible to the office on account of his youth ; but he was elected, beating his able and distinguished competitor. Judge Willis, the former incumbent of the same office, nearly three votes to one. He served in this position nearly two years, when he accepted a nomination from his political friends for governor, and thereupon resigned. Judge Willis was chosen his succes- sor. Judge Brown entered the canvass for the governorship early in the 12 ALBERT G. BROWN. summer of 1843, being then just thirty years old, and consequently barely eligible under the constitution of Mississippi. The opposition was fierce and powerful. In addition to the whole strength of the Whig party, Judge Brown had to encounter the stern opposition of a large number of the most talented and influential men of his own party. The osten- sible reason for this opposition was a difference of opinion in regard to the state's liability to pay a class of bonds issued in her name, and known as the "Union Bank Bonds." Judge Brown maintained that the bonds had been issued in violation of the state constitution, and that the people were therefore under no sort of obligation to pay them hy taxation. In this contest he had two opponents — Mr. Clayton, the regular Whig nominee, and Colonel Williams, " the independent bond- paying Democrat." Both were gentlemen of high character. Mr. Clayton, a lawyer of distinction, belongs to the Georgia family of that name ; and Colonel Williams was an Ex United States Senator from Mississippi. For many weeks after the canvass opened. Judge Brown's chances seemed desperate. Almost single handed, he encountered the whole opposition, Whigs and Democrats. How he bore himself, may be judged of from the fact that his competitors were together beaten by two thousand three hundred votes. He entered upon his new duties as governor, January 10, 1844, The bond question having been the principal topic of discussion in the canvass. Governor Brown availed himself of the privileges incident to his inauguration, to state succinctly his views on that subject. The reader may find it interesting to examine those views, which we here extract from the inaugural speech of the governor. After some general remarks upon the value of the constitution, and the absolute necessity for its inviolable preservation, he continues : — " I have been led into these reflections by the too common expi-ession, that although the Constitution was manifestly violated in the issuance of the Union Bank bonds, yet, inasmuch as a majority of the people approved it at the time, therefore the \vhole people must submit to taxation to pay them : thus declaring that the -will of the majority, and not the Constitution, shall be the measure of power, and virtually making one acknowledged wrong the pretext for committing a still more grievous wrong. But how, it may be asked, will the Constitution be violated in levying a tax to pay a debt, even though that debt was contracted in violation of the Constitution ? It has been assumed that the taxing power resides with the Legislature, and that they may exercise it for any purpose within their discretion, not positively prohibited by the Constitution. This construction of the powers of the Legislature, is by far too comprehensive. Under it, the legislative department may tax ad libitum. No such authority, in my opinion, was ever conferred. The Legislature may rightfully tax the citizen to defray the economical expenses of the government, and to pay the debts of the state ; but it would be going far beyond the authority delegated to them to levy taxes to pay the debts of any one, or all the corporations within the state. If the Union Bank bonds constituted a debt against the state, then would it be constitu- tional to tax the citizen to pay them ; but that these bonds do not constitute such a debt, will, I think, be made sufficiently manifest by a candid review of their origin, and of that clause of the Constitution under which they could alone issue." BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. la He then proceeded to state the facts connected with the creation of the bonds in a most clear and able manner, to show that the plainest provisions of the state constitution had been deliberately and wilfully violated. That the bonds, having no legal existence, are not a debt against the state, and that the Legislature, if it had the will, has no power to levy taxes for the payment of those bonds. The administration of Governor Brown will be long remembered in Mississippi as one of the most fortunate which that state has ever had. With his first election ceased the " Union Bank bond" controversy, and he was left without hindrance to look after the other long-neglected and suffering interests of the state. He found the treasury bankrupt, and the officers and servants of the state paid in a kind of paper, known as "auditor's warrants," then at a depreciation of fifty to fifty-five cents on the dollar. He set himself earnestly at work to revive the drooping credit of the state, and had the satisfaction, at the end of two years, to see " auditor's warrants" at par with gold and silver; and, at the close of his second term, to leave a surplus of several hundred thousand dollars in the treasury. Governor Brown zealously advocated the cause of education. His messages, and other papers, are interspersed with reflections, sugges- tions, and earnest appeals on this interesting subject. Several schools grew up under his auspices. The common school system was adopted on his earnest and repeated recommendations ; but so shorn of its best proportions by the legislature as to be a mere caricature of the system recommended by him. He entered earnestly and zealously upon the task of establishing the State University. Under his direction the funds were secured, and by his advice the institution was put into operation. In every matter relating to the local interests or the honor of Mississippi, Governor Brown was a faithful guardian. So well satis- fied were the people of this, and indeed with his whole administration, that at the end of his first term all opposition had ceased, and no one was found to enter the list against him for another election. His second term, like the first, was marked by an unceasing care for the local interests of the state which he governed. The feature in his administration, which distinguished it perhaps as much as any other, was its constant fidelity to the payment of the " Planters' Bank bonds." In his first inaugural speech, after disposing of the Union Bank bond question, he continues : — " Wherever there exists a debt against the state, contracted in good faith and with a proper regard to the constitution, it must be discharged to the last mill. Of this character do I regard the bonds issued on account of the Planters' Bank ; and come what may, the state can never shrink from the payment of them. Let prompt and efficient action be taken for their settlement. A speedy liquidation of them will afford what every good citizen is anxious to see — a fitting opportunity to manifest to the world that, in rejecting the Union Bank bonds, we are actuated by no mean or sordid principles of dollars and cents, but by a more elevated impulse — that of adhering faithfully to our written constitution." 14 ALBERT G. BROWN. And in his message to the Legislature, he reviewed the whole subject of these bonds, showing, that as they legally existed, the state would never, for an instant, falter in the payment, and advised by all means -heir prompt discharge. And again, in 1848, in alluding to the same subject, he remarked: — " In estimating the indebtedness of the state, the bonds issued on account of the Manters' Bank have been included. My last general message conveyed to the Legis- iture and the country my views as regards the state's liability to pay these bonds. 'hese opinions have undergone no material change, but a reiteration of them is uncalled for, and would be unprofitable at this time. Having long since settled in my own mind that the state is bound, by every obligation that the constitution and the laws can impose, to pay the debt, it has only remained to devise some means acceptable to the people, and not too oppressive, by which it could be done. The whole subject has been calmly considered ; and however it may be regarded by others, there is, to my mind, but one course to be pursued worthy the character of a great and growing state, and that is to raise the money by taxation, and discharge the debt as rapidly as possible. That course is respectfully but earnestly recommended. Governor Brown's second term being about to expire, he accepted a unanimous nomination to run for Congress, in the 4th Congressional District ; and although it was known that his term as governor would not end until near the middle of January, and that he would not in consequence take his seat until the first two months of the session had passed, he was elected without opposition. He took his place in the House of Representatives in the latter part of January, 1849, in the midst of the excitement growing out of the discussions on the Mexican war. In the course of two or three weeks, he spoke in review of the conduct of the administration, and generally in defence of his own country. Speaking for himself and his constituents, he said : — " We believe the war to have been just and constitutional in its commencement ; that it has been vigorously prosecuted thus far, for wise and proper ends ; and that it should be so prosecuted until we have the amplest reparation for past wrongs, and the fullest security that our rights as a nation are to be respected in future. To this end, we are prepared to vote such number of troops, and such additional sums of money, as, in the judgment of the commander-in-chief, may be necessai-y to attain these objects." In the course of a discussion on the President's proposition to tax tea and coffee, as a means of raising money to carry on the war, Governor Brown indulged in some severe but deserved criticisms on the conduct of the opposition, saying : — "When, sir, did these gentlemen first learn to sympathize with the poor man? Was it at a time when they were taxing cotton cloth, leather, iron, coal, and salt? Was it, sir, when they were levying protective duties on these articles, all of which enter into the poor man's consumption ? The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Marsh^ pours out the fulness of his sympathetic heart over the poor man's tax on tea and cofi'ee, and then he bewails the downfall oi ■protection. You, sir, sympathize with the BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 16 poor man's taxi you who -would tax all the necessaries cf life to give protection to some overgrown manufiicturer ! Strange and incomprehensible logic, that we must tax the poor man's hat, his shoes, his shirt, his plough, his axe — everything, in short, which he consumes, for the benefit of the manufacturer ! but your sympathetic hearts will not allow you tax his tea and coffee to support your government in time of war. You would send him shoeless, hatless, and shirtless, to cultivate his ground without implements, unless he pays tribute to the manufacturers ; only give him tea that is not taxed, and you are satisfied. You would lay his diseased body on a pallet that is taxed ; give him taxed medicine from a spoon that is taxed ; you give him untaxed tea in a cup that is taxed ; he dies, and you tax his winding sheet, and consign him to a grave that is dug with a spade that is taxed, and then insult his memory by say- ing that you gave him untaxed tea. Why, sir, if I thus outraged the poor man's common sense during life, insulted him in his last moments, and whined a hypocritical sympathy over his tomb when dead, I should expect his ghost to rise up in judgment against me. " Other gentlemen may do as they please — for me and my people, we go for our country. We write on our banner, 'millions for defence, but not one cent for tribute.' Tax our property, tax our supplies — ay, tax us millions on millions for the defence of our country's flag and our country's honor, and we will pay it; but if you ask us to pay one cent of tribute to your lordly manufacturers, we rise up in rebellion against you. Take our property for the defence of our national honor, but do not plunder us to make a rich man more rich." At all times, and under all circumstances, Governor Brown Las proven himself the steadfast friend of the toiling millions, opposing whatever tended to retard their prosperity, and advocating with energy every measure which promised to advance them intellectually or otherwise. In a debate on the subject of the public lands in the House, he said : — "I am for disposing of the public lands freely. To the soldier who fights the battles of his country I would give a home, nor would I restrict him to very narrow limits. To every man who has no home, I would give one, and, so long as he and his descendants choose to occupy it, they should hold it against the world, without charge of any kind. The government owns more than nine hundred millions of acres of land, and yet thousands of her citizens, and some of them her bravest and best soldiers, are without homes. The dependence of the government and people should be mutual. If government relies on the people for defence in time of war — if she expects them to tight her battles and win ' empires' for her, the people should expect in return to be provided with homes ; this reasonable expectation ought never to be disappointed. " I have no objection to the government selling lands to those who are able to pay for it, at a moderate price ; but I protest my disapprobation of national land-johhing. The nation degrades her character when she comes down to the low occupation of exacting the hard-earned dollars of a poor citizen for a bit of land, purchased, it may have been, with the blood of that citizen's ancestors. To my mind, there is a national nobility in a republic's looking to the comfort, convenience, and happiness of its people ; there is a national meanness in a republic selling a poor man's home to his rich neighbor, because that neighbor can pay a better price for it." This and many similar extracts might be adduced to show his con- stant care for the interests of the masses and the great body of the people. But his whole life, public and private, attests his attachment to the laboring man, and his ceaseless care for his prosperity and happi- 16 ALBERT G. BROWN. ness. The writer once heard him asked, how it was that success had so constantly attended him. lie replied, " I never forgot that I was one of the people." Ah ! there is the secret — he never forgot that he was one of the people. As the man of all work on his father's farm, as the "mill boy," he was one of the people — as a member of the Legislature and of Congress, he was one of the people. Electing him judge did not change his character ; and as governor, he was still one of the people. Faithful to all his pledges, frank in the expression of his opinion, open and decided in his course, tolerant towards his oppo- nents, and cordial towards his friends, it is not surprising that he has been the idol of his state. Governor Brown was re-elected to the 32d Congress. During this term the exciting questions of the admission of California, and that of territorial governments for the other territory acquired by the Mexican war, engaged the consideration of Congress, and led to the enactment of the compromise measures of 1850. Governor Brown occupied a prominent place among the debaters in the House during that portentous time, and was decisive in his opposition to the admission of California. He voted against it, and all of those measures, except the fugitive slave law. Though Governor Brown desired to return to private life at the end of the 32d Congress, the condition of parties in Mississippi, growing out of the excitement which followed the enactment of the compromise measures of 1850, in which his representative action on those measuies was involved, induced him to again become a candidate. He warmly espoused in his canvass the cause of the States Rights Democracy, and was the only member of the delegation in the House re-elected in the (Ensuing election. All the rest were candidates, but were defeated by what were then called Union Men. In the Mississippi state convention of that year, nearly every States Rights delegate in the body came from some portion of his district. This affords some idea of how deeply that cardinal doctrine of American politics is impressed upon his people. During the 33d Congress, Governor Brown's career in the House was marked by that same argus scrutiny of the measures before that body, which had characterized his previous incumbency. A reference to his speeches, embraced in this volume, made during that Congress, will exhibit his strict concern with reference to everything affecting the public interests. At the end of the 33d Congress, Governor Brown retired to private life, to resume the cares and duties of his profession. But the people called him immediately back to the public service. At the session of the Mississippi Legislature of that year, he was elected United States Senator, to fill a vacancy which existed on account of the failure of the previous Legislature to elect a successor to Walker Brooke, whose term had expired. BIOaRAnilCAL SKETCH. 17 Governor Brown took his scat in the Senate on the 2(3th of January, 1854. His experience as a legislator, and familiarity with public affairs, acquired by his incumbency previously of high public stations, at once enabled him to become a leading member of the Senate, and to rank amongst its most attentive business members, as well as ablest debaters. His speeches in this volume, delivered since he has been in the Senate, like all of his efforts, arc characterized by that cogency, strength, and all of the other attributes which mark the perfect debater. He has just concluded his first term in the Senate, and is beginning a new one of six years, for which he has been chosen by the Legislature of his state. As a Senator, Governor Brown has been eminently national in his course. If to the casual observer he has sometimes appeared a little sectional, it must be borne in mind that he comes from the South, a section acjainst which abolition has directed its batteries — and that it was his duty, as it was his pleasure, to defend that section. His sena- torial course is too recent and too fresh in the recollection of the country to need sketching, and we close this brief notice by directing the reader's attention to his speeches in the Senate, as embodied in the last half of this volume. ' SPEECHES AND AVMTINGS OF HON. ALBERT G. BROAVN. NATIONAL BANK. Report of Hon. Albert G. Brown, in the House of Representatives of Mississippi, made January 24th, 1838, from the committee to -whom was referred so much of the Governor's Message as relates to a National Bank. Mr. Speaker : The committee to whose consideration the foregoing resolution was referred, have given to the subject which it involves, the calm and dispassionate reflection which its vast magnitude and import- ance requires, and have instructed me to report, as follows : Your committee believe from the manner in which his excellency the governor introduces the subject of a National Bank in his written com- munication to the two houses of the legislature, that he looks to it as part and parcel of the means of enabling " our citizens to anticipate another crop," and "to retain as a spring to industry a portion of the means now in their possession to operate upon." Such is the plain and palpable inference from the language employed in the message. If these were the only advantages or disadvantages incident to the esta- blishment of such an institution, your committee would not conceive it their duty further to investigate the subject, since " an expression of this body," however early or emphatic, would not, in the course of human probability, effectuate in any particular, the object pointed out. But looking beyond those immediate objects, your committee have thought it their duty to examine the subject more thoroughly. In doing this, they find it divisible into two parts, each of which they propose to examine in its order. First, as to the constitutional right of the general government, to exercise the power of erecting such an institution ; Secondly, as to the expediency or propriety of establishing such an institution at this time, and its probable effects upon state banks and other local interests. Your committee see no reason to depart from the long-settled and well-established republican principle, that the government of the United States is one of limited delegated powers, and that it can in no case, with propriety, exercise any other powers, than such as have been ex- pressly delegated, and such others as spring incidentally out of those 20 ALBERT G. BROWN, substantively given. That within the sphere of its delegated powers, it is bound to revolve ; and whenever it shoots beyond this orb, it becomes a trespasser upon the rights of the states, and produces a tendency to consolidation, and absolute anarchy, alarming to state sovereignty, and at once subversive of the best interest of the American people. View- ing the general government, then, as one of limited authority, entitled to exercise only such powers as are above specified, your committee have searched with an anxious solicitude every line in the Constitution, to find some warrant for the erection of a National Bank. It is not pre- tended by the most zealous friends of this great measure, that the authority for the establishment of a National Bank, is to be found among the enumerated powers. The only legitimate subject of inquiry then is, can it be made incidental to the exercise of any specific grant of power ? It is proper, first, perhaps, to define the meaning of incidental powers, as applied to this inquiry. They are such powers alone as are absolutely essential and necessary to carry into effect the substantive enumerated powers ; as for instance, the power is expressly and especially given to create post-olfices and post-roads ; the subject of legitimate inquiry then is, what are the incidental, or implied powers carried along with, and to be exercised by virtue of, the specific grant ? The answer is clearly and emphatically, — all powers necessary and proper, for carrying into full and complete effect this substantive power. As for instance, the power of appointing postmasters, letting out mail contracts, providing by law for the punishment of mail-robberies, and to do all other acts needful to be done, for the cheap, safe, and speedy transportation of the mail from one place to another. These are incidental powers, which, though not expressly enumerated, are absolutely " necessary for carrying into effect that express authority to create post-offices and post-roads," and without which that clause in the Constitution would ever remain a dead letter. Thus the power to create military schools and academies, though not expressly granted, is fairly incidental to the powers of declaring war, and providing for the common defence. If this be the correct rule for defining incidental powers, the next inquiry very properly is, to the exercise of what specific grant is the power to charter a bank incidental ? Here your committee find themselves launched full upon the trackless ocean of visionary political speculation. Whilst one class of politicians find ample authority for the exercise of this power, in that clause of the Constitution Avhich says, that " Congress shall provide for the common defence and general welfare of the people of the United States ;" another class contend that it is incidental to the power " to regulate commerce amongst the several states, and with foreign nations," — and another asserts that the obligatory clause, requiring Congress to see that the revenue is collected in a uniform manner, throughout the United States, carries along with it, by an irresistible rule of construction, the power to charter banks, — whilst another, less disposed to define and particu- larize, argue that it is necessary to carry into effect the delegated powers generally. It has occurred to your committee as a subject worthy of some remark, that of the many parties and factions which advocate the cause of a National Bank, there is not one which does not admit, that if the general government exercise such power, it must find a guarantee for so doing, in the Constitution, since that government can NATIONAL BANK. 21 do no act of sovereignty, other than is allowed by the terms of that instrument, and yet no two of them agree as to what clause aflbrds that guarantee. Your committee have also viewed with singular emotions the wonderful influence of this great question over the minds of political partisans. It has brought together and made to harmonize, all the elements of opposi- tion. The lion and the lamb may well be said to have lain down together. The high-toned Nullifier, whose sword leaps quickly from its scabbard to protect his country, and to avenge even a look that threatens her with insult ; he whose warm blood coursed quickly through his veins upon the very mention of "protective tariff," and whose choler drove him almost to madness, in resisting an unconstitutional act of the general government, is found greeting in this great conflict, with amazing cor- diality, the cold calculating Federalist, who thought it exceedingly impious to rejoice at the success of our arms in war, and who thinks a tariff" to protect northern manufactories, perfectly constitutional. Yes, sir, we find that those who believe a tariff' constitutional, and those who believe it unconstitutional, — those who believe internal improvement by the general government, constitutional, and those who believe it uncon- stitutional, — and last, though not least, those who believe a bank con- stitutional, and those who believe it unconstitutional, all uniting, with a few honorable exceptions, in advocating a bank of the United States. Is it for the cause of the Ijank that all this is done ? No ! It is for that other purpose of destroying the existing administration, and bring- ing it into disrepute among the people. It surely never can be said that a party who, but a little while ago, were ready to resist " peaceably if they could, forcibly if they must," an unconstitutional act on the part of the general government, are now, for the mere love of gold, ready to commit what most of them believe, or profess to believe, a still greater infraction upon that Constitution ? No ! We are unwilling to believe it ; the fountain of this outpouring in favor of a National Bank will be found in an anxious longing after power — a power which can only be attained in the doAvnfall of the present administration. Your committee, with an anxious desire to arrive at correct conclusions upon this interesting subject, have made diligent inquiry into the reasons by which diflfcrent politicians attempt to sustain themselves in deriving power from the Constitution to charter a National Bank. The result of their inquiries they respectfully submit to the consideration of this House. First, As to those claiming under that broad power of providing for the common good, &c., which, like the mantle of charity, is found to cover a multitude of political sins, your committee have heard the opinion advanced by jurists, and sanctioned by politicians, that Congress, so long as it exercises no powers that have been expressly prohibited, and keeps in view the exercise of its delegated functions, is to be the exclu- sive judge of its own powers. Indeed, Chief Justice Marshall, in de- livering the opinion of the court, in the celebrated case of McCullough against the state of Maryland, lays down the principle in broad terms, " That when the law is not prohibited, and is intended to carry into eff'ect any power intrusted to the Government, Congress is to be the exclusive judges of the degree of its necessity. Suppose this to be the 22 ALBERT G. BROWN. settled doctrine upon this subject, and your committee will not be so arrogant as to question its rectitude; the abolition of slavery is not expressly prohibited in the District of Columbia, nor in any of the states where it exists, and among the enumerated powers of the general government, is one authorizing it to provide for the common defence and general welfare. Suppose then that the Abolitionists of the North, whose strength, disguise it as you will, is increasing with frightful rapidity, should, under this rule of construction adopted by jurists, and sanctioned by politicians, insist that in all cases, it was their duty to pro- vide for the "general welfare," in obedience to the power given them, and that to carry into effect this specific grant of power, it was " neces- sary" to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and the states where it exists. We ask whether it might not be competent for them to do so, or how this case is distinguished from the one immediately under consideration, to wit : the power to charter a National Bank, because it is a measure "necessary" for the "general welfare;" and if the Supreme Court thought it incompetent for them to inquire into the degree of necessity involved in the first case, could they undertake to make the inquiry in the latter ? We think not. Again, suppose the nation, in the present enfeebled state of its treasury, be suddenly involved in a conflict with Great Britain, or some other foreign power. Congress is called upon to furnish money to carry on the war ; this she refuses to do by levying a direct tax which shall bear equally upon all portions of the United States, — but incorporates a company, and invests them with exclusive power to navigate the Mississippi river for fifty years, in con- sideration that that company will pay the Government a bonus of twenty- five millions of money. The power to have such action on the part of the general government, is well questioned ; it is not however expressly prohibited, and Congress asserts that it is "necessary" in providing for the "common defence and general welfare" to charter said company, and invest them with such powers, for the consideration of the twenty- five million bonus, and the Supreme Court, if appealed to, says, Con- gress is to be the judge of the necessity, and we will not interfere. We ask if such rules of construction, with such arguments to sustain them, may not, indeed if they are not likely to lead to the most dis- astrous consequences — consequences portentous of great evil to the rights of the states, and threatening at once the stability of our excellent forms of government ? Your committee are of opinion, that this clause of the Constitution, furnishes no warrant for the establishment of a National Bank. The second inquiry is, as to the measure of power conferred by that clause of the Constitution, delegating authority to the general govern- ment, to regulate commerce between the states, and how far a " National Bank is necessary and proper" to the perfection of this power. * What is meant by regulating commerce between the states and foreign nations, in the sense of the Constitution, is a subject of inquiry, properly engaging the attention of your committee. There is an essen- tial diflerence, we think, between the means of carrying on commerce, and the regulation of commerce. If, instead of saying that Congress might pass laws regulating commerce among the several states and foreign nations, the Constitution had declared that Congress should have NATIONAL BANK. 23 » power to furnish the means of carrying on commerce between the states, &c., then we think the advocates of a National Bank might well have pointed to that provision, as aftbrding the strongest guarantee for tbo action which they propose to have. The facilities in the shape of ex- changes, bank notes, &c., which an institution of this kind is capable of affording, may well be regarded as a convenient means of carrying on trade. 'But how these facilities can be regarded as regulating commerce, we are at a loss to determine. We have accustomed ourselves to regard this as a government in which the equality of hiwian rights was respected. If we are correct in this, we do not readily perceive how it is that the commercial part of our citizens can justly claim at the handa of the government a degree of assistance in their business, which is not extendecl to those engaged in other pursuits. Money, it will readily be admitted, is the article by which the merchant carries on his trade- lawyers carry on theirs with books — the farmer or mechanic, his with tools and utensils of various kinds. The merchant is claiming of the government, that it should afford him the cheapest and most convenient method of conveying his money to the place where he intends using_ it. But at the same time, he, no doubt, would think it a monstrous exaction if the lawyer, the farmer, or the mechanic, should each claim the same assistance, and demand the right to have the means afforded him by the government of conveying in the cheapest, most speedy, and convenient manner, the implements of his trade from one place to another, wherever he may chance to need them. And yet, if this is a government of equal rights, we do not perceive the reasons which render one of these demands more unwarrantable than the other. The opinion that Congress should regulate exchanges, is of recent origin. In the early establishment of the Bank of the United States, its friends urged incidentally the advan- tages it would afford as a cheap and convenient medium of exchange. But they urged this as argument, merely why the government should exercise the power elsewhere given it, to charter a bank, and not as affording of itself that power. By regulating commerce betvfeen the states and foreign nations, your committee understand nothing more to be meant, than that the whole power is surrendered to the general government of establishing ports of entry, providing by law what vessels may enter them, and under what legal restrictions, and generally to protect the commerce of all the states alike, and to see that one state does not conduct its commerce with any foreign power on terms detri- mental to the interests of another. If anything more than this is meant, we are unable to determine what it is. The third subject claiming attention, is that clause in the Constitution which provides for collecting duties, imposts, and excises in a uniform manner throughout the United States. It is contended, that underthis clause a National Bank can and ought to be chartered. Your committee are of a different opinion, — the assertion is evidently based upon the assumption that it is wholly impracticable to collect the revenue in any- thing else than a paper currency. If the premises are yielded, the reasoning may follow. But are the premises founded in reason and good conscience, according to the spirit of the Constitution ? _ We think not. The framers of the Constitution have not done their work by halves ; wherever it is made the duty of government to do a particulai 24 ALBERT G. BROWN. ' act, the means are afforded to eifect that act, fully, perfectly, and entirely. Hence, the power of coining money, and regulating the value thereof, is conferred upon the general government, to enable it to carry into effect that other clause, which requires it to collect duties, imposts, &c., in a "uniform manner." Else how could they do it? Taxes are to be collected in dollars and cents ; and if Virginia made dollars to con- sist of seventy-five cents, New York of eighty, and Massachusetts of sixty-eight and three-fourth cents, as might probably have been the case, if the whole power of coining and regulating the value of money had not been surrendered to the general government ; and under this state of aflliirs, with coin thus adulterated, it would have created as much embarrassment to the general government, to collect its revenue, &c., in a uniform manner, as it would thus be collected in the notes of local banks, at present depreciated to greater and less amounts in every state in the Union. Your committee do not hesitate to pronounce, that the means of collecting the public dues is clearly pointed out by the Con- stitution. Besides, your committee are of opinion, that the Constitution never contemplated that the general government should oblige itself to receive, in payment of its dues, an article which it could not offer in discharge of its liabilities. It would be a monstrous construction of the Constitu- tion, to say that the general government might properly force bank-bills upon a creditor in discharge of a debt ! No such power is yet claimed by that government, certainly none such was ever given. Your committee, upon a full and impartial investigation of this whole subject, can find in the Constitution na warrant for the erection of such an institution. Precedent gives it the strongest claim which it has upon your attention ; but precedent is not law, much less can it be made to alter or amend the Constitution. So far, however, as precedent goes, we are willing it should have its due weight ; it is ground, however, upon which the advocates of a National Bank should lightly tread. The opponents of the bank can show five precedents against it where its friends can show one in its favor. One Congress in 1791 decided in favor of a bank, and another in 1811 decided against it ; one Congress in 1815 decided against a bank, and another in 1816 in its favor ; again, in 1832, 1834, and in 1837, Congress successively decided against the measure. The precedents in the national councils are, therefore, more than two to one aci;ainst it. If, then, we refer to state legislatures, and to the decision of state courts, the precedents, so far as they go, are as four to one. So far then as precedent is concerned, we think there can be nothing found which militates in favor of a bank. The mere fact of a National Bank having existed for four-fifths of the time, since the organization of the government, carries with it but little force, when urged as evidence that the people have, during that time, acquiesced in its establishment, if we reflect that it has only been at the expiration of each charter that the people have been favored with an opportunity of expressing their views asto its expediency or constitutionality. There is no means of ascer- taining whether the people, during that time, acquiesced in its creation or existence, since all means of giving expression to their sentiments was denied by the terms of its charter, which for each successive term con- NATIONAL BANK. Zo tinned for twenty years. It is ur which prevails on well regulated plantations. These suggestions may be considered as applying to the works to be done in grading and getting timber for the eastern railroad, and such other works as are commenced by the state. On this subject I have the honor to transmit a letter from the Hon. John P. King, President ANNUAL MESSAGE. 73 of the Georgia railroad, -wliicli will tend, I tliinlc, to sustain tlic view that I have taken. Before any contracts are made, or the work commenced, cither on the levee, the road or elsewhere, the state should acquire the right of way through the whole route ; otherwise she will be imposed upon by the avaricious and selfish through whose possessions the works are to pass. If these views meet the legislative sanction, I further recommend that proposals be issued to hire laborers who shall be paid wages to be speci- fied by law, in lands at a fixed valuation. I have thought it reasonable to suppose, that planters and others owning lands on the margin or near the Mississippi river, seeing that the state had the means, and was prosecuting the work with a determined spirit, Avould gladly aid in its speedy completion, when thereby the lands which they now own, are made more valuable, and those which they take in payment for their work are increased in worth by the labor they expend in buying them. The interesting subject of education has engrossed a large interest in the public mind for some years past. It must be gratifying to the patriot and philanthropist to witness the unanimity with which it has been espoused; and if the legislature responds, as it doubtless will, to the prevailing public sentiment, the imperative command of the constitution, that " schools and the means of education shall for ever be encouraged in this state," will no longer go unheeded. "Knowledge," in the lan- guage of the constitution, " being necessary to good gov-ernment, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind," no arguments need be resorted to, to convince the representatives of a free people, that it is their duty to encourage its general diffusion. Let it be borne in mind that the boys who are now growing up, too many of them in ignorance and vice, must in a very few years take our places, and become controllers of our country's destiny ; and let us not disguise from ourselves the stubborn fact that the ignorant and vicious of these, under our forms of government, must be as potential at the ballot box, for good or for evil, as the most learned and virtuous ; and I am fully persuaded, we will employ all the means in our power, to educate them— to direct them in the ways of " religion, morality and knowledge," and thus quicken their devotion to their country. Benefits are not priceless. If we expect to enjoy the blessings of edu- cation, or to transmit its fruits to our posterity, we must expect to_ pay for them. To the great mass of the people, this declaration will neither be surprising or unacceptable. They do not expect knowledge and a familiarity with the intricacies of government to spring up spontaneously in the minds of their children — good fruit does not grow upon unculti- vated grounds, but as thistles and other noxious weeds take possession of an unploughed field, so do vice and wickedness spring up in the mind which is not trained to God and the country. Government gives pro- tection to our lives, our liberty, and our property, but who shall give protection to government if we neglect it 'i If it be true, that " the blessings of government, like the dews of heaven, descend alike on the rich and the poor," it must be true, that the rich and poor are alike bound to contribute to its support. We contribute annually to the support of all the various departments 74 ALBERT G. BROWN of government, to the legislative, the judiciary and the executive ; we contribute to the erection of prison houses and temples of justice, we contribute to the sacred altar and its divine ministrations, but to that ■which lies at the bottom of them all, and without which the whole must become "as a sounding brass and tinkling cymbal," we contribute nothing. Education has many votaries but few contributors. What should we think of a man who had built a ship and sent her upon a distant and perilous sea, laden with rich and costly goods, without insurance ? Yet, have we erected a government, ladened it with priceless jewels of liberty, and cast it upon the uncertain element of popular will, untempered, as vet, bv the hallowing influence of education ; and shall we still refuse to insure the safety of that government, by refusing to contribute to the only means that can give it safety — the education of its people ? The rich may say, we have no interest in the education of the poor ! There could be no greater or more fatal error. Pride, the love of our offspring, the ephemeral pleasure of witnessing the bud of youth nurtured by our care, as it expands, and grows, and ripens into manhood, these teach the rich to educate their own children, but the higher considerations of patriotism — the holier cause of religion and morality — the pure and unstained love of human happiness, teach them to educate the poor. Having had my attention drawn to this subject, I opened a corres- pondence with gentlemen in different parts of the country, with a view to elicit information. Their replies, together with such statistics and other documentary evidence as I have been enabled to collect, are at the service of the legislature. Difficulties beset us, I know, but they are difficulties which a prudent and discreet management of our affiiirs will overcome. The sparseness of population in many places, has been interposed as a serious objection in the Avay of any general system of schools. Perhaps it is so. If we cannot, on this account, employ teachers for a year, we could perhaps employ them for a half or quarter of a year. If we cannot do every- thing, surely it is not a valid reason why we should do nothing. Among other matters connected with this subject, I invite the special attention of the legislature to the reports of the presidents of the boards of police in the several counties, on the subject of the school lands. These reports were elicited by a circular which I addressed them, and which is herewith transmitted. It will be seen that all have not responded, but enough has been collected to show the manner in which the school lands have been treated, and to make it apparent that a radi- cal change is demanded. After devoting as much time as I could spare to the subject of schools, consistent with other official duties, I feel prepared in a spirit of the utmost confidence as to its success, to make the following recommenda- tion. The state ought to assume the $110,000,00 lost in the Planters' Bank, and place it at once on the same footing with the §103,287,00 now in the treasury. The fund would then amount in round numbers to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Two hundred thousand dollars of this should be retained as a permanent fund, and the residue appropriated to the erection of college buildings at Oxford, as heretofore suggested. I ANNUAL MESSAGE. 75 This permanent fund should be kept in the treasury, and an annual interest of eight per cent, paid on it. This interest (10,000 dollars) should be set apart in the treasury at the beginning of every year, and kept sacred and inviolable for the purposes hereafter to be named ; and here let me remark that the vexation and expense which has attended a first collection of this fund, and the heavy and ruinous losses which it . has sustained in the hands from which it has been slowly wrung, should admonish the legislature to take charge of it and keep it secure in future. Of the sixteen thousand dollars interest, I recommend that eight thousand dollars be appropi'iated to the annual purposes of the college. There should be then established ten academies or high schools, at as many different points in the state, to be designated by the legislature, having reference to geographical divisions. To eacli of these there should be an annual payment of eight hundred dollars out of the remaining eight thousand. Nothing is clearer to my mind than that the college will not succeed without the aid of auxiliary schools. These schools need not, and indeed should not, be in the immediate vicinity of the college, but at such points as to give it the most efficient aid, and at the same time to diffuse the greatest amount of intelligence among the people. The language of the Act of Congress in making the grant of land from which we derive this fund is that " it shall be vested in the legislature of the state in trust for the support of a seminary of learn- ing." This language, "a seminary of learning," has been thought to limit the legislature to the establishment of one school, and to negative the idea that that school could have auxiliary departments. It has seemed to me so palpable that the trustees could so act as to carry out the great object of the trust, which was the difi'usion of knowledge, that I have not fallen into what is to my mind a constrained idea of the law of Congress. It does not necessarily follow, that because the Act of Congress said "a seminary," that it meant there should be one school under one roof, or that the "seminary" and all its auxiliary depart- ments should be in the same enclosure, or even in the same city or town. The spirit of the Act of Congress is carried out by the establishment of one seminary, university or college, with such auxiliary departments as are necessary to its success. These should be under the same general SUPERVISION AND CONTROL, and be located at such points as to be of the greatest advantage to the main college, and to the cause of education. There must yet be another and a still more useful class of schools — I mean the common or free school. The 16th section of land in each township, set apart by a wise enactment of Congress for this purpose, have been most shamefully neglected. The inattention with which these lands have, in many instances, been treated, makes it very apparent, to my mind, that whatever system of schools we adopt, must be taken under the supervisory control of officers who shall be responsible to the state. There must be some general head, and there must be an immediate responsibility of that head to the state laws. The people in mass will never require responsibility, and they will never act unitedly and con- stantly as one man for the common good ; each one will content himself with acting for himself, and the general good will go unattended to. Of the ten or twelve hundred sections of school lands heretofore, and now under the control of the citizens of the township, I have not been 76 ALBERT G. BROWN. enabled to ascertain that one hundred have been -well managed. Some of them have been trespassed on and denuded of their valuable timber ; in other instances they have been leased, and the money has not been collected : in many instances it has been collected and squandered : in the fewest number of cases have there been free schools kept by the pro- ceeds. I recommend the passage of a law for the election of school commis- sioners in each county, one by the qualified electors of each police district, and that it be made the duty of this " board of school commis- sioners" to inquire into and ascertain the exact condition of each six- teenth section in their respective counties. I recommend the appointment of a general school commissioner to reside at the seat of government, who shall receive his appointment from the governor and Senate, whose duty it shall be to require of and receive from the school commissioners in the several counties, semi-annual reports of their proceedings in regard to the sixteenth sections and other matters 'intrusted to their charge. It should be made the duty of the county commissioners to hold meetings quarter yearly, at the county site, and whenever the interest arising from the proceeds of a school section is sufficient to pay a teacher, it should be their duty to employ a competent man and establish him in a school. Wherever there is a surplus, the consent of Congress should be obtained to its transfer and use in the next adjoining township in which there is a deficiency. They should, without delay, lease all the sixteenth sections now undisposed of, and report to the general commis- sioner the amount for Avhich each one was leased. I farther recommend that all the fines and forfeitures, billiard, retail, and other licenses, and all other funds that now go into the treasury other than the legitimate taxes on property, be relinquished to a fund to be established and called the " school fund." That the literary fund be collected from the several counties, and placed in the " school fund ;" and I further recommend that a tax of five per cent, on the amount of the state and county taxes, be assessed and collected annually, for the benefit of the school fund. I estimate that from these sources (not including the literary fund now on hand), we will derive 75,000 dollars annually. This fund should be placed under the control of the general commissioner, to be used in aiding the establishment of free schools. The fund to be apportioned among the counties, each according to its white population, taking the census of 1845 as the present basis of ap- portionment. It should be the duty of the school commissioners to establish schools. And whenever the funds of the township were insuffi- cient to employ a teacher, a portion of his wages should be paid out of the general fund ; and the whole should be so divided that there should be a free school in every inhabited township, at least a part of the year. If the fund would employ a teacher but for three months, let the school be taught for that length of time. Such is the plan which I have devised. If it does not meet the legis- lative sanction, my hearty co-operation is tendered in any other scheme which gives reasonable promise of success. In the final arrangement of any plan, much must be included by way of detail which it would be inconvenient to embrace in a general recommendation ; and I hope it ANNUAL MESSAGE. 77 may not be considered fis stepping beyond the limits of propriety to say it will give mc pleasure to aid in the arrangement of these details, should the plan which I have recommended be sanctioned by the legis- lature. . The financial condition of the state is such that I entertain a lively hope, that the day is not distant when we shall pay an instalment on the bonds issued on account of the Planters' Bank, and thereafter meet them regularly and promptly as they fall due. I will not deceive you or our common constituents with the delusive hope that any considerable amount will ever be realized from state stock in the Planters' Bank and the Mississippi Ptailroad Company. Something may be obtained, and most certainly every legal and proper means should be resorted to to secure as much as possible ; and the legislature ought especially to ab- stain from any act which could by the remotest possibility endanger tlie state's interest in either of these institutions. It is idle, however, to rely on the assets of these corporations to meet the bonds. It is unjust to require holders of these bonds to await the final settlement of the bank's affairs for their proper dues. I have not permitted myself to doubt that the state would, at the earliest period consistent with her engagements to other creditors, com- mence the payment of these bonds. They have been thrown upon us unexpectedly, and hence we have not been prepared to meet them. The large dividends declared by the Planters' Bank for many years, and the supposed solvency of the railroad company, during its brief but unfortunate career, lulled the public mind into security. The sudden explosion of both these institutions startled the people with the unlookcd for intelligence, that a fund of two millions of dollars had, in a great measure, been lost, and that a heavy debt had, in consequence, been thrown on the treasury for payment. They have not shrunk from their legitimate responsibility, and they never will. I speak confidently, because in 18-43 I maintained the state's liability to pay this debt, and the people sustained me. In my inaugural speech I reiterated my opinions, and they have ever since been undisguisedly proclaimed, and the people have again elected me by a greatly increased majority. The first provision made by the legislature for the issuance of these bonds was in 1830. By the 1st and 7th section of an act chartering the Planters' Bank, approved February 10, 1830, and by the 4th and 5th sections of an act, supplemental thereto, approved December 10, 1830, the faith of the state was pledged, and provision made for issuing two millions of dollars in state bonds. In pursuance of these sections the first 500,000 dollars of six per cent, bonds, were issued and sold in 1831. (See Doc. herewith trans- mitted.) It has been intimated that these bonds were unconstitutional, and the reason assigned, is that the IGth section of the Act of 1818, which was supplemental to that of 1801, chartering the " Bank of Mis- sissippi," pledged the faith of the state, that "no other bank" should be established in this state during the continuance of the aforesaid cor- poration, "and that in derogation of this pledge, the Planters' Bank was established ;" and that by the 1st and 7th sections of the charter, and 4th and 5th sections of the supplement, these bonds were issued. I think it may be well questioned whether the legislature of 1818 did 78 ALBERT G. BROWN. not transcend its powers in undertaking to guarantee the exclusive right of banking in the state to a single corporation, for a series of years. There was nothing in the constitution of 1817 expressly giving this right, and the legislature of 1818 was assuming too much, perhaps, when it undertook to forestall the action of each subsequent legislature to the year 1834, when the charter of the old bank was to expire. On the mind of those who believe the legislature has the power to repeal bank charters, the argument that the "Planters' Bank" con- flicted with the rights "of the Mississippi Bank" will fall "as seed sown on stony ground." And to those who believe with me, that the powers of one legislature are commensurate with those of another, where no exclusive constitutional rights are given to one over another, it will seem almost conclusive that the legislature of 1818 had no right to assume the exclusive and entire control over the subject of banking, as they did for a period of 16 years. True, the opinions of gentlemen distinguished for their legal ability, have been invoked, and are said to sustain this position. These gentle- men may have been wrong. If they meant to say that the issuance of the bonds was unconstitutional, it is, to my mind, most palpable that they Avere so. There Avas nothing in the constitution of 1817 which forbid the legis- lature to pledge the public faith for a loan of money. They did pledge it, and on that faith they borrowed 500,000 dollars, which was invested in Planters' Bank stock, on which the state, for many years, received the dividends ; and would doubtless have continued to receive them if the bank had continued to declare them. I do not now undertake to controvert the unconstitutionality of the bank charter ; that is not ma- terial to my purpose. The state received the money, and she had a constitutional right to receive it in the way she did ; if she invested it in the stock of an unconstitutional bank, of her own creation, such in- vestment does not, in my judgment, weaken the obligation which she is under to pay it back. But the argument of its unconstitutionality, if solid, only applies to the first 500,000 dollars. The people of the state assembled in convention in 1832 to revise and amend their constitution. By the 9th section of the 7th article of the constitution which they then made, they imposed limitations and restrictions on the power of the legislature to pledge the public faith for loans of money. And now, as evidence that they were satisfied with the disposition Avhich had been made of the 500,000 dollars, they expressly provided " tliat nothing in this {9th sec. 1th art.,} shall be so construed as to prevent the legislature from negotiating a further loan of one million and a half dollars and vesting the same in stock reserved to the state hy the charter of the Planters' Bank of the state of Mississippi." It is now suggested that the convention did not mean to weaken or to give additional force to the pre-existing obligation incurred by the act of 1830. That they did not intend to incur an obligation even to pay back the "one million five hundred thousand dollars" which they were thus particular in reserving to the legislature the power to borrow. In short, that they meant to" leave the whole matter Avhere they found it. Such a suggestion does but little credit to the wisdom or integrity of the men who framed our constitution. They represented the sovereign power ANNUAL MESSAGE. 79 of the state. They stood above tlie law and above all contracts, and especially were they above laws and contracts which were unconstitu- tional. And if the legislature of 1830, in its zeal to obtain money, had been hurried over the ramparts of the constitution, it was the duty of this convention, not to leave the matter where they found it ; not to say go on and obtain more money by the same unconstitutional means ; not to say you shall have power " to negotiate a further loan," but you shall have no power to pay back Avhat you borrow — but it was the duty of the convention, by every sentiment of national faith, by the loftiest principles of honesty and fair dealing, to have abrogated the law, and to have forbidden the issuance of any more bonds. Failing to do this, and absolutely authorizing their issuance, the convention impliedly legalized all that had been done, and rendered the state firmly and fixedly liable for the one million five hundred thousand dollars, which it authorized to be issued. Let us deal honestly with ourselves, and we shall do no injury to others. Our unbiassed judgments tell us that the framers of our constitution believed that the first 500,000 dollars had been well disposed of, and they intended to obtain and invest one million five hun- dred thousand dollars in the same way. But it is asserted that one generation cannot bind another to pay a public debt. The argument, if plausible, is not applicable to our condi- tion. We are not the posterity of the men who lived thirteen years ago, but if we were, I should maintain, that if we transmit to those who come after us, our lands and the fulness thereof, it will be no grievous hard- ship, if we transmit with them such debts as we cannot, without serious privation to ourselves and our families, pay oif and discharge. The fairest way, however, to answer the argument that posterity is not bound to pay our debts, is to pay them ourselves, and that is just what I recommend. The first series six per cent, bonds (500,000 dollars) were issued in 1831, payable in four instalments of 125,000 dollars each. The first was due July 1st, 1841 ; the second will be due the first of July of the present year ; the third July 1st, 1851, and the fourth July 1st, 1856. The second series five per cent, bonds (1,500,000 dollars) were issued in 1838, and are payable in three instalments of 500,000 dollars each, the first on the first day of March, 1861 ; the second March 1st, 1866, and the third March 1st, 1871. The interest on the first series was paid to July, 1839, and on the second to March 1st, 1839, since which time nothing has been paid. It will be observed that an instalment of 125,000 dollars has been due since July 1st, 1811 ; and it will be found on calculation, that there is interest due on the six per cent, to the first day of the present month 195,000 dollars, and on the five's 512,500 dollars, which two items being added to the 125,000 dollars principal makes an aggregate of 832,500 dollars principal and interest, due on the first day of this month, (January, 1816.) It will be seen that the bonds draw an aggregate interest of 105,000 dollars annually, which is payable semi-annually on the first series, in July and January, and on the second in March and September, and that the principal falls due at periods of five years from one instalment to another. If the sum now due was paid, it would require only 130,000 dollars annually, up to July 1st, 1856, to meet both principal and 80 ALBERT G. BROWN. interest as it falls due in future, and' after that time, 175,000 dollars annually to March 1st, 1871. It has already been seen that there has been paid into the treasury in auditor's warrants, on account of the sink- ing fund, 81,000 dollars : this sum, it is confidently exjjected, Avill be increased to 125,000 ollars by the first day of July, 1846. The legislature need not be reminded that this fund stands pledged for the payment of these bonds. Nor do I deem it necessary to ad- monish you that no further delay should occur in its payment to the bond-holders, than is absolutely required by the embarrassments of the treasury. I hope indeed, it may be found expedient to make an appro- priation at this session, payable in July next, of a sum sufficient to cover the amount of the sinking fund in the treasury at that date. If this cannot be done, there certainly can be no reason why it should not be paid in July, 1847, as by that time the treasury will have realized the revenues for the fiscal year 1846. The state has upwards of 22,000 acres of land belonging to the sinking fund : it would be well for the legislature to make suitable arrangements for selling these lands ; and I recommend that the state commissioner be authorized to sell them for Planters' Bank bonds and coupons that are noiv due or for auditor's warrants. If properly managed they will go far towards liquidating so much of the debt as is now due and unpaid. If the legislature would authorize the commissioner to receive bonds and coupons due prior to January 1st, 1846, in payment of any debt due the sinking fund, I am persuaded it would facilitate collections and be of great advantage to the fund and to the state. In view of the present condition of the state, I advise the policy of paying the principal and interest of her bonds as they fall due in future ; and that she apply only the means which I have suggested, and such surplus funds as she may have from time to time, to the payment of that portion of the debt which is now due and unpaid. Being in arrears, it will require an effort superior to the means of the state, to bring up the entire account at once ; but if she sets out with a fixed purpose- of meeting the debt hereafter as it falls due, it can and will be done. It has been shoAvn that the revenue for the present year, will approximate four hundred thousand dollars. The expenses of the state government will not exceed 175,000 dollars per annum in future, including the interest on the school fund, admitting that my suggestions on that subject are adopted. After paying for the erection of the college buildings at Oxford, say fifty thousand dollars, and taking up the out- standing auditor's Avarrants, and meeting the economical expenses of the government, there will be a surplus this year ; and next year, without an alteration in the laws which shall produce a reduction in the revenue, there will be a surplus of at least one hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars, and thereafter that amount annually, deducting fines, forfeitures, licenses and such other items as I have already recommended should be given to the school fund. It will be seen that with these means, we can pay the bonds as they fall due, and have something left to pay on the account now due. If, in the end, we receive any considerable amount from the banks, it will come in time to pay a portion of the bonds which fall due some years hence. ANNUAL MESSAGE. " 81 The reduction made in tlie expenditures of tlic state governmcnit, by the act of the hist legishiture regulating saharics, &c., will greatly assist us in our effort to meet the public debt. It was a wise law, and admirably adapted to the embarrassed condition of our finances. The general anxiety among men of acknowledged talents, to accept ofiice, is, porliaps. the best evidence that the salaries are high enough. There may be a still further reduction of our expenses by a proper regulation of the circuit court practice in criminal business. One of the heaviest charges on the treasury, is the payment of costs where the state fails in the prosecution. If district attorneys were required, under proper penalties, to be constant in their attendance on grand juries, and clerks and sheriffs appropriately punished for neglect of duty, in failing to issue or to serve process, it would go far to remedy the evil. There should be a day set apart by law for taking up the criminal docket, and when taken up, it should be disposed of without intermission or delay. In this way, multitudes of witnesses now detained at court from day to day, and finally discharged at the costs of the state, might be let off in half the time, and the business of the state be better, be- cause more promptly attended to. The census taken in 1845, a return of which is herewith transmitted, exhibits the aggregate white population of the state at 241,688. In apportioning the representation among the several counties, I respect- fully suggest that the public interest may be promoted by reducing the whole number of representatives considerably below what it now is. Such reduction will lessen the expenses of the legislative department, and expedite the transaction of business, whilst it will not, I am per- suaded, detract from the wisdom of legislation, or impair, in the least degree, its adaptation to the wants of the people. The Senate, though a smaller body than the House of Representatives, has always originated one half, at least, of the important business. Its deliberations have been marked with as much wisdom and courtesy as those of the House, and its business despatched in less time. I estimate that the session may be shortened by the proposed reduc- tion one fourth, which in a session of ordinary 1-ength, will be fifteen days. The legislature, with its present number of members, sits at a cost of about six hundred dollars per day, or nine thousand dollars in fifteen days, excluding appropriations and printing. The pay of mem- bers alone, is five hundred and forty dollars a day. If the number of members were reduced one-fourth, there would be a saving in this item alone, of one hundred and thirty dollars per day, which, in a session of fortj'-five days, approximates six thousand dollars. If the legislature thinks with me, that reducing the number of representatives Avill not impair the wisdom or utility of legislation, I am sure they will take pleasure in adopting my suggestions as a measure of economy. When the people are heavily taxed, they have a right to expect a proper and economical use of the money ; you will always be ready, I am sure, to devise means of your own, or to carry out the suggestions of others in the fulfilment of these expectations. Complaints have been made that the taxes are too high. Coming, as you do, directly from the people, you are presumed to know more of their opinions on this subject than I do. Their will must be obeyed. G 82 ALBERT G. BROWN. The people cannot be taxed against their consent. I hope they will not liofhten their burdens at the expense of the public credit. On this point I defer to their representatives, but I should illy discharge my duty to them, if I did not say that the public credit is not in a condition to be sustained under any sensible reduction in the aggregate amount of the revenue. If the taxes are equalized in a greater degree, so as to distri- bute more justly the burthens of taxation, and yet not reduce the gross receipts into the treasury, I will be greatly pleased ; but I should bo sorrv to witness any legislation calculated to relapse the credit of the state into that long and painful disorder from which it is but just now recovering. The "quo warranto" act of 1843, has been a fruitful theme of con- troversy for some time past. Whatever may be said of that act, and the objects which it was intended to effect, it is undeniably true, that the leo-islature is under the strongest possible obligation to the banks and their debtors to pass such laws as will secure them "right and justice," without " denial or delay." If it is asserted that a banking corporation has forfeited its franchises, the question of forfeiture should be judi- ciously inquired into ; and it is the duty of the legislature so to legislate, that the inquiry may be had without delay, and without perplexities or expense to either party, other than such as may be necessary for the full and fair administration of justice. What is to be the effect of a forfeiture judicially ascertained, as to the property of the corporation, or as to debts due to or from it, is a question properly referable to the judiciary, and with which the legislature and executive have no con- cern. Unfortunately for the stability of our institutions and the safety of society, political communities seldom profit by the experience of the past. The lessons which were taught us during the banking mania in this state — the deep and vital wounds which were inflicted on the morals and good order of society, will be entirely forgotten in the lapse of a few years. Whilst the recollection of these events are fresh in our minds, it will be well if we make an enduring record of the hostility they have engendered to banks and banking ; and to this end I advise an amendment of the constitution, for ever prohibiting the establishment of banks in this state. A letter from the United States ordnance department is herewith transmitted. It shows that from our territorial organization to 1843, there have been sent to Mississippi, arms and accoutrements to the value of sixty-four thousand dollars. The report of the Quarter-Master Gene- ral will exhibit the present condition of these arms. The state is now in the annual receipt of four hundred and forty muskets, which, valued as they are by the United States, at thirteen dollars each, are worth five thousand seven hundred and twenty dollars. The number will increase with our increasing population. It Avill be seen that almost all the arms heretofore sent to the state have been wasted. The prime cause of this has been, that the state has never provided a place for their safe keeping. I recommend the erection of a public armory in this city, in which all arms and accoutrements, not in actual use, shall be kept. The greater portion of the work may be done by the penitentiary convicts, so that ANNUAL MESSAGE. «8 the actual outlay of money need not be great. This being done, there should be appointed a quarter-master and an assistant, to superintend the armory and take care of the public stores. All volunteer compa- nies now having, or hereafter receiving arms from the state,_ ought to renew their bonds every year, and give such additional security as the quarter-master may require. I believe the public interest requires, and the public voice demands, a change in the militia system. The trainings, under the present law, are attended with a loss of time and annoyance to the people, greatly exceeding any real benefit which they derive. It is a very great mis- ,take that milida musters prepare the people for actual service, or train them to a soldier-like use of arms. They go to muster for the most part, to amuse and be amused, regarding the whole afiair as an expen- sive farce ; they perform their parts for the fun, and not the profits of the play, and are always glad when it is over. There are now in this state about forty-five thousand persons subject to militia duty. If they are required by law to drill only four days in each year, there would "be lost in time 180,000 days. Time, to a man of enterprise, is money. Suppose each day to be worth fifty cents, and there is an aggregate loss of ninety thousand dollars. The law, such as it is, I have endeavored to see enforced, I regret to say with ill suc- cess. The people are opposed to it, and many of them can neither be persuaded or coerced into obedience to it. Some obey and some do not. This engenders a spirit of jealousy, as to the injustice and unequal ope- rations of the law. The disobedience of some encourages disobedience in others, and a disregard of law in one respect begets a disregard of it in another. Under such circumstances it becomes a question for your serious deliberation, whether you will not abandon the present, and adopt some new system. Looking to the possible disturbance of the country, by invasion or internal commotion, the present law ought not perhaps to be repealed. It might be suspended in its operations and put in force on any sudden emergency, by an executive proclamation. The active military force should consist of one volunteer company in each regiment, which con- tains five hundred or more efficient men. These companies should be required to train at least one day in every month ; and for this service, the members should be exempted from road and jury duty. The public arms should be distributed to them from the state armory by the quarter-master general, who should also be a competent drill master ; and it should be made his duty to visit each company once in every year, under the direction of the governor, and drdl two entire days. For this purpose, the quarter-master should receive a competent salary ; and his assistant, whose duty it should be to superintend the business of the armory, in the necessary absence of the quarter-master, should have a fair compensation also. It will be seen on examination, that the money drawn from the treasury, under this system, will be less, by some hundreds of dollars, than under the system which now exists. The companies should contain sixty-four members each, eight to be taken from each captain's beat in the regiment, and in case more than eight should offer, let it be determined by lot who should serve. Va- 84 ALBERT G. BROWN. cancies should be filled by election ; and if at any time a company was found to have neglected its duties grossly, either in not drilling or not taking care of its arms, or in failing to enforce the discipline of the corps, such companies should, on the certificate of the drill master to that effect, be disbanded by the governor. The employment of the penitentiary convicts in the mechanic pur- suits, continues to be a cause of complaint. These complaints are well founded in some respects, and demand, as they will doubtless receive, your respectful consideration. I have collected sundry reports and other papers on this subject, which I have the honor herewith to transmit to the legislature. I invite special attention to the letters from the Ohio and Louisiana superintendents of state prisons. It seems evident in a country like ours, which consumes so large a quantity of woollen and coarse cotton goods, that they may be manufactured to advantage; and I do not therefore hesitate to invite the legislature to embark a portion of the labor of the prison in the fabrication of these articles, with a view to its ultimate conversion into a manufacturing establishment should the experiment succeed. If the state purchases slaves to carry on her public improvements, provision should be made by law for having them clothed from the penitentiary. The report of the inspectors and officers of the penitentiary, for the year 1844, exhibits the net profits of the institution at $1337, and the report for 1845, shows the net profits for that year to have been $5110.02. Both reports are herewith sent to the legislature. We have never provided an asylum for lunatics, nor a refuge for the insane, in this state. The best feelings of humanity require that this omission should be supplied. I recommend that suitable buildings be erected, and such other means adopted as .are best suited to the condi- tion of this unfortunate class. The buildings need not be costly, nor the arrangement for the maintenance of the lunatics very extensive for some years to come ; both, however, should be equal to the present wants of the country. The legislature, at its last session, proposed two amendments to the constitution : the first was in regard to slaves, and the second was a proposition, in substance, to divide our judicial from our political elec- tions. The required notice was given through the public gazettes, in both cases, by the secretary of state. The first of these amendments, in regard to the slaves, has received the required number of the popular votes, and needs only to be inserted, by order of the legislature, to be- come a part of the constitution. The second proposed amendment did not, I regret to say, receive a constitutional number of votes, and is, therefore, lost for the time being. I regard this as the most important of the two proposed amendments, and the returns show that it is favora- bly regarded by the people ; a large majority of those voting on the question, voted for it, but they have fallen short of a majority of the whole vote cast for members of the legislature. I recommend that the question be re-submitted in 1847. The main object of its friends will be attained if it passes then, as, with a single exception, the judges now in ofiice, retain their places till 1849. Most of the states of the Union have proposed an interchange of laws, reports and legislative documents. In the absence of any legislation on ANNUAL MESSAGE, 85 the subject, I instructed the secretary of state to send ours in exchange for such as weve sent to us. This course, I hope, "will meet the sanction of the legislature, and that authority will be given to pursue it in futurCji, otherwise it will be abandoned. Complaints are frequently made that difficulties are encountered in procuring the proper acknowledgments of deeds and other instruments of writing, in the difterent states, to be used in this state. The evil has been remedied in other states, and may be in this, by the appointment of a commissioner to take these acknowledgments, who shall depend for his compensation entirely on the perquisites of office, and who shall reside at the principal commercial point in the state for which he is commissioned. The report of the state commissioner herewith transmitted, will bring you acquainted with the progress made in the business intrusted to his charge. The present condition of the several funds under his manage- ment, seems to render it necessary that power should be given to effect compromises. I invite your attention to his suggestions on this point. It appears to me that the interest of the state will be secure, if the commissioner is allowed to make compromises under the legal advice of the attorney-general, subject to the approval of the governor. I herewith transmit the report of tlie commissioner of the seminary fund, and a communication from the attorney-general. From these you will learn the condition of the several matters intrusted to their official charge. Communications from the adjutant general and the quarter-master general, are herewith enclosed. These reports and com- munications make it manifest that greater security should be required of those having the custody of the public money and property. I re- commend that hereafter all bonds taken for the safe-keeping of the public money and property, shall operate as a judgment lien on the pro- perty of the obligors. The accompanying correspondence with the stockholders and as- signees of the Mississippi Union Bank, will acquaint you with the fact, that five millions of dollars in state bonds, issued on account of that institution, were delivered to me on the 14th of April, 1844. The bonds were deposited ia the state treasury, and were cancelled by my direction. On the 21st of February, 1845, I received the resignation of the Hon, R. J. Walker, United States senator from this state, and imme- diately thereafter tendered the appointment to the Hon. Jacob Thomp- son, who declined it. On the third day of November last, I appointed Joseph W. Chalmers, Esq., of Marshall, to fill the vacancy, and that gentleman is now in the discharge of his duties at Washington, where he will remain until a successor, elected by the legislature, is sent on. I have the honor to transmit resolutions of the Texan Congress, passed June 21st, 1845, tendering to General Andrew Jackson the tri- bute of a nation's gratitude. It was not given to the venerable patriot to receive this tribute. He died at the Hermitage, 8th June, 1845, full of years and full of honors. The resolutions are not more honorable to Texas than they would have been gratifying to the eminent man for whom they were intended, had it pleased Heaven to lengthen out his days until he had received them. , 86 ALBERT G. BROWN. The perusal of these resolutions awakens In our minds the liveliest recollections of a man who has left the impress of his mighty intellect on all the interests and institutions of his country. lie was ever the fast and unchanging friend of Mississippi. Firm and inflexible in his purpose, wise in council and terrible in war ; he possessed a mind to comprehend and will to serve our wants — his was a heart with- out guile, and in his bosom the fires of patriotism never went out. Whether in the field, at the red man's council fire, in the Senate or chair of state, or in later years, when stricken by time, we see him bowing before the altar of the great I am, his cares, his toils, his aifec- tions and his energies were given — always given, to his country. lie has descended to the tomb, but it is left with us to manifest our respect and veneration for his name. In token of the deep sense of gratitude which we feel for the past political and military services of this great man, I respectfully suggest that one of the niches in the rotunda of the capitol be filled, by order of the legislature, with his statue in marble. And as he was in life purely an American — in mind, body and soul, wholly and entirely an American citizen — this tribute will only be complete when the work is done by an American artist in American marble. Resolutions from the different states have been forwarded to me from time to time, with requests that I should submit them to the legislature. They relate to a great variety of subjects, some of which may require your attention. They are Submitted to your consideration. Of the contingent fund of the executive department, I have paid out on account of 1842-3, ..... $421.00 " " " 1844, 3629.39 1845, 2905.85 for which I shall be pleased to exhibit vouchers to a legislative com- mittee. A book, of great value in the administration of our probate laws, has been compiled and published by Ralph North, Esq., of the city of Natchez. I recommend that a sufiicient number of volumes be pur- chased by the state, to supply the several probate courts and the state library. I have thus, gentlemen, at the hazard of being tedious, given you my views on such subjects as, in my judgment, merit your attention. The absence of the legislature for two years has permitted a great num- ber and variety of subjects to accumulate, the presentation of which, to your consideration, has required unusual space. Apologizing for any unnecessary prolixity in this communication, I conclude with an earnest invocation to the Divine Power so to direct your councils that all your acts may redound to the happiness of the people and the glory of our common country. A. G. Brown. Executive Chamber, January 6, 1846. SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS. . 87 SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS, UPON THE COMMENCEMENT OF HIS SECOND TERM AS GOVERNOR, DELI- VERED JANUARY 11, 1846, BEFORE THE TWO HOUSES OF THE MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE. Fellow-Citizens : Honored by you with a re-election to tlic office of Governor, I appear before you a second time, to renew my obligations to support your constitution, and faithfully to discharge my duties. In doing so, allow me to enter into covenants, again to requite your generous confidence, by a continued watchfulness over all your varied interests. Two years have now passed away since I entered, with trembling anxiety, on the high duties to which your partiality had called me. You have passed your verdict of approval on my conduct, and I thank you — from a heart full and overflowing with gratitude I thank you. I enter on a second term with increased anxiety — and with a determina- tion, quickened by your approval of the past, still to merit jonv confi- dence, and to retire from your service without having forfeited your good opinion. To be chosen from fifty thousand voters, to administer the aflairs of a sovereign state, is a distinction of which any man may boast, but which no one has a right to claim. I have it by your suffer- ance — it shall be my constant effort to wear it without reproach, and to surrender it without dishonor. Indulge me, fellow-citizens, in a remark or two touching the present attitude of our state, her future prospects, and the means to be employed in advancing her to greatness and glory. Proud as I am of Mississippi, the home of my childhood, and of my maturer years, I am prouder still of her attitude before the world, of the noble bearing which she exhibits amid the reproaches and contumely cast upon her. Is she accused by bankers and bonders of pestilential and seditious conduct, and of being "a ringleader of the sect" called repudiators ? She answers as did Paul before Festus. " I stand at Cresar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged : to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. For if I be an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die ; but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Cresar." Mississippi is to be judged by her own written constitution ; if against that she has offended, she expects to be reproached, but if she has not, no man may deliver her into the hands of Jewish or other bond holders. She appeals to the constitution. This day fifty thousand hearts, scattered over the broad surface of Mississippi, swell with emotion, as fifty thousand freemen turn their eyes towards this city to behold the actions of their representatives assembled here. The state has been maligned and her fair fame traduced by those who are ignorant of her cause, or, knowing her to be right, refuse to do her justice. She has taken her position, and from it she t 88 ALBERT G. BROWN. ■will not depart. The shafts levelled at her honor fall harmless at her feet, because they come not from the hand of justice. Let those who are the guardians of her unsullied fame preserve it free from taint or blemish. You stood by her in her noble attitude of vindicating her con- stitution, in refusing to pay demands contracted in its violation ; stand by her with equal firmness in her no less lofty attitude of vindicating that constitution still further by paying debts contracted by its approval and sanctioned by its language. If Mississippi was called upon by her constitution to reject the Union Bank bonds, that same constitution bids her pay those of the Planters' Bank "to the last mill." I will not ask you if it shall be don6, because I will not ask you if Mississippi shall be dishonored. What are the future prospects of our state, and how shall we advance her in the highway to glory and renown ? are questions to be determined by your action. With a fertility of soil equal to any in the world ; with the mighty river of her own name, so aptly termed "an inland sea," washing her western border for more than four hundred miles, and bear- ing upon its bosom the richest product that ever rewarded the toils of man ; with navigable rivers like arteries running from her heart to all her extremities ; with salubrity of climate equal to Italy, and a popula- tion the bravest and best on God's earth, there is not a land of fairer promise, nor one which may aspire to a higher or a more glorious destiny. How shall we assist her ? Let a portion of our energies be directed to internal improvements. The day will come when Mississippi should be spanned from east to Avest by a great central railroad ; when the waters of the Mississippi should be fenced in, and the fertile lands on its borders be made to throw their rich treasures into the pockets of our people. It was improvements like these that added millions to the wealth of New York, and gave immortality to the name of Clinton. These improve- ments cannot be made the next year, or completed perhaps by this generation ; but the natal energy and indomitable perseverance of our people will sooner or later carry them out. It is our duty to commence them. There is a feature in the character of this state which the historian cannot pass by in silence. It is the independence Avhich marks her conduct. Determining for herself what is right, she fearlessly pursues the conviction of her own judgment, regardless of the opinions and con- duct of others. She Avas first to elect judges by the people ; she first established a purely metallic currency, and, amidst the taunts and jeers of friends and foes, she first stood up in the face of the civilized world and refused to pay an unconstitutional debt contracted in her name. A state which thus pursues its own inclinations, and which has already invested its people with more power than any other in the Union, or perhaps in Christendom, should be the foremost in giving universal instruction to its people. An ignorant multitude, excited by some fancied wrong, and led by some daring and popular demagogue, may, in a single hour, commit breaches in the fabric of our government which the wisdom and ingenuity of ages may not be able to repair. The educated masses are never frenzied thus ; appreciating the blessings of liberty, they will never commit excesses in its name. Then by every consideration of patriotism ; SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS. » ^^, 89 r • bv your love of liberty ; by the devotion which you bear to your ofrsprin_ by the safety of your firesides ; and the accumulated wealth of years of toil ; by the holy religion of your fathers ; by all that you hold dear in this world, or sacred in the world to coine, I exhort you to spread the blessings of education among the people ! The legislation of this country is wisely divided into state and national. As a member of the great family of states, we are the victims or bene- ficiaries of national legislation as chance may direct, our voice being as one to fifty in her councils. "Whilst we direct our domestic legislation so as to develope the re- sources of our state, and secure to ourselves and our property the bless- ings of liberty in a free government, may we not, in earnest and respect- ful terms, address our petitions and our remonstrances to the federal legislature, so to govern its councils as not to retard us in our onward inarch to prosperity and happiness ? Nay ! Avhilst others are the recipi- ents of governmental favor, may we not ask for justice ? If the tariff oppresses us, may we not ask that it be relaxed ? If protection retards us, may we not ask that it be removed ? Our cotton whitens every sea, and enlivens every port. It is the axis on Avhich the commercial world revolves. Shall Congress restrict us to a home market, and call this protection? verily, "it is such protection as vultures give to lambs." No, let Congress protect us in foreign lands ; let Congress protect us as we float on every sea, and barter in every port, and we will protect our- selves and our government at home. Millions on millions of the nation's money is yearly lavished in developing the resources and advancing the prosperity of other states, under the specious pretext of " providing for the common defence and the general welfare." Mississippi has remonstrated, and her remon- strance has not been heard; she must stand firm on the broad platform of the constitution, and as she grows older and stronger she will increase in the compass and strength of her appeals for justice. She asks for nothing from the nation's coffers to her local works ; but she asks for "defences" commensurate with her commercial importance, and such as are demanded by her position in the Union, and her contributions to the national wealth. Our southern coast for three hundred miles is undefended ; scarcely a light-house to direct the storm-beaten mariner has been erected. Not an arsenal nor a fort is built on our shores. The nation, liberal to others, but parsimonious to us, has not even sur- veyed our coast. A harbor equal to almost any on the Atlantic, was better known to British seamen in 1812-15 than to American statesmen in 1846. Are we members of the same family, or are we strangers to the sisterhood of states, that our interests are thus neglected and our safety set at nought ? If it were competent for Congress to aid in the construction of the Wabash Canal, with a grant from the public domain, why may not the rivers that span our state in all directions, and bear upon their bosoms the rich products of our soil, demand like contributions from the nation's bounty ? The Pearl, Yazoo, Black, Tallahatchie, and other rivers, are as important to us in their navigation as the Wabash Canal can be to any portion of the western people. For years and years, Mississippi has appealed, but she has appealed 90 ALBERT G. BROWN. in vain, for a graduation in the price of the public lands. Tlie older states have clung to these lands with a miser's iron grasp. Gloating over the prospect of gain, they have regarded each dollar wrung from the reluctant grasp of the hardy settler, as so much added to their coffers. In a lucky hour the principle of graduation was ingrafted into the treaty with the Chickasaw Indians. Witness its fruits. In ten years, the lands ceded by the Chickasaw tribe, have made more advances in population and in agriculture than those in the Choctaw cession have in twice that number of years. We have seen the less productive lands in the Choctaw cession go uncultivated for almost a quarter of a century, and a thrifty population, such as would do credit to any state, driven west, where the more liberal government of Texas gave them lands on better terms. Our appeals must be renewed. The policy of the United States will ultimately induce her to listen to our petitions. The feeling is now for war — war with England ; a war in which we are to be the greatest sufferers. This war will give impetus to New England manufactures, and open new and profitable markets for western produce : to ns it will bring blight and desolation. Our hearths, now happy and cheerful, will become lonely and desolate — our fields, no longer covered with a snowy white staple and enlivened by the negro's happy song, will grow up in thorns and thick weeds, and become the resting place of reptiles and ill-omened birds. Yet are we ready for the crisis. Let no one doubt our fealty to the general good — let no one say that Mississippi will be unfaithful to the nation's honor — let her but know that her cause is just, and she will march to victory or death. Let the nation be faithful to herself and us — let her stand bv her Presi- dent, who "has asked for nothing but what is right," and who has already sworn, upon the altar of his country's glory, that " he will sub- mit to nothing which is wrong;" and if for this England wages war upon us, why, let it come — in God's name let it come. In such a cause, there is not a tongue that would not cry for war ; and though houses were burned and cities sacked, and though biting hunger should even claim us for his victims, still our voice would be for war — and our mothers, the matrons of the land, would cheer us in this goodly work. Like the mother of the Spartan heroes, they would bid us return from such a conflict "with our shields, or upon them." With England must ever rest the question of peace or war. We crave an honorable peace, and if this be denied us, we ask for war. I pray that justice may hold the scales in the hands of England, and that the genius of peace may preside over her deliberations. With no disposition to trespass further on your indulgence, I conclude with an earnest wish that you, the people, may be united in all your efforts to promote the public good ; and that the counsels of your repre- sentatives, under the supervision of Divine Providence, may be directed to the union of the states, the happiness of the people, and the per- petuity of liberty, and universal peace among men. Albert G. Brown. FIRST THANKSGIVING PROCLAMATION IN MISSISSIPPI. 91 FIKST THANKSGIYING PROCLAMATION IN MISSISSIPPI. The year eighteen Imndred and forty-seven draws to a close. Its seasons have been propitious beyond precedent. The toils of the hus- bandman have been rewarded with an abundant harvest. Health has blessed our state, and general prosperity is everywhere visible. The earth has yielded its fruits in rich abundance to supply our wants, and minister to our comfort. A glowing patriotism, and a steady devotion to the laws and consti- tution, under which our state has attained her present enviable rank in social order, wealth, population, learning, and religion, continue to per- vade all classes of her citizens. The beneficent beams of a common Christianity, undimmed in their lustre by any collision of sects or interference of legislation, shed their rich blessings upon a people capable of appreciating and willing to acknowledo-e their obligations to the Great Kuler of the Universe on this behalf. Under the smiles of Providence, these states have grown, prospered, and multiplied, until they constitute a great and powerful nation ; with whom agriculture, commerce, the arts, sciences, and literature, have flourished as in no other country in modern times. Unhappily, involved in war ! Under the eye of God, by the valor of our troops and the skill of our officers, the arms of our beloved country have everywhere been victorious. These, and innumerable other blessings and benefits of a kindred character, constantly flowing upon our state and nation, call for devout thanksgiving to the bountiful Giver of every blessing. I therefore, in obedience to the expressed wish of a large number of Christian professors, as well as in pursuit of my own inclinations, respect- fully recommend Thursday, the twenty-fifth day of the present month (November), to be observed as a day of public and general thanksgiving, that the people of the state, abstaining from their ordinary business avocations, may assemble in their usual places of religious worship, and, uniting with each other, and with their fellow-citizens of many other states, may pay their tribute of thanks to the Author of all our spiritual and temporal good gifts — and may pour out their hearts to Him that his rich smiles may be continued to our state and nation, through each cycle of their future existence, and that the abundant blessing of this year may be crowned by the termination of the existing war in an honor- able and just peace. In testimony whereof, I hereunto set my hand, and cause the [seal.] seal to be affixed, November 5, 1847, at Jackson. A. G. Brown. By the Governor. Wm. Hemingway, Secretary of State. 92 ALBERT G. BROWN. LAST ANNUAL MESSAGE AS GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPL Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Represen- tatives : It affords me pleasure to greet you on your assemblage at the seat of government, with a statement of the improved condition of our public affairs, and to congratulate you upon the general prosperity which pervades the country. Although, from providential causes in 1846, and commercial revul- sions abroad in 1847, the profits of the planter have been somewhat diminished, his income has been large, and, all things considered, per- sons engaged in agricultural and other industrial pursuits have greatly prospered. Taxes have been paid v,ithout murmuring, and accounted for by collectors with unusual punctuality. The treasury, having re- covered from its embarrassments, has continued for two years past, without intermission, to pay all authorized demands upon it, and now contains a surplus of §115,755.41, exclusive of the two and three per cent, funds. A summary of the biennial receipts and disbursements, on account of taxes, presents the following result : — Taxes for 1845, received in 1846, . . $351,278.72 1846, " " 1847, . . 328,407.16 (( a ^679,685.88 Disbursed in 1846, §380,437.97 " " 1847, 233,521.73 §613,959.70 Excess of receipts over disbursements, .... 65,726.18 Exclusive of $50,029.21, received from miscellaneous sources in money, and §18,000 in Planters' Bank bonds. The Auditor's reports show warrants issued prior to and outstanding, January 1, 1846, §271,749.71 Issued in 1846, 227,055.51 " " 1847, 152,191.21 Whole amount issued to January 1, 1848, . . . 650,996.43 " " redeemed from January 1846 to 1848, . 613,959.70 Exhibiting warrants outstanding this day, . . . 37,036.81 Against a surplus in the treasury of §115,755.41, or an excess of present means, over present liabilities, of §78,718.60. It will be seen that there is a diminution in the revenue for 1846 (received in iy47), as compared with the year previous, of near twenty- three thousand dollars. This is attributable to the revenue law of the last session of the legislature. But for that law, the constantly increas- ing wealth and population of the state would have augmented the revenue near ten thousand dollars in 1846-7, and this sum would, by the same means, have been increased each succeeding year ; and thus the state, without any sensible effort on the part of her citizens, would, by the power of her natural growth, have risen superior to all future embarrass- ments. If there is any one thing in which, above all others, the state LAST ANNUAL MESSAGE, 93 may invoke the forbearance of her law-givers, it is in this matter of improvident interference with her revenue laws. It will be seen l)y a just investigation of our indebtedness, as compared with our resources. that the state has use for even more revenue than would have been realized under the law as it existed in 1844-5. The assessments for the year 1847, but little of which has yet been paid into the treasury, amount to about three hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars. After making reasonable deductions for assessing, collecting, and insolvencies, the amount to be received will not vary much from three hundred and thirty thousand dollars. The expenditures for the present year are estimated at tAvo hundred and ten thousand dollars. So that the receipts will probably exceed the disbursements one hundred and thirty thousand dollars ; which, added to the surplus now in the treasury, would give us two hundred and forty-five thousand seven hundred and fifty-five dollars and forty- one cents, at the end of the year. The state is indebted to the sinking fund ninety-five thou- sand dollars, and to the seminary fund about sixty thousand dollars : and these sums ought to be provided for. Special reference will be made to them hereafter. For a more perfect understanding of the financial condition of the state, and the practical operations of the existing revenue laws, reference is made to the voluminous and very satisfactory report of the late auditor, James E. Matthews, Esq., herewith transmitted to the House of Representatives. The report has been prepared with great care, and presents, in a clear and comprehensive light, the affairs of the depart- ment over which the late auditor has presided with ability and fidelity for the last six years. It is worthy a minute investigation, and is earnestly recommended to the attention of the legislature and of the country. In estimating the indebtedness of the state, the bonds issued on account of the Planters' Bank have been included. My last general message conveyed to the legislature and the country my views as regards the state's liability to pay these bonds. These opinions have under- gone no material change, but a reiteration of them is uncalled for, and would be unprofitable at this time. Having long since settled in my own mind, that the state is bound by every obligation that the constitu- tion and the laws can impose, to pay the debt, it has only remained to devise some means acceptable to the people, and not too oppressive, by which it could be done. The whole subject has been calmly considered ; and however it may be regarded by others, there is, to my mind, but one course to be pursued worthy the character of a great and growing state, and that is to raise the money by taxation and discharge the debt as rapidly as possible. That course is respectfully but earnestly recom- mended. The debt now stands as follows : — Bonds issued in March, 1833, §1,500,000 6 per cent, interest from March, 1839, to January, 1848, 794,000 Bonds issued in July, 1831, 500,000 6 per cent, interest from July, 1839, to January, 1848, . 255,000 Total, §3,050,000 Subject to a deduction of twenty-four thousand three hundred and 94 ALBERT G. BROWN. forty-one dollars, in bonds and coupons, paid into the treasury by the state commissioner, or now remaining in his hands, for an account of which reference is made to the report of that officer. The annual interest on the bonds, it will be seen, is one hundred and twenty thousand dollars. The probable receipts for the present year, under the existing revenue law, as we have seen, will be three hundred and thirty thousand dollars, and the expenditures (including the legis- lature) two hundred and ten thousand dollars, so that the sum remain- ing in the treasury, after defraying the ordinary expenses, will not be sufficient, at the present rate of taxation, to pay more than the interest accruing ; thus leaving the principal and back interest wholly unprovided for. It has been proposed to apply the state lands to the paj^ment of this debt. My solemn protest is hereby rendered against such a pro- ceeding — first : because the land having been given for other purposes, we have no right to use it in this way. Secondly : because we ought not so to use it if we had the right ; if we owe the debt at all, we owe it in money, and ought to pay it in money. Thirdly : because it is just as well to levy taxes to pay the bonds as to levy them to pay for the land. Fourthly : because if we do not intend to pay for the land after using it in paying the bonds, we mean to violate our faiih with the United States, who gave it for purposes of internal improvement. The relation which the sinking fund bears to these bonds may be easily explained. The bonds were sold, and the proceeds invested in Planters' Bank stock ; the dividends on this stock were pledged far the redemption of the interest on the bonds, and the interest being paid, the surplus dividends constituted a sinking fund. The bank for many years declared large dividends, and the surplus accumulated to several hundred thousand dollars. The president and cashier of the bank, and the auditor of public accounts, constituted a board, authorized by law to manage this fund. The legislature, in 1844, being dissatisfied with the management of this board, ejected them, and ordered the appointment of a commissioner to take charge of the fund. This officer has col- lected and paid (most of it) into the treasury about one hundred and nineteen thousand dollars, of which twenty-four thousand three hundred and forty-one dollars is in the bonds and coupons of the state. The remaining ninety-five thousand dollars belongs of right to the bond- holders, and its immediate appropriation for their use is earnestly recom- mended. The state has no earthly claim to it. If the principal sum was not borrowed on the bonds of the state, she can have no claim to the dividends accruing from its investments. If it was so borrowed, then she contracted a debt in borrowing it, for the redemption of which this fund stands pledged. It cannot be, therefore, that any man of any party will be found to oppose the immediate application of the amount now in the treasury, to the credit of the sinking fund, to the payment of the bonds as far as it goes. The two per cent, fund amounts to about two hundred and ten thousand dollars. Of this sum, one hundred and forty-six thousand eight hundred and twenty-three dollars was received by me, under the authority of an act of the late legislature, and one hundred and forty- three thousand eight hundred and thirty-one dollars and seventy-one cents, paid immediately after its receipt, to wit: February 6th, 1847. LAST ANNUAL MESSAGE. 95 The remaining two thousand nine hundred and ninety-one dollars was retained by me to meet certain extraordinary contingencies, and will be accounted for in another communication. Of the sum received by me and paid in, one hundred and thirty-six thousand seven hundred dollars was in United States treasury notes, drawing an interest of 5 2-5 per centum per annum. The interest increased a fund for which the state had no immediate use, and the warrants were more conveniently kept than specie ; for these reasons they were taken in preference to gold and silver. In addition to the sum in the treasury to the credit of this fund, there is justly due it about thirty-five thousand dollars on account of Graves's defalcation. It is not probahle that any considerable part of this sum will ever be recovered. The securities once offered to pay twenty thousand dollars on the whole defalcation of forty-four thousand dollars for a final discharge — no one was authorized to compromise for the state, and the proposition was not therefore accepted. It is not certain that the off"er will be renewed, but power to settle by compromise should be given to the governor or some other ofiicer : otherwise it is my opinion nothing of consequence vrill ever be obtained. The Southern Railroad Company, to which this fund was given under certain limitations, by an act approved February 23d, 1846, has not been organized in conformity with the act, and no part of the money has therefore been used for the construction of the road. It is presumed that the company will organize at no distant day, and the fund should be retained in good faith, and applied to the construction of the road whenever it can be done with advantage to the public. Whether it will be better to direct its immediate application, or to delay until other means can be obtained to assist in carrying on the work, is a matter worthy of the serious deliberation of the legislature. My own opinion is in favor of the application. The road, if constructed twenty mUes beyond Jackson, would support itself and pay a small dividend on an investment of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Its advan- tages to the eastern part of the state would be very great. Should the legislature deem the immediate application of the fund inadvisable, it ought at once to be put at interest for the future benefit of the road. United States six per cent, bonds ofter the best security, and its invest- ment therein is most respectfully recommended. The whole amount of lands registered on account of the five hundred thousand acres, is five hundred and twenty-nine thousand six hundred and ninety-six acres, and about twenty thousand acres have been located by the commissioners of the state and not yet registered. The reason for locating so large an excess, is to provide against rejections by the secretary of the treasury in consequence of pre-emption rights and other conflicting claims. Thus far, three hundred and fifty-four thousand and thirty-four acres have been approved by the secretary of the treasury, and for various reasons sixteen thousand two hundred and seventy-five acres have been rejected. One hundred and ninety-four thousand and twenty-five acres have been registered to the credit of the Chickasaw school lands. Of this amount one hundred and twenty- three thousand six hundred and forty-two acres have been approved by the secretary of the treasury, and five thousand three hundred and sixty- eight acres rejected. It is not doubted that enough has been secured 96 ALBERT G. BROWN. by location and registration to cover both grants after every reasonable deduction shall have been made. Should the lands be offered for sale, it must be recollected that the state's title is not perfect except to such parcels as have been approved by the secretary of the treasury. As the record made by the secretary of state, of the lands registered, is neces- sarily rendered incorrect and uncertain by the numerous rejections sub- sequently made at Washington, it will be proper to require another record of the lands as approved. The corrected lists have been de- posited with the secretary of state. The attention of the secretary of the treasury has been called to the unapproved locations, and he has been requested to dispose of them at as early a day as possible. The multiplicity of that officer's engagements has prevented his compliance with the request up to this time. In despite of every reasonable precaution to prevent it, locations have sometimes been made on tracts in the actual occupancy of settlers, they having neglected to declare their intention to remain, and thereby secure pre-emptions according to the act of Congress. The state had the legal right to make the location, yet she ought not to take advantage of her citizens. Liberal legislation in regard to these settlers is respect- fully recommended. The opinions advanced by me in my last communication on the subject of disposing of these lands, have undergone no material change. The five hundred thousand acres can be used for no other than purposes of internal improvement. Of such improvements the state is in great need. The levee on the Mississippi, and the navigation of our interior rivers, are objects worthy of liberal appropriations in land, or in money if the lands are sold. The best interest of the state forbids the sale of the lands at a price below their actual value. The five hundred thousand acres belong to the whole state, and the school lands to the Chickasaw counties. No one person has the right therefore to appropriate any part to himself without paying a fair equivalent to all the others in interest. Should pre-emptions be granted, it should be done with caution, and at a price not below the fair value of the land. The legis- lature ought, in my opinion, to fix the minimum at eight dollars the first year, seven the second, and so on down to one dollar per acre. Persons have been in the habit of committing depredations on the public' lands, which it has been my anxious desire to prevent. Con- sidering it within the spirit of our legislation to encourage actual settle- ment, it has not been my purpose to molest those who have sought a home on the lands of the state ; but other persons, and some of them non- residents of this state, have gone on these lands and cut down and rafted away large quantities of timber, thereby lessening, and in some instances wholly destroying, their value. The law for the punishment of such offenders has been found uncertain and insufficient. Your attention is called to the subject in the hope that it may receive early and prompt attention. The state holds the title to large quantities of land bought by her for taxes. The owners have manifested little or no disposition to redeem it. It would be well to direct the auditor, or some other officer, to sell it at private entry, giving a quit claim at a price sufficient to pay all arrearages for taxes. LAST ANNUAL JIESSAGE. 97 The buildings for the State University at Oxford are progressing as rapidly as could be anticipated. And it is expected that the institution will be opened for the reception of students sometime during the present year. The location is a healthy and pleasant one, in the midst of an intelligent and growing population ; and though not the most central that could have been selected, all things considered, it presents as many advantages as any other point. In view of the constantly increasing demand for such an institution, it is sincerely hoped that it will receive the support of our people, and the fostering care of the legislature. Long years of neglect have dissipated a large portion of its once muni- ficent endowment, but enough has been saved from the general wreck to establish the institution on a respectable and safe footing. In my last general message, the legislature was informed that about one hundred thousand dollars of the University Fund had been lost by an improvident investment in Planters' Bank stock. My reasons were then given for thinkino; the state bound to make indemnity for the loss, and, though not now repeated, they are still entertained. The auditor's report shows there to be in the treasury, to the credit of the Universit^^, sixty thousand eight hundred and fifty-nine dollars and seventy-seven cents, independent of the fifty thousand appropriated in 1846, for the erection of buildinscs. There is, in the commissioner's hands, detained under an injunction in chancery, six thousand six hundred and thirty- two dollars, of which his report will give you a detailed account. And there is due the fund, in solvent debts not yet collected, twenty-five thousand dollars : thus the whole funds of the Institution amount to near ninety-three thousand dollars, exclusive of the Planters' Bank debt. It is hoped that no further appropriation will be required for building pur- poses, and that whatever sum is ascertained to be due the University, ■will at once be put at interest. The state, in my opinion, should retain the principal and pay the interest for the benefit of the Institution in semi-annual instalments. The common school law of the last session has not fulfilled the antici- pations of its friends. The report of the secretary of state, herewith transmitted, will bring you acquainted with its operations. Its immediate repeal, and the substitution of an act more in accordance with the sug- gestions contained in my message at the opening of the session in 1846, is respectfully recommended. The educational wants of the state require the establishment of a normal school, where young gentlemen and ladies may be educated for the profession of teaching. The want of competent teachers is very sensibly felt, even by those who have the means to educate their chil- dren. An interesting paper on this subject, drawn up at my request by the Hon. J. S. B. Thatcher, is herewith transmitted. The subject has been so fully considered as to supersede the necessity of my pursuing it. The views of Judge Thatcher meet my cordial approbation, and are therefore recommended to your favorable consideration. The Rev. Mr. Champlin, a blind philanthropist, has been for some time eno-aged in the humane work of teachino- the blind. He has re- ceived the aid of many charitable persons, and intends making applica- tion to the legislature for further assistance. Many of the states of 7 % ALBERT G. BROWN. this Union have properly lent their assistance to this benevolent work, and no doubt is entertained that Mississippi will follow their example. Although opposed to the increase of salaries as a general rule, it has occurred to me that the true interest of the state would be promoted by increasing the salaries of the district attorneys to a sum equal to those of the circuit judges, and by prohibiting them from practising iii their oivn circuits in civil cases. In this way the state would procure the undivided attention of able laAvyers, and thus have the best possible guarantee that her interest in court would not suffer. The present low salaries do not justify attorneys in abandoning the civil docket; and nothing is risked in asserting that no lawyer of respectable standing would be confined to the criminal docket for the salary of a district attorney. Economy and a faithful administration of the criminal laws equally demand this change. Our judicial system costs an annual sum little short of thirty thousand dollars over and above all the salaries in that department. Much of this large amount is paid for costs in cases where the state has failed in the prosecution, through some official neg- lect or incompetency, and where the guilty have in consequence gone unpunished. The foregoing recommendation, if carried out, it is hoped will correct this great and growing evil. The success of the penitentiary for the last two years has not equalled the general expectation. In 1846, the balance sheet exhibited a loss of eight hundred and eighty-four dollars and fifty-three cents ; and this year the gain is shown by the same exhibit to be eighty-five dollars and fifteen cents. In justice, it should be admitted that the losses have been greater than the reports indicate. By an investigation of the accounts for 1846, it will be seen that six thousand five hundred and seventy- three dollars and seventy-three cents was drawn from the treasury in that year ; and this year, 1847, six thousand three hundred and thirty- nine dollars and forty-eight cents has been drawn for the use and sup- port of the institution ; and that the income is credited in 1846, by stock and tools on hand, nineteen thousand six hundred and fifty-nine dollars and seven cents, and in 1847, by twenty-six thousand six hundred and three dollars and sixty-three cents. All this material is valuable, and it may be worth the estimated sums. The tools are subject to waste, however, from constant use, and other articles will depreciate in value from being kept on hand. Until con- verted into money, their precise value cannot be ascertained. A rigid investigation into all the affairs of the prison is due to its ofiicers and to the public, and is earnestly recommended by me. The reports of the inspectors and other officers for the two last years, ending November 30th, 1847, are herewith transmitted, and will make you acquainted with the operations of the institution during that time. Your attention is especially directed to the report for 1847, and the recommendations therein contained : various difficulties have interposed to prevent a fair experiment in the business of manufacturing cotton and other goods, as was intended by a law of the last legislature. For full information in respect to the progress made in the business of manufacturing, respectful reference is made to the report for 1847. Hopes are confidently enter- tained that the experiment will in the end prove highly successful and satisfactory, and that the prison will thence cease to be a charge on the LAST ANNUAL MESSAGE. 99 treasury. It is worthy of remai'k, that tlic penitentiary mode of im- prisonment, expensive as it has seemed to be, is cheaper than any other, and recommends itself as the best means of punishing malefactors by its efficacy and its humanity. Benjamin G. Weir, Esq., resigned the supcrintendency of the prison in May last. The executive appointment was tendered to J. W. Wade, of Holmes county, who entered immediately on the duties of the office, and has continued to discharge them to my entire satisfaction. Attention is respectfully called to the manner of keeping books in tlic auditor's office. The plan is radically defective. The business is ren- dered complicated and difficult to understand. Accounts are so inter- mingled that a proper investigation of them is almost impossible. Charges are made under general heads, as the legislative, executive, judicial, &c., and no individual accounts are kept. It is respectfully suggested that a debit and credit account should be opened with every individual who has moneyed transactions vrith the office, on one side of which he may have credit for what is due him, and be charged on the other with the amount paid him : thus exhibiting at a single view, the state and condition of each man's account. It would be well to open an account with each county in the state, crediting each Avith all that is received from it, and charging each with all that is paid to it or its citizens. Salaries of the state officers might be charged p7'o rata to the several counties according to their population ; and those of district officers according to the number of days' service rendered to each. Such accounts would be easily kept, and would be useful as matters for future statistical reference. The habit of paying members of the legislature, judges, and other officers, and indeed of paying almost the entire sum that goes out of the treasury, without any special appropriation, seems to me to conflict with the 7 Sec, 7 Art. of our state constitution. The language of the state and federal constitutions on this point is precisely the same, that " no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of an appropriation made by law." Congress has deemed that specific appro- priations were necessary to pay the stated salaries of the judges, cabinet officers, and foreign ministers : the salary of the President, and even their own per diem allowance. Not a dollar goes out of the national treasury without first passing the ordeal of a Congressional appropria- tion. It will be admitted that this construction of the constitution is the safe one ; and as it will require but little trouble and no expense to con- form to it strictly, it ought to be done. We should in future require estimates from the auditor's office for the annual expenditures of the state. Appropriations should be made for every dollar that is to be paid out, and the issues should be kept strictly within the appropria- tions. By this means, the people would at least see a point beyond which their annual payment could not be made to go. The attention of the leorislature is acrain called to the immediate and pressing necessity for a lunatic asylum in this state. It is a reproach to any Christian people, that lunatics and insane persons should go at large, unprotected by the care of their fellows, constantly exposed to danger themselves, and putting in imminent peril the lives and property 100 ALBERT G. BROWN. of others. An appropriation of three thousand dollars, if judiciously expended, would remedy this long-neglected and crying evil. Our statute punishing retailers of spirituous and vinous liquors, is defective in this ; that it imposes an indiscriminate penalty of thirty days' imprisonment and five hundred dollars fine in every case of con- viction. There are degrees in the magnitude of this offence as in all _ other cases. The quo animo should be strictly regarded, and the man ■ ■who, by accident rather than by design, infringes the law, should be ■ punished in a less degree than one who flagrantly and perseveringly sets the law at defiance. The ends of justice will be subserved by leaving it discretionary with the court, before which a conviction is had, to punish offenders of this class, say from one day's imprisonment and twenty-five dollars fine to one month's imprisonment and five hundred dollars fine. The law is defective on the subject of punishing burglary. No penalty is affixed by our statute to this offence Avhen committed by a slave, and it is doubtful if punishment can be inflicted, or to what extent if at all. Manifestly it is an omission in the law, which should be supplied with- out delay. Your attention is again called to the necessity of making some suit- able provisions for protecting the public arms. Vast quantities of arms and accoutrements are annually lost and destroyed for the want of an armory, and some competent person to take charge of them. The loss, since our state existence, is little short of one hundred thousand dollars, and that sum is increasing annually by a sum larger than is required to keep the arms securely. By reference to the report of the adjutant-general, herewith trans- mitted, it will be seen that the militia of the state is in a good state of organization. Hon. Jesse Speight, senator in Congress from this state, died at his residence in Lowndes county, on the 1st day of May last, and, on the 10th day of August, Colonel Jefferson Davis received and accepted the executive appointment to fill ad interim the vacancy thus created. The duty of electing a successor devolves on the legislature. In obedience to a legislative requirement, efforts have been made by me to collect the sum of six thousand one hundred and twenty-five dol- lars, expended by this state in 1836, in calling out volunteers in com- pliance with the requisition of Major-General E. P. Gaines, U. S. A. The accounting officers at Washington have declined paying the claim, and assign the want of lawful authority as the reason. An appeal has been directed to Congress, but thus far without success. In conformity with the legislative direction, suit has been instituted on the bonds of the Newton and Lauderdale Turnpike Company — it is still pending in the Circuit Court of Clark county. One of the greatest obstacles in the way of a successful prosecution of the suit, is the loss of the original bonds, and the difficulty in procuring correct or authentic copies. By way of preventing similar difficulties in future, it should be made the duty of every officer, with whom official and other bonds are deposited, to record them in a well bound book to be kept for that pur- pose, and copies from this record should be received in evidence when the originals are lost. LAST ANNUAL MESSAGE. 101 A. Hutcliinson, Esq., has besto-wed great labor in the preparation of a compilation of our statutes. The work is highly approved by com- petent judges ; and as the wants of the state imperiously demand such a book, it is respectfully recommended to your attention. The cost of the publication cannot be borne by the compiler on his sole responsibility, and, if on full examination, the book is found worthy of patronage, the legislature ought to afford such assistance as will insure its speedy pro- duction. Howard and Hutchinson's Code is almost out of print. In the course of ten years many of the laws embodied in it have been modified, altered, or repealed. Some of the pamphlet laws will have very soon to be re- printed, as the originals are almost or quite exhausted. Hereafter a larger number should be published, unless the legislature should think proper to order a compilation of all the statutes. Many reasons might be assigned why a compilation is preferable to any other mode of supply- ing the laws, but most of them will be so apparent to members of tiie legislature as to render the mention of them unnecessary. In fixing the number of copies of any law, ordered to be published, proper allowance should be made hereafter for the increasing population of the state, and the consequent increase in the number of the officers, as Avell as for the more important fact that many of the books and pamphlets that are scattered over the state, in the hands of several thousand persons, are lost or destroyed by neglect, or worn out by constant use. When other ofiicers are elected, they must therefore be without the laAvs, unless the state can furnish them. Our Law and Chancery Reports number sixteen volumes. The de- cisions have been digested by W. C. Smedes, Esq., one of the present reporters to the Supreme Court, in a volume of about four hundred pages. In view of the difficulty of ascertaining and understanding the decisions of our courts by officers, who are not lawyers, the utility of such a book is manifest. It gives the decisions under proper heads, in such manner as to place the adjudications on all the various points in an accessible and convenient form before the reader; this work is well spoken of by the judges of the High Court of Errors and Appeals in a letter herewith transmitted, and is by me recommended to the favorable consideration of the legislature. The public buildings at Jackson have been greatly neglected for some years. Necessary repairs have not been made for want of means. The utmost that could be done with the limited amount at my disposal, has been to prevent absolute waste. There should be an annual appropria- tion placed at the disposal of the governor to keep the buildings in repair. The United States has purchased a lot of ground in the village of Biloxi, with the view to the erection of a light-house thereon, in pursu- ance of an appropriation by Congress for that purpose. A letter from James E. Saunders, collector of the port of Mobile, is herewith trans- mitted, asking the passage of an act ceding jurisdiction to the United States over said lot. Your early attention is invited to the subject. The amendment proposed by the last legislature to our state constitu- tion, in regard to banks, was voted on at the November election, 1847. The whole number of votes cast for members of the legislature was little 102 ALBERT G. BROWN. short of fifty thousand, of which only eighteen thousand five hundred voted for the proposed amendment, as shown hy the returns made to the secretary of state. If these returns are taken as conclusive, the amend- ment has not carried, and cannot, therefore, he inserted in the constitu- tion. But it is understood that many thousand votes were polled of which no return has been made. Such culpable neglect or official mal- versation should be rightly investigated, and suitable steps taken to prevent its recurrence. A proper inquiry may lead to the evidence that the amendment has passed. The report of Edward Pickett, M. D., vaccine agent for the state, is herewith transmitted, and Avill bring you acquainted with the manner in which he has discharged his duties, and the extent to which the agency has been made useful. Resolutions, official letters, and other documents, embracing a great variety of subjects, are hercAvith transmitted, to which your attention is respectfully invited. The President of the United States has made three several requisitions on the state for volunteers to assist in prosecuting the war with Mexico. The two first for a regiment of infantry or riflemen each, and the last for a battalion of riflemen. The first and second calls were responded to as promptly as the most ardent patriotism could have desired, but a combination of circumstances produced some delay in organizing the battalion. It has been despatched, however, to the seat of war, and is now on the way to Mexico. The first regiment volunteered for twelve months, and having served out the time, was returned, to the United States and discharged. It was the good fortune of this regiment to have participated in two of the most brilliant engagements of the war ; its gallant bearing needs no eulogium from me. The storming of Monterey and the field of Buena A^'ista, will tell how faithfully the first Mississippi rifles did their duty. The regiment numbered nearly one thousand when they entered the service — only three hundred and fifty-eight returned at the end of twelve months. The second regiment is with the army under General Taylor, and supplies the place of the first. The battalion has been ordered to join the column under General Scott. Both these volunteered during the war. The battalion has but just entered the service ; the regiment has served about twelvemonths; Avhen last heard from they were in fine spirits, and ready to render an account of themselves whenever called upon. They have been kept in camp, and have suff"ered greatly from disease, but are now in good health ; and should the war be unfortunately protracted, their ardent desire for active service will most likely be realized. The representatives of the people will doubtless express to the volun- teers the deep sense of gratitude with which their admiring countrymen have received intelligence of their toils, their suff'erings, and their triumphs. The accompanying correspondence will inform you, that, at my solicitation, the arms and accoutrements borne by the first regiment in Mexico were issued to this state as a part of her quota, and by an execu- tive order were allowed to remain in the hands of those who had so * LAST ANNUAL MESSAGE. 103 worthily used them in battle. The legislature may perform an accept- able service, by presenting to each discharged soldier of the first regi- ment his rifle and its accoutrements. It affords me great pleasure to make that recommendation. Some embarrassment has been experienced in providing the necessary supplies for the volunteers. The government agents are not always at hand, and when present do not furnish all that is required. Consider- able sums have been expended from time to time, and the accounts have been promptly settled at "Washington when sent on. United States officers, acting in a subordinate capacity, would not settle demands, unless contracted within the clearly-defined limits of their legal autho- rity. Hence, the state executive had first to pay them, and then look to "the Secretary of War, who acts with a more comprehensive discretion, for repayment. Ten thousand dollars should be placed at the disposal of the governor to meet these demands in future. It is foreign to the purposes of this communication, to consider the cause which produced the war, or the ends to be accomplished by it ; but it has given momentum and present consequence to another question, in which our state has a very direct, local, and individual interest. In view of the possible acquisition of territory, by way of indemnity, the House of Representatives of the United States declared, by a large vote, that " neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in any ter- ritory hereafter to be acquired by, or annexed to, the United States, except for crimes whereof the party shall have been first duly convicted." The sentiment has been taken up by many of the non-slaveholding states, and by distinguished men of both the great political parties. Virginia, in a series of resolutions, indited with perspicuity and the calmness of conscious rectitude, has assumed the true national position on this ques- tion. These resolutions, together with a copy of my reply thereto, made in the absence of the legislature, and addressed to the Governor of Virginia, are herewith transmitted. Territory acquired by the joint effort of the states, must be the pro- perty of all the states, and any attempt by the free states to exclude the slaveholding states from a full participation in the ownership and occupancy of it, would be as preposterous as if the latter were to assume, through the agency of Congress, to establish the institution of slavery throughout such acquired territory. The might of the free states does not carry with it the right to legislate against the slave states. Ours is not a consolidated government, ruled by the power of majorities not strictly controlled by the federal constitution, but it is a confederation of states, in which the rights of each state are reserved to itself, except in so far as for the general good, they have been delegated to the con- federation. The power to legislate in regard to slavery has not been delegated, and therefore does not belong to the federal government, but remains with the states respectively. The question in the territories, it seems to me, must be left, as in the states, to be settled by the people who inhabit them. A state, by its municipal regulations, may exclude slavery, but it is not pretended that Congress can do so. "Where does the federal power derive its authority to exclude it from the territory ? A man's slave is his property, so recognised by the Constitution, and so declared by the highest courts of the country ; and a citizen of Missis- 104 ALBERT G. BROWN. sippi may settle with his slave property in the territory of the United States, with as little constitutional hindrance as a citizen from any other state may settle with any other species of property. The same power that could exclude a Mississippian with his slaves could exclude a New Yorker with his merchandise. New states, asking admission into the Union, are to be introduced upon terms of equality with the original states. Congress must take care that they have a republican form of government, and that their constitutions do not conflict with that of the United States ; and here the power to direct and control them ceases. No other and extraordinary conditions are to be imposed upon them. Each state, for herself, as she enters the Union, must decide whether she will take her position with the free or slave states of the Union. If an anti-slavery majority in Congress may, by the mere force of that majority, exclude slavery from a territory, and thus prepare the way for making her, in the end, a free state, why may not a pro-slavery majority force slaves upon the territory, and thus make it a slave state ? And if the opponents of slavery may deny to a new state admission into the Union, until she excludes slavery from her limits, why may not the friends of slavery exclude such appli- cant until she admit and establish the institution of slavery ? The southern slaveholder has never undertaken to exclude the northern anti- slavery man from a full share in the ownership and enjoyment of all the territory in the United States. He has never undertaken to control the settlement of such territory, always admitting the right of each new state to regulate her own domestic institutions ; he has never sought to exclude such state because she prohibited slavery — yet, we are met with unceasing efforts to exclude slavery from the territories ; to deny the slave owner the right to go with his property into such territory, and to close the doors of the Union against the admission of slave states. Need it be asserted that such attempts are violative of the Constitution, and in derogation of the rights of the states, and of the people ? It is no reply to say, that the free states are the strong party, and that a majority must rule. The voice of a majority, unsustained by the Con- stitution, is utterly powerless. Majorities may pass enactments in vio- lation of the Constitution, but they can impose no corresponding obliga- tions on the minority to obey them. They may attempt to exact obedience by force — the attempt, so far as it succeeds, will be tyranny and oppression, and, if persisted in, will result in revolution. For, whenever the will of a majority supersedes the restrictions of the Con- stitution, and the rights of the states and individuals possess no other guarantee than such as are yielded to them by the strong party, our federal government will have ceased to be one of confederated states, and each member must assume its original, sovereign, and independent position. Whether we shall be forced to this extremity, depends upon the councils which shall govern at Washington. It becomes our state, menaced as she is with a serious and unauthorized restriction of her present rights, and an ultimate overthrow of her domestic institutions, to assume her position, and publicly to declare and make known the course she will feel constrained to pursue, sooner than submit to such tyranny and oppression. She should take her position with the calm dignity of determined resistance, and maintain it with all the pertinacity THE WAR WITH MEXICO. 105 of one who knows her rights, and knowing dares defend tliem. The hope is, therefore, earnestly expressed, that the legishiture will take our position into serious consideration, and, after mature reflection, place the state in such attitude before the Union and the world on this subject, as that her conduct, whatever it may be, shall have the unqualified approval of every man, at home and abroad, who loves the country and reveres the Constitution. No other subject of general interest presents itself to my mind as worthy of special notice. In transmitting to the two Houses of the legislature this my last general communication, and being about to close an official connection with the state which has existed for four years, the occasion is embraced to tender my grateful thanks to the people and their representatives for the generous manner in which they have treated the errors of my administration. If the condition of the state has been improved, and the general welfare promoted, the credit is due to the people and their officers, who have acted together for this desirable end. Guided by the wisdom which is from on high, all interests have harmonized in bringing about an improved state of our public affairs ; and it is gratifying to know that the same course hereafter, under the guidance of Divine Providence, will lead us to that high destiny which awaits our state in the no distant future. We should never cease to remember the dependence we owe to our Father which is in Heaven, and our prayers should continually ascend, that He may vouchsafe to us wisdom in our deliberations, and a pure patriotism in the performance of every act involving the welfare of our beloved country. A. G. Brown. Executive Chamber, January 3d, 1848. THE WAR WITH MEXICO. ' In the House of Representatives, February 10, 1848, in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, on the bill to authorize a loan not exceeding eighteen million five hundred thousand dollars — Mr. Brown, of Mississippi, said : — I AM aware, Mr. Chairman, that I am to speak under many disad- vantages. The committee have manifestly grown weary of this discus- sion ; and nothing less than such a speech as that with which we have been entertained by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Marsh] will now interest them. The speech was beautiful in its conception, and chaste in its delivery ; and though, to my mind, illogical in its deductions, and erroneous in its conclusions, it arrested the profound attention of the committee. If I had selected my own position, I should not have chosen to follow such a speech, it not being my purpose to reply to it. The difficulty in obtaining the floor has imposed on me the necessity of speaking when I am permitted, and not when I desired to do so. 106 ALBERT G. BROWN. The opinions of my constituents constitute a part of the grand aggre- gate of public sentiment in regard to the Mexican war ; and both they and their representative have a reasonable anxiety that these opinions may be included Avhen the general account current Avith public opinion comes to be made up on this subject. We believe the war to have been just and constitutional in its com- mencement ; that it has been vigorously prosecuted thus far, for wise and proper ends; and that it should be so prosecuted, until we have the amplest reparation for past wrongs, and the fullest security that our rights as a nation are to be respected in future. To this end, we are prepared to vote such number of troops, and such additional sums of money as, in the judgment of the commander-in-chief, may be necessary to attain these objects. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Marsh] has said that the annexa- tion of Texas was the cause of the war, and I agree with him. War, he says, was not the necessary result of annexation, and again I agree with him. It was no just cause of complaint with Mexico, that w^e annexed Texas to the United States. This, to my mind, is clear ; and yet, if we had not had annexation, we should have had no war. Mexico may have destroyed our property, murdered our people, insulted our flag, and violated her treaty stipulations, as she had done for many long years, and such is our love of peace, that we would have borne it all with patience, and waited for reparation on the tedious process of nego- tiation with a nation proverbial for being slow in making treaties, and swift to violate them after they are made. But when Mexico came upon our soil, in all the panoply of war, burning our houses, plundering and murdering our people before our face, threatening desolation to the country, and menacing our little army with a total overthrow, we began at last to think of war. The old leaven of 1776 began to work— the spirit of 1812, which had been dormant for more than thirty years, awoke from its slumbers ; still we only thought of war. Mexico threatened, but we looked for peace. Point Isabel had been set on fire, Cross was murdered, Thornton and his command were captured and borne off in triumph, and yet we had no wai\ A Mexican army threatened to attack General Taylor in his camp, and yet war lingered in the_ lap of peace. At length, a Mexican general, at the head of a Mexican army, boldly threw himself across the path of our forces, and hurling defiance in their teeth, disputed their march at the mouth of the cannon. Two bloody conflicts (in both of which, Mexico, true to her national instincts, fired the first gun, and made the first retreat) were the conse- quences. And after all this, we are told that we commenced the war. The President, it is said, commenced the war by ordering the army into Mexico, and by his subsequent " unnecessary and unconstitutional" orders to General Taylor to advance and take a position on the Rio Grande. Let us examine these orders, their dates, their contents, and the circumstances under which they were issued — not as partisans, intent on gaining advantage for the one or the other party, but as patriots, as the representatives of a free people, who love justice as much as they love their country. But before we do this, let us examine into the his- tory of that Texas, the annexation of which produced the war, to the end that we may fully appreciate the justice of the complaint urge! with THE WAR "WITH MEXICO. 107 SO much veliemence and ill blood by Mexico against it. Having ad- mitted tliat the annexation (however unjustly made so) ■\vas the cause of the Avar, I should fail in doing justice to the I*rcsidcnt, improperly charged as he is, by a vote of this House, with bringing the country into a state of war "unnecessarily and unconstitutionally," if I did not note the precise agency which he had in the transaction. As a private citizen he gave his opinion in favor of it, as did hundreds of thousands all over the Union. I shall not pause to inquire how far his views may have influenced his countrymen, or to what extent an expression of them influenced his fellow-citizens, in calling him from private life to preside over the destinies of this great nation. The conviction has taken deep root in the public mind, that the expression of opinions adverse to those of Mr. Polk defeated the nomination to the presidency of one distin- guished man before a convention of his party, and the election of another by the people. From all of which, I have concluded that Mr. Polk did not lead, but followed public sentiment on this subject. The sin of the President is not (if I am right in this) that he led, but that he followed, his countrymen into a false position, if false it was. The responsibility rests, therefore, where I hope responsibility in this country may always rest on all questions of vital interest, with the people — the people who demanded annexation — the people who never did and never will shirk the responsibility of their own act — the people who will, if 'permitted, fight out this war to a speedy and honorable issue — the people who will supply all the means, both in men and money, and in the end, in defiance of opposition here or elsewhere, demand and obtain just and honorable terms of Mexico. They will settle their accounts in their own way, not only with Mexico, but with their representatives here, meting out justice to whom it is due. Annexation, I have said, was no just cause of war. In this I but concur in opinion with the eloquent gentleman who preceded me. I am glad, too, to find myself sustained in this by another of New England's sons — a man to whom I know many thousands of his countrymen look for counsel, and on whose accents they hang as upon the words of inspi- ration — a man who not only speaks but thinks for a large number of people, who do their thinking, as princes sometimes do their wooing, by proxy. ]Mr. Webster is reported to have said, in a late speech on this subject: "And I go further; I say that, in my judgment, after the events of 1836 and the battle of San Jacinto, Mexico had no reason to regard Texas as one .of her provinces. She had no power in Texas ; but it was entirely at the disposition of those who lived in it. They made a government for themselves. This country acknowledged that government, foreign states acknowledged that government ; and I think, in fairness and honesty, we must admit, that in 1840, '41, '42, and '43, Texas was an independent state among the states of the earth. I do not admit, therefore, that it was any just ground of complaint on the part of Mexico that the United States annexed Texas to themselves." Let us now, Mr. Chairman, look to the record, and see how far it justifies these conclusions. What was Texas at the period of annexa- tion ? A sovereign and independent republic. History so records her. The nations of the earth had so acknowledged her. She won her inde- pendence, as we won ours, on the battle-field. She maintained it, as we 108 ALBERT G. BROWN. maintained ours, by the energy, the valor, the indomitable courage of her people. We acknowledged her independence, as other nations had acknowledged ours — as we and others had acknowledged the indepen- dence of Mexico herself. We did not consult Spain when we acknow- ledged the independence of Mexico ; nor did we think it necessary to consult Mexico when Texas asked to be recognised as independent of her lawless tyranny. Texas, thus independent, asked admission into our Union. She pre- sented the sublime spectacle of an independent republic, asking to blot out her separate nationality, and to merge her political existence into that of a sister republic ; that the flag of this Union, with the addition of another star, might be permitted to float over the people and the territory of two nations united into one. The politicians raised their voices against it, but the people said it should be done, and it was done — Vox populi. What Texas was it that was thus annexed to the United States ? It was that country which we had acquired from France in 1803 — which we ceded to Spain in 1819 — which never did belong of right to Mexico — which Houston and his brave compatriots wrested from tyranny and misrule on the plains of San Jacinto, and over which they extended, and continued for eight years to maintain, both civil and military jurisdic- tion. It was the country lying between the Sabine and the Rio Grande ; and we have the concurrent testimony of living witnesses, who have come down to us from another generation, that history is right. Mr. Clay and John Quincy Adams are these witnesses. It is now said, that Mexico, in fixing the boundary between the depart- ments of Texas and Tamaulipas blotted out the old landmarks as recog- nised in the treaties of 1803 and 1819, and appointed the Nueces as the dividing line. This may be so, or it may not. I have tolerable evidence that it is not. I neither admit nor deny the truth of the assertion; therefore content myself with saying, that without stronger evidence than I have yet seen, I must adhere to a conviction long entertained, that the Nueces never was the boundary between Texas and Tamaulipas by any law of Mexico, properly so considered. But this is wholly immaterial. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Stephens] took the correct view of this subject, and I am happy to have his concurrence on one point, and to commend his views to his party. Texas, says the gentleman, extended as far west as the people of that country established and maintained their authority, and this I shall demonstrate was to the Rio Grande. The first Texan Congress that assembled after the battle of San Jacinto defined the western boundary by the Rio Grande. When we and other nations acknowledged her independence, this was her boundary, as defined by herself; we acknowledged her jurisdiction over the whole country without restriction or limitation. Texas laid off" counties in the country between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, and these counties were represented when, as a state, she asked admission into the Union. She declares all her laws, not inconsistent with the annexation resolutions nor with the Constitution of the United States, to be still in force. Now, was there anything either in our Constitution or in the resolutions of annexation not perfectly consistent with this law defining the western boundary of Texas by the Rio Grande ? Nothing, THE WAR WITH MEXICO. 109 sir. The question of boundary, by the resolutions, was to be finally settled, so far as the United States and Mexico were concerned, by negotiation; and until our government, by virtue of the power thus reserved over the question, concluded this negotiation, the laws of Texas, by the terms of the compact, remained in force. But further than this, Texas, by her constitution as a state of this Union, defines the counties of Bexar and San Patricio, as in senatorial districts. These counties lie, in whole or in part, between the Rio Grande and the Nueces. The United States admitted her as a member of the confederacy, knowing that she had fixed her western boundary at the Rio Grande, and approved her constitution defining the senatorial districts I have just mentioned. Not a court for the transaction of business was held in that country, save under Texan laws. Texas, then, established and maintained her civil jurisdiction over the country. In a military point of view, how did she stand ? Whenever Mexico, by her predatory invaders, crossed the Rio Grande, she commenced killing and destroying, showing that she was among enemies. Surely she would not thus prey upon her own people ; and Texas, when she drove out the invaders, always pursued them to the Rio Grande ; and she drove them out as often as they came in. Thus, I think, her military authority over the country is made complete. When the United States admitted Texas into the Union, it was with a full knowledge that she had defined her w^cstern boundary by the Rio Grande; that she had. maintained that boundary by her civil ami mili- tary authority. We accepted her constitution, establishing, as it did, a senatorial district west of the Nueces, and extending to the Rio Grande. AVe did more than this, in declaring Corpus Christi a port for the collec- tion of duties. We established a post-office there, and another at Point Isabel ; we established post routes in the country. Thus, in every form in which the question may be viewed, whether in regard to the legisla- tion of Texas, or of our own Congress, the country between the Nueces and the Rio Grande has been recognised as within the limits of Texas. Congress, in times of peace, has never assumed the right to collect duties, and to establish post-offices and post-roads in Mexico ; and by this very act of legislation, we have proclaimed to the President and to the world, that the jurisdiction of the United States has been extended to all the country between these two rivers. Under these circumstances, what was the President's manifest duty ? To abandon a country, thus recognised as within the rightful limits of a member of the Union, and therefore under the aegis of national protection ? — to give it up to Mexi- can rapacity, suffer our custom-house to be burnt, our post-offices de- stroyed, our mail-carriers killed or taken prisoners? — the houses of our citizens destroyed, and themselves and families butchered or driven from the country ? Had he done this, his present revilers would, with justice, have heaped mountains of abuse on him. The whole country would have risen up against him, and he would indeed have been buried so deep beneath the curses of his countrymen, " that the arm of resur- rection never would have reached him I" What, again let me ask, was the President's manifest duty ? To settle the question of boundary by negotiation, as the annexation resolutions had provided ; and, until this was done, to hold peaceable possession of r no ALBERT G. BROWN. all the terutory within the rightful limits of Texas, and, if needs be, to repel any hobtiU invasion of it from Mexico or elsewhere. For a more perfect understanding of the President's course, let us consider the temper in which Mexico received an intimation that Texas was about to be annexed. As early as 1843 (when Mr. Webster thinks Mexico had no just claim on Texas), her Minister of Foreign Aflairs thus writes to Mr. Thompson, our minister resident in Mexico : — " The Mexican government will consider equivalent to a declaration of war against tlio Mexican republic the passage of an act for the incorporation of Texas with the United States ; the certainty of the fact being sufficient for the proclamation of war, leaving it to the civilized world to determine with regard to the justice of the cause of the Mexican nation in a struggle which it has been so far from provoking." Mexico continued to threaten, and our people became more resolute on the question of annexation — very properly determining to do what they had a right to do in defiance of Mexican threats or Mexican arms. When the voice of the people had triumphed over the voice of the politi- cians, and when, in obedience to the popular mandate, the annexation resolutions passed both Houses of Congress, what course did Mexico pursue ? Her minister resident here, addressed, to Mr. Calhoun, then Secretary of State of the United States, a formal protest against this consummation of the will of our people. From this protest I submit an extract. After assigning what he is pleased to term reasons against the annexation, General Almont(3 proceeds : — " For these reasons, the undersigned, in compliance with his instructions, finds himself required to protest — as ho does in fact protest — in the most solemn manner, in the name of his government, against the law passed on the 28th of the last month by the general Congress of the United States, and approved on the first of the present month by the President of these states, whereby the province of Texas, an integrant portion of the Mexican territory, is agreed and admitted [se consiente y admite] into the American Union. The undersigned, moreover, protests, in the name of his government, that the said law can in nowise invalidate the rights on which Mexico relies to recover the above-mentioned province of Texas, of which she now sees her- self unjustly despoiled ; and that she will maintain and uphold those rights at all times, by every means which may be in her power.'' Now, sir, what have we here ? The Mexican protest against the annexation of Texas — " The province of Texas, an integral portion of the Mexican territory." The bold Mexican scorns to speak of a divided province or territories in dispute. He had heard of the " fifty-four- forties," and he became in spirit one of them. He went for the whole or none. And what was the threat distinctly put forth in the minister's protest? That Mexico will uphold her right to Texas at all times, and by every means which may be in her poicer. What means are here alluded to ? She had threatened war if Texas was annexed. The peo- ple of the United States spurned the threat ; and after the annexation is consummated, Mexico says she will use all the means in her po2ver " to recover the province of which she sees herself unjustly despoiled.'' These means were armies, equipped for action — they could be nothing else. After this petulant exhibition of the Mexican minister, he received his passports at his own request, and left the country ; and what followed ? Every gale that swept from the south bore upon its wings some note of preparation in Mexico to invade Texas. Her embattled hosts were con- THE WAR WITH MEXICO. • 111 gregating from her hills and her valleys. At every step she uttered war, ami not a breath escaped her that did not carry with it the taint of her deep and damning hate of our country and our laws. Look at all this, and answer me, if the President would not have been grossly derelict in his duty if he had not been warned ? Would he not have betrayed the confidence of a generous people if he had not prepared to meet this approaching crisis ? Nor was the President left to his own conjectures and the warnings which Mexico had given from time to time of her hostile intentions. The Texan Secretary of State appealed to the United States, through her minister (Mr. Donelson), for protection to his country against Mexican vengeance, — a modest appeal, sent up by a young sister not yet in the full bloom of womanhood, to be pro- tected against the infernal lusts of an infuriated monster. How should such an appeal have been answered ? How was it answered ? By send- ing our eagles to hover around and protect the young state. And who shall say it was wrong ? Where are the men that dare stand up before the American people, and tell them, that after Texas was annexed by their order, the President ought to have given her over to the merciless spoliations of Mexico ? There they sit, sir, on the opposite side of this hall ; the men who, in full view of all the facts, have soiled the jour- nals of this House with a charge that the President involved us in an "unnecessary and unconstitutional war" — a war commenced, as Mexico herself declared, " to recover the province of Texas, of which she saw herself unjustly despoiled." Gentlemen, when closely pressed, admit that the army might right- fully have been sent to Corpus Christi. How dare they deny it? Con- gress had declared it an American port for the collection of duties, and had otherwise legislated in regard to it. And where, sir, is Corpus Christi ? West of the Nueces, by a parallel line, several miles, and in that very territory which gentlemen now claim as disputed territory. American senators and representatives have set up for Mexico a bound- ary which she never did, until prompted to it by them, set up for herself. They claim the Nueces as her boundary, and we for our own country claim the Rio Grande. Now, you admit that our armies might rightfully cross the boundary claimed by you for Mexico, and yet you say that they could not, "lawfully and constitutionalh^," penetrate as far west as our boundary. Will some gentleman oblige me by pointing out an intermediate stopping point — some place at which our army might halt without a violation of the rights of Mexico or our own " Constitution." Until this is done, I must indulge the opinion, that by the same right that they crossed the line claimed for Mexico, they could advance to the boundary claimed for the United States. There was no intermediate stopping point. Gentlemen claim that the territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande was neutral territory. How came it to be so ? You tell me it was territory in dispute. Who made it so ? Mexico certainly never did. She claimed, I repeat, all of Texas, and scorned to speak of anything short of a recovery of the whole province. But admitting (which can only be done for the sake of argument) that the territory was in dispute — had we not as much right to .be on it as Mexico ? And if we went there and occupied it first, might Mexico come with force of arms and drive 112 ALBERT G. BROWN. US away ? Docs not common sense revolt at the idea, of the right of one party to drive another by force, from the occupancy of an estate to which each have an equal claim ? But gentlemen tell us the question of boundary ought to have been settled by negotiation ; and I agree with them perfectly. It ought to have been so adjusted. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Marsh] says the President never intended or desired to settle the dispute with- out a war. He longed for a little more patronage, a few more offices, with which to sate the cormorant appetites of his hungry expectants. A most unworthy charge, as ridiculous in its conception as it is untrue in fact. That the President did desire to settle this and all other mat- ters of difference with Mexico, " let facts be submitted to a candid world." After all the demonstrations which Mexico had made from time to time, the President contented himself with sending a small army to the fron- tiers of Texas, and took the earliest opportunity of assuring Mexico that the army was sent with no hostile intentions ; and these assurances were from time to time repeated in the most positive and emphatic form. When sufficient time had elapsed for passion to subside and reason to resume her dominion in Mexico, the President, advancing with the most cautious steps, directed a communication to be written to our consul in Mexico (the minister having been sent home), instructing him to ascer- tain if Mexico would receive " an envoy intrusted with full powers to adjust ALL QUESTIONS in dispute between the two countries." This despatch of Mr. Buchanan bears date September 17th, 1845 ; and on the 17th of October following (only one month), Mr, Consul Black en- closes the answer of Mr. Peua y Pena, Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs, stating that Mexico would receive " the commissioner who may com.e with full power to settle the matter in dispute," &c. Now gentle- men rise in their places and tell us that the President intentionally picked a quarrel with Mexico ; that Mexico agreed to receive a com- missioner, and the President sent them an envoy. For once, I give them the credit o^ folloiving the enemies of their country. Mexico her- self^rs^ made this point. The published documents (Doc. 196, H. R., 29th Cong. 1st sess., Executive) show that the United States offered to send "an envoy," and Mexico agreed to receive "the commissioner ;" not a commissioner, but the commissioner ; meaning evidently to imply, that the envoy, the minister, the commissioner, the diplomatic agent of the United States, " charged with a settlement of all questions in dis- pute between the two countries," would be received in whatever name or style he presented his credentials. And so Mr. Buchanan understood it; so the President understood it; so Mr. Consul Black und'erstood it; for, on the 28th of October, we find him writing to the Secretary of State that " the Mexican government is very anxious to know when they may expect the envoy." What plausible pretext is there that Mexico expected a commissioner ? She expected and had agreed to receive the diplomatic agent which our government had proposed to send. This is manifest from the whole correspondence. Paredes threatened to over- throw the weak or treacherous government of Herrera ; and, by way of sustaining his tottering fortunes, his secretary was doubtless directed to make the best possible showing against the reception of Mr. Slidcll, who, it is known, had proceeded to Mexico with extraordinary despatch, THE WAR WITH MEXICO. 113 and presented his credentials as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister rienipotentiary, on the 8th day of December ; and on the 17th of the same month, he reports his rejection to the state department at home. I need not recapitulate the reasons assigned for this extraordinary con- duct on the part of IMexico : they were as puerile as they were absurd and contradictory. It was here stated, for the first time, that Mexico had agreed to receive a commissioner, and that the appointment of an envoy was not in accordance with the agreement ; that Mexico only con- templated negotiations on the subject of Texas, and that the powers of Mr. Slidell, as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, were not sufficient. Did stupidity ever sink to lower depths, or barefaced im- pudence assume a bolder front ? A commissioner is desired, to treat on a single subject, and an envoy extraordinary, " with power to treat on all questions," rejected because his powers are not sufficient! This is the manner in which the President's sincere overtures were treated — the credentials of his envoy, addressed to his '■'■great and good friend,'" and conveying marked assurances of his " desire to restore, cultivate, and strengthen friendship and good correspondence," scornfully thVust aside, antl the envoy rejected. Mr. Slidell remained in the country, still seeking that " friendship and good correspondence" which was the object of his mission, until the revolution in favor of Paredes was com- plete ; and on the 1st of March, 1846, he presented his credentials to the revolutionary president of revolutionary Mexico; and on the 12th of the same month, our minister was again rejected by Paredes' govern- ment, and he informed that Mexico had from the first regarded annexa- tion as a cause of war (casus belli). Thus fruitlessly terminated this sincere attempt at negotiations — sincere on our part, as every circum- stance attests ; hypocritical on the part of Mexico, as her official de- spatches fully prove. I beg to remark again, that up to this date (January 12th, 1846), Mexico regarded annexation as a cause of war. We hear nothing from her about the neutral territory, or the disputed territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. Now, Mr. Chairman, let us return, and examine events as they trans- pired nearer home. On the 28th of May, 1845, General Taylor was ordered with his forces to " a position where they could promptly and efficiently act in defence of Texas." On the 15th June, Mr. Bancroft, Secretary of War ad interim, ordered him to a position on or near the Rio Grande. This order was modified in several successive orders from Secretary Marcy. And on the 15th of August, 1845, the general dates his official despatch. Corpus Christi, Texas. Here he remained until the 11th of March, 1846. Much stress has been laid on Mr. Bancroft's order of the 25th May, 1845. Now, I have simply to ask, if that order had not been recalled, how did it happen that General Taylor did not "take up a position on the Rio Grande?" Why do we find him at Corpus Christi from August 15th, 1845, to March 12th, 1846 ? There can be but one answer : The order to advance had been revoked. It was done on the 30th of June, one month and two days after it was issued, and before General Taylor had yet reached Texas. On the 4th of October, 1845, the general writes to the War Office from Corpus Christi, Texas ; and from this important despatch I read — 114 ALBERT G. BROWN. "It is with great deference that I make any suggestions on subjects -which may become matters of delicate negotiation ; but if our government, in settling the question of boundary, makes the line of the Rio Grande an ultimatum, I cannot doubt that the settlement will be greatly facilitated and hastened by our taking possession at once of one or two suitable points on or quite near that river. Our strength and state of preparation should be displayed in a manner not to be mistaken. However salutary may be the effect produced on the border people by our presence here, we are too far from the frontier to impress the government of Mexico with our readiness to vindicate, by force of arms, if necessary, our title to the country as far as the Eio Grande." I have introduced this extract for more purposes than one. The first of these is, to show that General Taylor knew that Mr. Bancroft's order to march to the Rio Grande had been revoked; for he here suggests that he be allowed to take one or two positions on the Rio Grande. Then I wish to exhibit the cogent reasoning in favor of such a position. First, that it would " facilitate and hasten a settlement of the boundary ;" then it would " display, in an imposing manner, our strength and state of preparation to the enemy." And, lastly, that it would "impress the Mexican government with a due sense of our readiness to vindicate, by force of arms, if necessary, our title to the country to the Rio Grande." These were the cogent, and, to my mind, conclusive reasons of the honest- hearted, patriotic, and brave old general for advising his Government to allow him " to take one or two positions, at once, on or near the Rio Grande." His position at Corpus Christi was, he said, ^^ too far from the frontier.'' The gentlemen in the opposition now pretend that Corpus Christi is beyond the Texas line ; but the general thought it was too far from the frontier, and asked permission to make a display of his strength and state of preparation on or near the Rio Grande. With what justice do gentlemen pretend that General Taylor was weak and without arms, unprepared for battle, when he declares his wish to exhibit, " in a man- ner not to be mistaken, his strength and state of preparation?" — with what propriety charge that the order to march to the Rio Grande preci- pitated us into an "unnecessary and unconstitutional war," when the| general in command advised it as a means of " greatly facilitating and hastening a settlement of the controversy?" But, say gentlemen, the opinions of General Taylor were hypothetical. "If our Government intend to make the Rio Grande an ultimatum in settling the boundary" then he gave his opinions. And even these hypothetical opinions were subsequently modified, we are told. I grant the opinions were based on the hypothesis that we intended to insist on the Rio Grande ; and, I ask, if there is a single member of this House who ever dreamed that our Government would insist on less than the Rio Grande ? I venture to say there is not one. The hypothesis, then, amounts to nothing. How far was this discreet, sensible, and patriotic advice of the old chief subsequently modified ? No injustice shall be done to General Taylor with my consent, for mere party purposes. He uses his pen as he does his sword, for his country, and not for a party. Under date November 7tli, 1845, Corpus Christi, Texas, he writes to the War Department : — " The position now occupied by the troops may perhaps be the best while negotia- tions ARE pending, or at any rate, until a disposition shall be manifested by Mexico to protract them unreasonably." THE WAR WITH MEXICO. 115 Here again he imparts sound and sensible advice to liis country ; and the Administration, with that deference to the superior military judg- ment of the general, which it has always exhibited, acted on this advice. For we see that, advised as he was by General Taylor on the 4th of October, at once to take one or two positions on or near the Rio Grande, the order to advance was not issued by the President until the 13th of January, 1846; and why? Because negotiations were pending; and the President thought, with General Taylor, that the position of the army at Corpus Christi was the best that could be occupied '■^pending negotiations." What had happened on the 13th of January ? Mr. Slidell was not on that day wending his way (as a great man has erroneously stated) to Mexico with his diplomatic credentials in his pocket. lie had reached Mexico (I speak from the record), presented his credentials on the 8th of December, 1845, and on the 17th of the same month reported his rejection to his Government. This despatch was received at the state department on the 12th of January ; diplomacy had failed, nego- tiations were no longer pending, and General Taylor's advice given on the 4th of October, and modified on the 7th of November, 1845, was now in all its bearings fully carried out. The order to advance, and "at ONCE take one or two positions on or near the Rio Grande," was issued on the 13th of January, 1846. If any are disposed to censure the President for permitting the important despatch of October 4th to remain unanswered until the loth of January, let them bear in mind that negotiations were pending, and that the character of this Govern- ment's response, must of necessity have depended on the result of these negotiations. Now, let us follow General Taylor in his march. He is approaching the frontiers of Texas, lie moved the last column of his army from Corpus Christi on the 11th of March, and on the 12th, Mr. Slidell was, a last time, rejected by the Paredes government in Mexico. On the 4th of February, the general writes to his government, that " our advance to the Rio Grande will have a powerful effect." His march was unmo- lested until ho reached the Arroyo Colorada. Here the "irregular Mexican cavalry," (rancheros), or, in plain English, mountain robbers, opposed his crossing the river. The old general announced his deter- mination to advance, and pointed significantly at his big guns ; where- upon the " irregular Mexican cavalry" retired. The next we hear of him he is at Point Isabel, and here waited on by a Mexican deputation, sent by the prefect of Matamoros, on a mission of peace ; and during the interview, Point Isabel was set on fire. This, says General Taylor, " I considered a decided evidence of hostility, and w^as not willing to be trifled with any longer." Our army advanced to a point opposite Mata- moros, from which General Taylor wrote, on the 29th of March, that the Mexicans were decidedly hostile ; and urged, for the first time, a reinforcement of his command. I beg to remark on this despatch, that it was addressed to the Adjutant General at Washington, and called on him for recruits, when the ofiicial documents show that the general had authority, from the 23d of August, 1845, to make requisitions on the governors of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky, '• for such number and description of troops as he might deem necessary." And I risk nothing in saying, that these states were 116 ALBERT G. BROWN. ready at all times to have responded to such a requisition. Nor can I forbear, in justice to all parties, to mention, that General Taylor wrote to the same officer, on the 16th of February, 1846, ridiculing the idea of a large Mexican force attempting to arrest his march, or to invade Texas ; and says all these accounts are exaggerated : " I do not believe that our advance to the banks of the Rio Grande will be resisted. The army, however, will go fully prepared for a state of hostilities, should they be unfortunately provoked by the Mexicans." In justice, too, I must call attention to the letter of Secretary Marcy, dated March 2, directing him to give assurances to Mexico that " it is our settled deter- mination, in every possible event, to protect private property, to respect personal rights, and to abstain from all interference in religious mat- ters." This General Taylor did. He was, by the same despatch, re- minded, " that in case of hostilities, his advance to the Rio Grande would remove him to a greater distance from the region frOm which auxiliary forces could be drawn;" and told "promptly and efficiently to use the authority with which he was clothed — to call to his aid such auxiliary forces as he might need." Now, I ask, in the name of justice and common honesty, what propriety is there in charging the Adminis- tration with sending General Taylor to the Rio Grande without sufficient force? He says, "the army will go fully -prepared for a state of hos- tilities;" but, "I do not think our march to the Rio Grande will be opposed." The Government tells him to " draw any number of auxiliary troops of the description you may need from the South-western J States ; and as you are removing to a greater distance from your auxil- ■ iaries, be on your guard — prepared to sustain yourself against any " assault." I have but one other reference to make to these despatches, and that to the letter of General Taylor, in which he notes for the first time the state of preparation on both sides. Says the General, " The Mexicans still retain a hostile attitude, and have thrown up some works evidently intended to prevent us from crossing the river. On our side a battery of four eighteen-pounders will be completed, and the guns placed in battery to-day. These guns bear directly upon the public square in Matamoros. Their object cannot be mistaken by the enemy." It has been falsely charged that these guns were planted by order of j the Government. So far from it. General Taylor was directed to main- \ tain the defensive, to respect private property, to protect personal rights, and to abstain from all interference with religion. He writes to his Government exultingly, " we have planted our battery, it bears directly upon the public square in Matamoros, a7id within good range for demolishing the toivn. The object cannot he mistaken by the enemy.'" I do not blame General Taylor for this. He did right. No American general would have done otherwise. General Taylor is entitled to all the credit for planting that battery. I know he does not thank any man for pretending to shield him from the odium of the act. Now, Mr. Chairman, where was this despatch dated ? Opposite Matamoros, in Mexico ? No, sir. In Tamaulipas ? No, sir ; but op- posite Matamoros, Texas. General Taylor set out /or the frontiers of Texas, and he did not go beyond. He was no Israelitish general lead- ing an army through an unknown wilderness. He knew the country in THE WAR WITH MEXICO. 117 which he pitched his tent, and he called it Texas. He so continued to call it in his subsequent despatches. What, sir, were some of the most thrilling events connected with the earliest history of this war? Point Isabel set on fire, and the brave old General, as he witnesses the conflagration, declares, I will he trifled with no longer. He plants his guns bearing on Matamoros, and " with- I in good range to demolish the town," and exultingly says, " their object * cannot be mistaken." The heroic Cross is murdered in cold blood, and Thornton and his command taken prisoners. The afiairs at Palo Alto and Resaca occur ; and what, sir, was the effect produced on the public mind at home by the announcement of these events ? By one common impulse, the whole nation rose in arms ; a feeling as wide-spread and universal as it was patriotic and just, took possession of every mind ; the electric spark that lit the fires of genuine patriotism on the hearts of the people to the remotest nooks and dells of the far west, and all around to the shores of the sea, touched the pohtical, calculating heart of Congress, and by a vote more prompt and more unanimous than was ever before known, war was solemnly declared " to exist by the act of Mexico." Within the last few days, this House has declared, by a strict party vote, that " the war exists by the unnecessary and unconstitu- tional act of the President." Against this foul charge I have com- bated, with what success, I leave the committee to decide. But what " has brought this change o'er the spirit of your dreams ?" Ah ! fatal act ; fatal to the best interest of these states, fatal to truth and justice, the bastard ofispring of a disappointed patriot. But I will not indulo-e my thoughts on this subject. The gentleman from IMassachusetts [Mr. Ashmun], who introduced this resolution, took his party by surprise, and placed them in a position from which there is no retreat. You have crossed the Rubicon ; your votes are on record, and they will rise up like spectres against you in all after time. We accept the issue you have presented, and go into the next presidential contest on it ; for, dis- guise it as you may, the presidency is the grand centre around which all this machinery revolves. The bank had gone down, free trade had become popular, the independent treasury was firmly planted ; in short, Whiggery had been sent to graze, like Nebuchadnezzar, and Democracy had been taken into the bosom of the people, and your friend and ally [Mr. Ashmun], struck upon this grand conception ; it was the battery with which the defunct bodies of banks, tarifts, distribution, et id omne genus, were to be galvanized into a renewed existence. Verily, whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. Go on; take sides against your country ; sympathize with Mexico ; refuse, if you dare, to vote supplies to carry on this war ; strengthen the issue you have already presented ; make the breach wider and wider between us, and when the people decide the contest, they will exalt the men who stand by the stars and stripes, and consign to a merited ignominy every man who dares outrage their sense of patriotism by " giving aid and comfort to the enemy." How is it proposed to raise money to carry on this war ? The Presi- dent and Secretary of the Treasury propose a loan, an issue of treasury notes, and a duty on tea and coff"ee. The gentlemen from Pennsyl- vania [Mr. Wilmot] and Indiana [Mr. Smith], and other gentlemen, take fire at this proposition to tax tea and coffee, and jjour out their 118 ALBERT G. BROWN. piteous lamentations over the distresses of the poor man. When, sir, did these gentlemen first learn to sympathize with the poor man ? Was it at a time when they were taxing cotton, cloth, leather, iron, coal, and salt ? Was it, sir, when they were levying protective duties on these articles, all of which enter into the poor man's consumption? The gen- tleman from Vermont [Mr. Marsh] pours out the fulness of his sympa- thetic heart over the poor man's tax on tea an(f coffee, and then he be- wails the downfall of pj-otection. You, sir, sympathize with the poor man's tax ! you, who would tax all the necessaries of life to give pro- tection to some overgrown manufacturer ! Strange and incomprehensi- ble logic, that we must tax the poor man's hat, his shoes, his shirt, his plough, his axe — everything, in short, which he consumes, not for the benefit of the manufacturer ! but your sympathetic hearts will not allow you to tax his tea and coffee to support your Government in time of war. You would send him shoeless, hatless, and shirtless, to cultivate His ground without implements, unless he pays tribute to the manufacturers ; only give him tea that is not taxed, and you are satisfied. You would lay his diseased body on a pallet that is taxed ; give him taxed medicine from a spoon that is taxed ; you give him un- taxed tea in a cup that is taxed ; he dies, and you tax his winding sheet, and consign him to a grave that is dug with a spade that is taxed, and then insult his memory by saying that you gave him untaxed tea. Why, sir, if I thus outraged the poor man's common sense during life, insulted him in his last moments, and whined a hypocritical sympa- thy over his tomb when dead, I should expect his ghost to rise up in judgment against me. Other gentlemen may do as they please — for me and my people, we go for our country. We write on our banner, " millions for defence, but not one cent for tribute." Tax our property, tax our supplies, ay, tax our tea and coflee, tax us millions on millions, for the defence of our country's flag and our country's honor, and we will pay it ; but if you ask us to pay one cent of tribute to your lordly manufacturers, we rise up in rebellion against you. Take our property for the defence of our national honor, but do not plunder us to make a rich man more rich. Gentlemen affect great alarm at the thouffht of direct taxation. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Stephens] seemed peculiarly nervous on this subject. He lashed himself into a passion, as other gentlemen have done, declared emphatically that he never would levy direct taxes on his constituents to carry on this " unnecessary and unconstitutional war." I beg gentlemen to quiet their nerves ; nobody has asked them to vote for direct taxes ; and whenever the President, or Secretary of the Treasury, or the Committee on Ways and Means, ask for such a tax, as necessary and proper, it will be time enough to discuss it. I shall omit much of what I intended to say, reserving for another occasion my views on the question of indemnity and future security, and upon the disposition which Congress may make of newly-acquired terri- tory. These and their kindred subjects will, I hope, more properly en- gage our attention at a later period of the session. The Government: needs money, and v/e delay it in needless discussion. I will vote for a loan, I will vote for treasury notes, and for a tax on tea and coffee ; I will vote for men, regulars and volunteers ; in short, sir, I will vote for anything and everything that may be needed to prose- BOUNTY LAND BILL. 119 cute this war to such a conclusion as the Government can accept with- out dishonor. My constituents will sustain mc in this. They are pa- triots : they go for their own country, and against Mexico ; and they expect of their representative fealty to their views. Their motto has ever been, " Our country — may she be always right ; but right or wrong, our country." BOUNTY LAND BILL. In the House of Representatives, May 8, 1848.— The Bounty Land Bill being under consideration in Committee of the AVholo, Mr. Brown said: It has not been my custom to enter very fully into the debates which occur in the House from day to day; but on questions like the one now under^ consideration, it may be permitted me to express my views, and to assign briefly the reasons why, in my judgment, the main features of the bill ought to receive the favorable consideration of Congress. If any class of the public's numerous servants are more entitled than another to the special regard of the lavr-making and bounty-dispensing power of Government, it is the soldiers — the men who encounter the toils, the dangers, the hardships and privations of the camp — the men who guard the nation's honor at the peril of their lives, and sacrifice, at the shrine of patriotism, the comforts and security of domestic quiet. It is not my purpose to tax the republic with ingratitude, or to com- plain that the soldier's compensation is wholly inadequate to the service performed. Albeit the seven dollars a month which the Government doles out to him bears no sort of proportion to the magnitude of his labor. Not only do you require unceasing toil, but you demand the free exposure of his person to the elements, and the still freer surrender of his life on the field of battle. Nay, you exact a more than slavish obedience to the iron will of a military master, whom your laws have appointed to command him. You and I think we render a tolerable equivalent for our eight dollars per day, when we meet in this hall, on our own adjournment, sit here some three or four hours, and then close the business of the day. Can it be that we shall regard other men, who are our equals in political rights — men, equal to us in all the elements which compose that most extraordinary character, an American citizen — as sufficiently compensated for the severe toils of a soldier's life when we dole out to them seven dollars for a month's service ? I am not for increasing the monthly pay of the soldier, but I am clearly in favor of doing him justice by another means. I would not bankrupt the exchequer, nor compel the Government to go on borrowing to a greater extent than may be absolutely necessary. Happily, the Govern- ment has other means of paying her patriotic soldiery — means most abundant and most appropriate for this purpose. The public lands, of which the United States is the undisputed proprietor, can be most advantageously, most wisely and properly devoted to this object. Land to the soldier is often equivalent to, sometimes better than, money — it gives him a home. This, to the young enthusiast, who, forgetful of him- 120 ALBERT G. BROWN. self, and casting care to the winds, has perilled all and lost all in the service of his country, is the richest reward that his country can bestow. It raises him at once above the pressure of want, it affords an outlet to industry, and inspires his self-confidence. It does more : it rears before him a lasting monument of his country's gratitude, awakening and keep- ing alive the noble impulses that led him to the tented field. If you would touch the chords of patriotism, and cause them to vibrate in delightful harmony, you must not grudge the soldier his honest earn- ings, nor pay him with a stinting hand. You do put poorly reward his toils who wins an empire, if you give him his daily pay and nothing more. There is not a scavenger in your streets that does not get as much as that. The Government is rich in its landed possessions, and out of this abundance I would freely reward the soldier's honest toils. I would give him a home, make him feel that he had served his country to some purpose. What if it take ten millions of acres of land? I care not, sir, if it take ten times ten millions — who is better entitled to it than the man who protected, defended, perchance won it on the battle- field? This Government has many hundred millions of acres of land; it can be no great stretch of liberality to bestow a small portion of it on the men who gave us the whole. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vinton] has assumed some strange, most extraordinary positions. He says, we did not give bounty lands to the soldiers of the Revolution, and he thence argues that we should not grant the bounties contemplated in this bill. My colleague [Mr. Thomp- son] has already answered, that the revolutionary soldiers had been pensioned by the Government. A gentleman near me [Mr. Collamer] says the militia were not pensioned. But the gentleman knows that the militia were paid by the states respectively, in whose service they chiefly were, and to the utmost capacity of the states to pay. If they were not fully compensated, the reason will be found in an absolute inability to do so, until time had transferred them to another and, I trust, a better world. But if the Government has for a long time failed in the performance of her duty to her soldiers, is it therefore to be insisted that she never shall perform it ? It is not yet too late to do justice to these men of iron will. If any of them have survived the ravages of time, I would to-day greet them Avith the intelligence that this Government will no longer withhold its bounty. To me it matters not whether a soldier belongs to the regular line or fights as a militiaman : he equally devotes himself to his country, and in the one position as in the other is alike entitled to his country's bounty and her gratitude. When the gentleman from Ohio reminds us that bounty lands were not given to the soldiers of the Revolution, and that they were otherwise badly paid, he forgets that these illustrious men fought for their homes, their altars, and their firesides. Death was then the reward of coward- ice — liberty the price of victory. There were no soldiers that were not citizens ; no citizens that were not soldiers. All united in the struggle. It was a common struggle, and a common triumph. Each man gave to himself his own reward. When all were soldiers, they had no one but themselves to look to for bounty lands or other favors. Before the gen- tleman twits us with the remark that we are more liberal than our fathers, let him remember that our fathers were less able than we to be liberal, and had less reason to be so. They did their own fighting ; we do ours BOUNTY LAND BILL. 121 by proxy. They had no one but themselves to pay ; we have to pay the men who do our fighting. In the days of the Revolution every man was a soldier ; now, about one in fifty has gone out to battle. Before the gentleman cites the fact that our revolutionary fathers did not receive bounty lands, let him contrast the condition of this country, at the close of the revolutionary struggle, with its present position in the scale of nations. He will see thirteen small colonies just emerging from a seven years' conflict with the most powerful nation in the world, worn down with strife, without credit and in debt, watched by the tiger eye of monarchy in the Old World, and without one honest republican face in all Christen- dom to encourage her with its sympathetic smiles. What could such a country do ? Look first on that picture, and now on this. We have twenty-nine states, and territories boundless as half a continent ; we are comparatively out of debt, with unlimited credit ; above the frowns of the world, honored, respected, feared by monarchy wherever it yet remains, and loved by our republican brethren throughout the world. The gen- tleman who cites what our fathers did not do, and could not do, as a controlling reason for our action, is full seventy years behind the age in which he lives. The gentleman has another reason, if possible less cogent than the first, for denying this bounty to the soldier. If we give lands to the soldier, he says the speculators will buy them for half, perhaps for less than half, their value. I did not expect to hear such an objection from a source so eminent. It is unworthy of the high source from which it emanates. We owe a debt, but will not pay it because our creditor in- tends to make an improvident use of the money. As well, sir, might you say that you will not pay the soldier in Mexico his seven dollars per month, because he intended to pay a sutler two prices for his merchandise, as to say you will not give him bounty land because he may sell it for half its value. The gentleman is much too kind to the soldier. Because he may be cheated in the sale of his land, out of very kindness the gen- tleman will not give him land at all. " Half a loaf is better than no bread;" and though a soldier might be cheated of one-half your bounty, the remaining half, I fancy, would be better than the gentleman's pro- position to give him nothing. It is no business of the Government what the soldier does with his land. Let her discharge her duty, and rely upon the soldier to protect his own interest. In the protection he gave his country, he afibrded the best evidence of his capacity to take care of himself. But, says the gentleman, these lands are pledged for the redemption of the war debt. The gentleman forgets his own vote to grant bounties in land after that pledge was given. He then, doubtless, thought, and thought correctly, that so long as the interest on the debt is paid, and the stock redeemed as it falls due, the holders of public securities do not care a fig what you do with the public lands. The stock was never taken on any pledge of lands for its redemption, but on the good faith of the Government that the interest should be paid and the debt redeemed at maturity. For myself, I have no fears of a failure to meet these reasonable and just expectations of the stockholders, whatever may be your disposition of any part or the whole of the public lands. The gentleman enters into a minute calculation of the probable pro- ceeds of the sales of the public lands, and warns us, if we make these 122 ALBERT G. BROWN. grants, that there will be fearful deficiency in the revenue for the next year. I now understand him as admitting that the estimates for the present fiscal year will be fully realized ; but he predicts, with great confidence, that there will be decided diminution in the receipts for the year ending June 30, 1849. Some months since, the gentleman staked his reputation as a financial prophet that the estimates of the Secretary of the Treasury for this year would be falsified by at least eight millions of dollars. But two months now remain of the present fiscal year. The gentleman's own calculations have been already exceeded by near five millions of dollars ; and it is morally certain that the Secretary's estimates will be fully equalled, and in all human probability exceeded, by at least one million of dollars. The gentleman has shown himself a false prophet, and he must excuse us if we decline to repose implicit confidence in his predictions for the future. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." I am disinclined to indulge in evil forebodings as to the approaching year. The gentleman sees nothing but impenetrable gloom ; to my vision the sky is bright, the day dawns beautifully ; no cloud is seen, and no storm is anticipated. I am as confident that it will be a year of national and individual prosperity as the gentleman is that it will bring bankruptcy and ruin to the state and people. Much, I am free to admit, depends on the result of the presidential election. I have no doubt of Democratic triumph, and therefore do not doubt that we shall have a season of universal and uninterrupted prosperity. Reference has been made, in the course of this discussion, to the cost of the public lands ; and we have been admonished that vast sums of money have been paid from the general treasury for their acquisition, which, it is said, ought to be returned before we dispose of them too lavishly as bounties to soldiers. I have been at the trouble to compile, from official sources, a statement of the general results of the land ope- rations of the Government up to January, 1846. The main features of this statement have not, I apprehend, been materially altered by the operations since that time. The public lands have cost the Government an average of twenty-three cents per acre: Up to January, 1846, she had extinguished the Indian title to, surveyed, and offered for sale . , . 333,215,648 acres. Sold up to that date 93,872,846 acres. Revenue from sales up to that time .... $130,280,156 Whole cost of lands at 23 cents per acre . . . 77,130,498 Net profit 53,149,658 Remaining unsold 239,342,802 acres. It will thus be seen that the net profit has been fifty-three millions of dollars and upwards, and that we have yet on hand near two hundred and forty millions of acres. This calculation does not include the Indian annuities, or the expense of our Indian wars, most of which have grown, I admit, mediately or immediately, out of our landed operations, and are, therefore, to some extent, chargeable to this account. But I must also remark that this calculation does not include the unsurveyed lands in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nebraska ; it does not include our vast Oregon possessions ; and I suppose it need not be mentioned that both Cali- fornia and New Mexico have been excluded. Of these last it may bo said, "we need not count our chickens before they are hatched;" but I will count them, and here express the opinion, that we are much more BOUNTY LAND BILL. 123 likely to get two move states from Mexico than give up the two we already have. I am for disposing of the public lands freely. To the soldier who fights the battles of his country I would give a home, nor would I restrict him to very narrow limits. To every man who has no home I would give one., and, so long as he and his descendants chose to occupy it, they should hold it against the world, without charge of any kind. The Government owns more than nine hundred millions of acres of land, and yet thousands of her citizens, and some of them her bravest and best soldiers, are without homes. The dependence of the Government and people should be mutual. If Government relies on the people for defence in time of war, if she expects them to fight her battles and win " empires" for her, the people should expect in return to be provided Avith homes ; and this reasonable expectation ought never to be disap- pointed. I have no objection to the Government selling land to those who are able to pay for it, at a moderate price ; but I protest my disapprobation of national land-jobbing. The nation degrades her character when she comes down to the low occupation of exacting the hard-earned dollars of a poor citizen for a bit of land purchased, it may have been, with the blood of that citizen's ancestors. To my mind, there is a national no- bility in a republic's looking to the comfort, convenience, and happiness of its people ; there is a national meanness in a republic's selling a poor man's home to his rich neighbor, because that neighbor can pay a better price for it. It was not my intention to enter very fully into the consideration of all the points embraced in the bill and the amendments. My principal object in rising was to give notice of an intention to introduce certain amendments. The first of these, is to the proposition offered by my colleague [Mr. Thompson]. lie proposes to give those who served twelve months in the Northwestern army, prior to the treaty of 1795, or during the last war with Great Britain, for the same length of time, one hundred and sixty acres of land each, and to those who served six months eighty acres. To his proposition I shall offer this amendment: Insert after the words " eighty acres of land," in line — , " and any such non-com- missioned officer, musician, and private of any company of volunteers or militia, who actually served three months in said Indian war, or the war with Great Britain, shall be entitled to receive forty acres of land." It is right to give those who served twelve months one hundred and sixty acres. It is right to give those who served six months eighty acres, and on the same principle it is right to give those who served but three months forty acres of land. It will be doing equal and exact justice, and it is on that principle I offer the amendment. To the original bill, which proposes to amend the act of February 11, 1847, granting bounty lands to soldiers, I shall propose, when it is in order, the following amendment, as an additional section : Sec. — . And be it further enacted, That the benefits of the 9th section of the above recited act be extended first to the unmarried sisters, and after them to the infant brothers under sixteen years of age, of all deceased officers, non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates, in the same manner and to the same extent that the benefits of said 9th section are now extended to widows, children, fathers, and mothers of said officers, nou-conunissioned officers, musicians, and privates. 124 ALBERT G. BROWN. I need not elaborate this proposition. The heart of every man tells him at once that the defenceless sister and infant brother of a fallen soldier should receive that soldier's heritage, as they do his last fervent and dying prayers. Were it given us to witness the last scenes of the battle-field, how should our hearts be wrung by the agony of an expiring soldier, as he turns his thoughts homeward, and mentally bids farewell to the tender objects of his love, which he is about leaving to the cold charities of this world. Pass this amendment, and say to the dying hero, in his last moments, "depart in peace, your country is friend and guardian to these objects of your fraternal aifection." I have in my mind's eye more than one case of touching interest, but the time nor place is appropriate for the mention of them. I shall propose one other amendment, to wit : That in addition to the bounty land allowed to volunteers, by the act of 11th February, 1847, to raise, for a limited time, an additional military force, and for other purposes, there shall be a further grant to each of said volunteers of forty acres for every three months' service after the first twelve months. The justice of this proposition is so manifest, that I will not detain the committee with more than a passing comment. You give to the volunteer soldier, by the ninth section of the act of February 11, 1847, one hundred and sixty acres of land for twelve months' service, or forty acres for each three months of the first twelve. I propose to give him forty acres for each additional three months that he remains in the army. I do this for two reasons : first, that his services are richly worth the compensation proposed ; and secondly, that there is manifest and gross injustice in paying one set of volunteers one hundred and sixty acres of land for twelve months' service, and to another no more than one hun- dred and sixty acres for two, four, six, or even ten years' service, if the war should so long continue. I have no disposition to detain the committee with any further remarks. The sentiments I have uttered have been dictated by a sense of justice to a most worthy and reliable class of our population. I shall be glad to find them responded to by the committee, especially as they have been delivered with a view to procure proper action on the question involved, and not for home consumption. EXTRA PRINTED DOCUMENTS. SPEECH I^^ THE HOUSE OF EEPRESENTATIVES, MAY 8, 1848, ON THE DIS- TRIBUTION OF EXTRA PRINTED DOCUMENTS. \_March 20. Mr. Brown ofiered the following resolutions, which were read and agreed to : — Resolved, That the clerk of this House be, and he is hereby instructed to send, under his frank, three copies of the printed report of the Commissioner of Patents for the year 1847 to the governor of each state and territory in the Union, for the use of such state or territory, and two copies to the clerk of the county court of each county in the United States, for the use of the county ; and hereafter, in all cases where an extra number of any document is ordered to be printed, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the House of Representatives, unless otherwise ordered by the House, to EXTRA PRINTED DOCUMENTS. 125 transmit said document to the states and counties as is herein directed ; and to this end, he shall reserve from the first copies delivered by the printer a sufficient num- ber to supply the demands of this resolution. Resolved, That it shall be the duty of the clerk, before he sends the documents above referred to, to have the same well bound. 3Iay 8. Mr. Brodiiead moved that the foregoing resolutions be rescinded.] Mr. Brown said : It is ^vcll Icnovrn, Mr. Speaker, that I introduced the resolution which it is now proposed to rescind. A restless anxiety has been manifested to destroy it, even before it has gone into operation, though it was permitted to pass w^ithout serious opposition. It is said the resolution passed without consideration. However this may be, it was not introduced without reflection ; nor shall it be rescinded without my resistance. It will be found, on examination, that the practical operations of the distribution of public documents, proposed by the resolution, will work none of that gross injustice of which we hear so much complaint. Take the Patent Office report as an example. You have ordered ninety thou- sand extra copies of that document to be printed, or nearly one hundred thousand copies in all. Of these, it is proposed to send three copies to each state and territory, or ninety copies to all, and two copies to each county in the Union, or, in the whole, twenty-five hundred and ten copies. To the states and counties you will distribute twenty-six hun- dred copies, and leave for individual distribution over ninety-five thousand copies. The documents thus sent to the states and counties would be the only ones given to the public ; all the rest are devoted to private uses. I know of no authority to print books at the national expense to be presented to private persons. It may be very pleasant for members of Congress to vote to themselves hundreds of thousands of valuable books, at the expense of the general treasury. It is certainly very con- venient to have these books on hand when we feel like making a present to some valuable and influential friend ; and it has the additional merit of being the cheapest possible mode of displaying our liberality. But by what right is this thing done ? By the right of precedent. It is one of the thousand abuses which have grown up from time to time, and- which I have very little hope of seeing speedily corrected. The most I hoped to accomplish was to induce you to surrender to public use a very small number of the many thousand volumes for which the public pay. It is something to a member of Congress, who holds his seat by a doubt- ful tenure, to have it in his power, without one cent of personal cost, to exhibit a mark of special attachment to five or six hundred influential persons in his district, by sending each a valuable book. This is an advantage not readily surrendered ; but I had hoped that a decent respect for the public, who pay the whole cost, would have induced us to give them a few volumes. But the cormorant who once feeds on pap like this is slow to give it up. You have printed, as I have before said, nearly one hundred thousand copies of a single document, or about four hundred and forty-five for each member ; and you have paid, or will pay, for them out of the public funds. What is to be done with these books — printed, bound, folded, and laid on your tables, as they are, at the public cost ? You ivrite your name on the envelope, and they are then carried to the post office at ]26 ALBERT G. BROWN. the cost of the public, conveyed to your special friends in the public mail, and on their safe arrival become their private property. You have no more right to print books in this way for private uses than you have to make any other presents at the public expense. Suppose, instead of a proposition to print ninety-eight thousand copies of the Patent Office report, or four hundred and forty-five for each member (myself among the rest), to be distributed according to the inclination of the members, I, or any other member, had come forward with four hundred and forty- five names, and proposed the publication of a volume for each one of them : is there a member of this House who would have sanctioned such a proposition? Not one, sir, I venture to assert; and yet this would have been a better proposition than the one you have adopted ; for by it you would at least have known who were to be the recipients of the public favor. In common parlance, these books are printed for public distribution, and gentlemen say they want them sent to the public ; but by what process of reasoning it is to be shown that ninety thousand favorites are the PUBLIC, in a nation of twenty millions of people, I have not been informed. I have proposed to send a very small portion of these publications to the public (about one in thirty-six and a half) ; no one else has proposed to send a single copy. If you will send, accord- ing to my proposition, two copies of a book to the clerk of the county court, for the use of tlie county, you thereby send it to the people of the county ; it belongs as much to one as to another, and may at any time be examined or consulted by all those who desire to be informed as to its contents. If books are printed, they ought to be preserved ; and if they are intended for public use, they ought to be placed where the public can consult them. It is known to every member of Congress that many documents are wasted, literally destroyed here ; and when their value is made manifest in some future investigation or discussion, they are pro- cured with great difficulty. In some instances they are found in the shops and book stores ; and, as happened with myself the other day, are purchased at some ten or twenty times the original cost of printing. I mention this for the purpose of reminding gentlemen that much that seems to be of no value to-day, may, and will, in the course of time, come to be sought for with avidity. Then let these documents be pre- served ; send them to the country, where they will be taken care of, and where you and I, and every other man in the community, may find and consult them at pleasure. You may send twenty or fifty copies to as many individuals in a county, and you accommodate only that number of persons ; send one or two copies to the county, and you accommodate, to a considerable extent, every man in the county. Suppose, sir, this or some similar proposition had been adopted twenty years ago, and faithfully carried out; you would now have a respectable political library at every county seat in the United States. Is there a member of this House who would not feel gratified to have, at the court house of each county in his district, a copy of all the extra documents printed by order of Congress for twenty years past ? What you may thus have had, you may now have, to a much greater extent, at the end of another twenty years, by simply letting my resolution alone. The growth of the country, the increasing interest in public affairs, and the vast improvements in the art of printing, will greatly augment the num- EXTRA PRINTED DOCUMENTS. 127 ber of publications in future. In the course of a few years you will thus find valuable little libraries rising up all over the country, costing nothing, and conferring great benefits on all who now take, or may hereafter take, an interest in public affairs. I am surprised that my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. Brodhead], Democrat as he is, proverbially liberal and sound in his views on almost all subjects, should take the lead in opposition to this measure. Tho reason, the only reason he assigns for this course is, to my mind, ex- tremely fallacious. That one Congressional district has more counties than another, and will therefore receive a- larger number of documents, is the narrowest of all possible reasons for desiring to rescind this reso- lution. Documents are published for the public instruction, and should therefore be placed in reach of the public. The city and county of Philadelphia has a voting population equal to the states of Delaware, Arkansas, and Texas ; but it is a condensed population, and the con- venience of the whole may be subserved by one library, located at a central and convenient point ; and if the public convenience is answered, that is all that is required. But one, two, or three libraries in the states just named would not answer a like general purpose, because of the want of proximity of the population to the location of the library. My reso- lution proposes to place these books at the county sites of the several counties in the United States, because these are places where people of all classes meet to transact business of public and private interest ; and with the clerks of county courts, because these are oflScers having charge of county papers, books, and records, and with whom people have con- stant intercourse. Their offices are public places accessible at all times to the people. My sole view in introducing the resolution was, to place the documents published by order of Congress, and paid for out of the public treasury, in the reach of every man who desired to consult them. I did not then, and do not now, believe that this House ought to print books solely for private uses, and pay for them with the people's money. I contemplated no injustice to any one. Having introduced the pro- position, it was proper that I should vindicate it. If gentlemen would forget their own personal advantage, derived from a distribution of these documents, and look a little to the public interest, the resolution as introduced by me, and passed by the House, would stand; but it is probably destined to be rescinded. I have no more interest in the matter than any other member, and, so far as I am ^yersonally concerned, it is a matter of profound indifference what disposition you may make of it. 128 ALBERT G. BROWN. TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT FOR OREGON. On the 29th of May, 1848, President Polk communicated to Congress a message, recommending that a territorial government be early provided for Oregon, and also that a military force be at once raised for the protection of the people of that territory. Mr. Cobb of Georgia, immediately upon the reading of the message, moved that the bill providing a territorial government for Oregon be at once taken up and disposed of. Mr. Haralson of Georgia opposed the motion of his colleague, and favored action first on the proposition to raise a military force. The questions embraced in the territorial bill were of such a character that discussion upon them was unavoidable. Mr. Brown of IMississippi opposed a hurried decision of the vital question, of the power of Congress over the territoi'ies, involved in the ter- ritorial bill, in the following remarks: — He said he intended to favor the proposition of his friend from Georgia, who last had the floor [Mr. Haralson], and to express very briefly his opposition to the course taken by his other friend from Georgia [Mr. Cobb]. He was as -willing as any other member of Con- gress that the two Houses should act immediately upon the proposition to give efiicient and immediate relief to the people of the territory of Oregon. He believed it was their duty to afi"ord that aid promptly. But he objected to the proposition of his friend over the Avay [Mr. Cobb], because it contemplated the hurried passage through the House, of a bill involving the most important question which agitated the people of this country. Whenever that question was fairly before Congress, he, for one, desired to hear it discussed by men of all political complexions, and from every portion of the confederacy. He had no idea of seeing the great question of the power of Congress over the territories forced through under the gag. Let the two questions be separated ; let the message be referred to the committee on military afi'airs, and they report that sort of relief which the occasion required ; and when the Oregon territory bill came up, let them have a full and fair discussion upon the territorial question. He thought he saw the object of the gentleman from Georgia ; in the smoke created by the President's mes- sage, in the excitement at the condition of our people in Oregon, to force this question through under the gag, and get clear of this question, involving the most weighty consequences to this entire confederacy, and especially the southern portion of it. However it might afiect presiden- tial aspirants, he could not sanction the attempt to blink the question and force it through under the gag. He wished, at the proper time, to express his views upon it, as other gentlemen had done upon occasions when the question did not properly arise. He was not willing that the views of the gentleman from Georgia, who had first addressed the House, should go as the views of the southern portion of this confederacy. He hoped, therefore, the gentleman's proposition would be rejected, and that of the other gentleman from Georgia receive the sanction of the House. Whether the views of gentlemen might agree with those of others, or with those of presidential aspirants, it mattered not ; let every gentle- man express his own views and those of his constituents boldly, fear- lessly. This be intended to make his course. GOVERNMENT OF THE TERRITORIES. •, • • 129' GOVERNMENT OF THE TEREITORIES. " ^ - In the House of Representatives of the United States, Saturday, Juno 3, 1848, in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. Brown said : — Mr. Chairman, when I had the honor, some weeks since, to deliver my views at length in regard to the Mexican war, I closed Avith the re- mark that at some future day I would discuss the question of " indem- nity and security," and submit my opinions as to the powers of Congress over newly acquired territory. The treaty lately ratified by the Ame- rican Senate, if it meets the favor in Mexico, which its friends and the friends of peace here and elsewhere so ardently hope for, will settle for the time being the question of "indemnity for the past and security for the future." Outside of the treaty, we can look to no indemnity, nor can we ask any further security than such as may be provided in that convention. The time seems appropriate for an expression of my views in regard to the powers of Congress over newly acquired territory. It is so, not only on account of the territory acquired, or to be acquired by the treaty, but because the 12th section of the bill now before Congress, to organize a territorial government in Oregon, assumes a power over the territories not, in my opinion, guarantied to Congress by the Constitu- tion. It proposes to extend the ordinance of July, 1787, over the ter- ritory of Oregon ; and we have heard it boldly proclaimed, in and out of Congress, that the sixth section of that ordinance is to be extended to all the territories of the United States. That section is in these ■words : — "Art. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said ter- ritory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, -whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, alwaijs, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original states, euch fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid." This is the only part of the ordinance that relates to the subject of slavery, as I find it recorded in the journals of the Continental Con- gress, as having passed July 13, 1787, page 754, vol. 4, House Li- brary. On page 373 of the same volume, it is recorded that J ' Congress took into consideration the report of a committee, consisting of Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Chase, and Mr. Howell, to whom was ?r-committed their report of a plan for a temporary government of the western territory ; " When a motion was made by Mr. Speight, seconded by Mr. Read, to strike out the following paragraph : " ' That after the year 1800 of the Christian era, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said states [meaning the states to be created from said territory], otherwise than in punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been convicted to have been guilty.' " And on the question being taken, the words were struck out — New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, voting in the affirmative ; Maryland and South Carolina in the negative ; Virginia and North Carolina divided ; # 130 ALBERT G. BROWN. Georgia and Delaware not present. This was on the 19th of April, 1784. On the 23d of the same month, the plan was adopted without the paragraph thus stricten out — page 379. I cite these things for the purpose of remarking, that in this early day of the republic, the only opposition to slavery was found in the South ; Pennsylvania and other northern states, which then had an interest in its existence, were op- posed (if we may rely upon their votes) to circumscribing its limits. And when, in 1787, by the ordinance for the government of the North- western Territory, the resolves of April 23, 1784, were repealed, and slavery and involuntary servitude were denied existence in said terri- tory, it was with a proviso — not such as that which now disturbs the deliberations of Congress, and threatens the harmony of the Union — but a proviso " that persons escaping into such territoi'y, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original states, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her'labor or service as aforesaid." This proviso, thus clearly and distinctly recognising and securing the master's property in his slave, seems to have reconciled the northern states, for we find them voting for the proposition in this form. Massachusetts, New York, New Jer- sey, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, | were the only states present, and they all voted for the ordinance with this proviso. The northern states, now so boisterous against the right of property in slaves, could only be reconciled to this ordinance, now their political Shibboleth, by its clear and distinct recognition of the right of property in slaves. Without this recognition, they were unani- mously opposed to it ; with it, they were as unanimously in favor of it. They seemed at this time not disposed to send slaves to the west whose labor might come in competition with the labor of slaves else- where ; but if slaves absconded into that country, the rights of the mas- ter were made secure to follow and recapture them. Do gentlemen who stickle so much for the ordinance of 1787, now recognise this guarantied right of property in slaves ? What says the member from Ohio [Mr. Giddings], and he of New Hampshire [Mr. Tuck], and of Massachusetts [Mr. Aslimun] ? What say you all of the Abolition school ? Will you admit this right of property, or do you recede entirely from the position assumed by the very men you pretend to follow ? They voted against the ordinance when it did not recognise property in slaves, and for it when it did so reco2;nise it. You are for the ordinance without this re- cognition, and against it with it ; and yet you claim the men who passed the ordinance as your guides and your example. You unhesitatingly proclaim a right in Congress to extend the first part of this ordinance over all the territories of the United Stotes, and I as unhesitatingly assert that Congress has no power to extend it over any part of those terri- tories. The powers of the Continental Congress of 1787 and the United States Congress of 1848 are widely different. The first acted under Articles of Confederation, the last under a written Constitution. In maintaining, as I do, that the Constitution, no less than the ordi- nance, recognises the master's property in his slave, I am not to be un- derstood as saying that slavery was estahlished by the one or the other ; very far from it. The Continental Congress, and after it the conven- tion that framed the Federal Constitution, found slavery in existence. The relation between master and servant was established in the earlier days GOVERNMENT OF THE TERRITORIES. ' ^ 131 of our colonial existence. I have in my possession a copy of the " Bos- ton Gazette," a newspaper printed in the city of Boston, January 22, 1739. This sheet, now more than one hundred years old, contains these advertisements : — • r • " If any person has a young negro woman (that can be well recommended) to dis- pose of, they may hear of a purcuaser by inquiring of the publisher." " A young negro, not twenty-two years old, who has served seven years to the tailor's trade, and understands household business and cooking tolerably well, to be SOLD. Inquire of the printer," . A •- ■ » And aoiain : — ,» ^ * * ' - ■ '-t " A negro man, about twenty-six years of age, fit for town or country business, to BE SOLD. Inquire of the printer. This negro has been above seven years to the business of ship-carpentering." Considering that the Boston Gazette at that day was, by actual mea- surement, just eight inches wide and ten inches long, it will be confessed it had tolerable patronage in the business of advertising negroes for sale. By reference to a volume, entitled "History of Slavery," it will be seen that not many years since, Providence, Boston, and other New England cities were great slave marts. The traffic was conducted in its most revolting forms throughout New England and the Middle States — so much so, indeed, that the anti-slavery missionaries were sorely grieved, and in one instance a pious old man, of great learning and vast pliilan- thropy, is said to have died of grief, after visiting Rhode Island and witnessing the conduct of slave-owners and slave-dealers in that state. ♦ It is not my purpose to trace the history of slavery and the slave trade, in the states now so clamorous in favor of universal emancipation ; but I may ask if it is quite modest in them, so lately recovered from this "moral leprosy," as they are pleased to call the institution of slavery, to taunt and jeer us for its continued existence in the South, seeing that they brought it among us, cherished and cultivated its growth, and finally sold it to us for gold and silver. Mine is a different purpose. I desire to investigate the powers of government over slavery as it now exists, and as it did exist at the adop- tion of our present form of government. I do not pretend that the Con- stitution established slavery ; it was not necessary for it to do so. It found it in existence, already established. I assert that it clearly re- cognised it as a thing in esse — something fixed, established, interwoven with the future destiny of the country. In proof of this, and without elaborating the point, I refer to the 2d section, 4th article of the Con- stitution, and to the 2d section, article 1, of the same instrument ; and if these be not sufficient, the man who doubts may satisfy his mind beyond dispute or cavil, by consulting the debates in convention on these two sections of the Federal Constitution. The question which we are now to consider is not, who or what first planted slavery in America ? but, what are the powers of Congress over the question as it now is ? This must be ascertained by a rule of construction lono; since established, and now by all true republicans acquiesced in as sound and orthodox. This rule limits the powers of Congress, under the Constitution, to the performance of such acts as are expressly permitted by the delegated 132 ALBERT G. BROWN. authority from the states, and to such other incidental acts as may be necessary to carry out the expressly granted powers. Under what clause in the Constitution does the power exist to intermeddle with the question of slavery, or to extend the ordinance of 1787 over newly ac- quired territory ? You claim the power to extend the ordinance under the authority " to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territories and other property of the United States." Can any man read this third section of the fourth article of the Consti- tution, and come to any other conclusion than that the territories are treated of as property ? Congress has power over the territories and other 'property of the United States. This, it will not be contended, conveys any express authority to exclude settlements or to deny admis- sion to the institution of slavery. May these things be done as the fair incidents to the power expressly- given, "to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the terri- tories and OTHER PROPERTY of the United States ?" It would be strange indeed, if the inferior grant contained in the Constitution to legislate over the territories as property — the common property of the United States — should carry with it, as a necessary incident, the vastly more important power of regulating the political institutions of these territo- ries — now, and for all after time, to exclude the citizens of one-half the Union, and totally to deny admission to an institution recognised, if not estabhshed, by the Constitution. The subordinate would thus rise above its superior, and the incidental become paramount to the express grant. The ordinance is in itself a nullity, so far as these territories are con- cerned. It dates anterior to the Constitution, having been adopted July 13, 1787. The Constitution, as is well known, was not finally acted on in convention until September 17, 1787, and it was accepted by the states in the following order: Delaware, December 7, 1787 ; Pennsyl- vania, December 12, 1787 ; New Jersey, December 18, 1787 ; Georgia, January 2, 1788 ; Connecticut, January 8, 1788 ; Massachusetts, Feb- ruary 6, 1788 ; Maryland, April 28, 1788 ; South Carolina, May 23, 1788 ; New Hampshire, June 21, 1788 ; Virginia, June 26, 1788 ; New York, July 2(5, 1788 ; North Carolina, November 21, 1789 ; Rhode Island, May 29, 1790. The Constitution was not established until it had been ratified by nine states. New Hampshire accepted it June 21, 1788, and she was the ninth state in this order that ratified it. It "will be thence seen that the ordinance was adopted nearly twelve months before the Federal Constitution was established. If this ordinance had been expressly recognised in the Constitution, it would have put the question at rest for ever, so far as the Northwestern territory, to which it alone relates, is concerned. If it had been extended in express terms to other territories, it would have been conclusive as to the powers of Congress. The question was then before the country, and the power of Congress over slavery was prominently before the convention. That we do not find the principles of the ordinance incorporated into the Consti- tution, is presumptive evidence that it was not intended to delegate to the federal power authority such as is now claimed over the territories. It may be said that the Constitution did not abrogate the ordinance, and therefore left it in force. So far as the territory to which it relates is con- cerned, this may be true. I neither deny nor admit the truth of that proposition. But most certainly an omission to abrogate an ordinance GOVERNMENT OF THE TERRITORIES. 133 applicable alone to the Northwestern territory, would not, exneoessifate rei, extend its provisions to territories thereafter to be acquired. The territory of Oregon is by some claimed as a part of the Louisiana pur- chase ; others, I know, base our title upon the grounds of discovery and settlement ; no one pretends that it is any part of the Northwestern ter- ritory, the Mississippi being the utmost western limit of that country. But through whatever source we may derive our title, I cannot be mis- 'taken in the position that the country must be governed by the consti- tution, convention, ordinances, and laws, in force at the time the cession was obtained or the discovery made, and applicable to the territory ac- quired or discovered. It is incompetent for Congress to impose other limitations and restrictions than those in force at the period of the acqui- sition, and applicable to the thing acquired. The ordinance of 1787 having been enacted anterior to the adoption of the Constitution, under Articles of Confederation which were superseded by the Constitution, could only stand, if stand it must, by the forbearance of the convention, but could not rise above or mingle its existence with the Constitution, which became, on its acceptance by the states, the paramount law of the land. The ordinance, therefore, so far as newly acquired territory is concerned, is a dead letter, and we must look to the Constitution for the rule of our conduct in the government of such territory, as we do on all other questions ; and that Constitution, so far from giving the power to extend the ordinance, does, in my judgment, prohibit it. But before I enter on this part of the subject, allow me to respond to certain argu- ments which have been, and will again be, founded on supposed prece- dents. We shall be told, that by the act of IMarch 6, 1820, and the several succeeding acts admitting Missouri into the Union, commonly called the Missouri compromise, the power in Congress, to a limited ex- tent, to exclude slavery from a territory, was conceded. ♦ The argument is neither just nor sound ; but its introduction here gives me an opportunity, which I eagerly embrace, of expressing my opinions of that compromise. It has been the theme of many eloquent harangues ; and of all the thousand orators who have thrown garlands on the brow of its great author, or strown his pathway with richest flowers, none have apostrophized more eloquently than those whose theme has been this far-famed Missouri compromise. But, notwith- standing this, it stands out, "a fungus, an excrescence, a political monstrosity." It was the first, greatest, and most fatal error in our legislation on the subject of slavery. It violated at once the rights of one-half the Union, and flagrantly outraged the Federal Constitution. It undertook to abrogate the constitutional privileges of one-half the states, and, without any adequate or sufiicient consideration, to surrender the rights of every slaveholder in the Union. The compromise has been called a contract. But a contract, to be binding, must be mutual in its obligations : there must be something given on one side, and sometliing received on the other. By this compromise — this misnamed contract — the slave states gave up their right of settlement north of the parallel 36° 30'; but the non-slaveholding states did not surrender their right to settle south of that line. The free states have all the rights they ever had. The South gave everything, and received nothing. North of 36° 30' no slaveholder dare go with his slaves ; south every northern man may settle with whatever chattels he possesses. The compromise 134 ALBERT G. BROWN. is wanting in all the elements of mutuality which render a contract binding, and is therefore void. This thirtieth Congress has no right to surrender, by gift or barter, the political rights of one-half of the con- federacy, or even one state of the Union; and yet this Congress has all the constitutional powers that belonged to the sixteenth Congress, which enacted the compromise. It has no more, nor less. The powers which belong to this Congress have belonged to every one since the adoption of the Federal Constitution; and they must remain unimpaired to each succeeding Congress. Political rights are not the subjects of bargain and sale under the Constitution; and if one Congress, forgetting what is due to its successors, surrenders any of these rights, they may be resumed by any subsequent Congress : and this ought especially to be done if the surrender has been made without consideration. In the case of the Missouri compromise, the South has not only got nothing that did not belong to her before, but has purchased, by an unwise and unconstitu- tional surrender of her rights above the compromise line, insecurity and perpetual annoyance to her interests below it. Already we are told that the contract is binding only on one side. Whilst we are forbidden to carry slavery north of 36° 30', the enemies of that institution proclaim a settled purpose to exclude it from the territories south ; and, strange as it may seem, cite the compromise act as a concession on our part of their right to do so. I know not which most excites my wonder, that we should have entered into this naked contract, or that they who have all the advantages should be the first to violate it, and, in the very act of its violation, proclaim its binding force upon us. We tamely give up one-half our rights, without consideration and without security, and then are told, that, because we gave up one-half, we must now give up the other half also. I suppose we are expected to carry out literally the scriptural rule — "If a man sue you at the law and take your coat, give him your cloak also." I know not if the South will consent to be thus led to the slaughter-house; but if she does, I freely proclaim that she deserves no better fate than there awaits her. So far as the introduction of the ordinance of 1787, or the Wilmot proviso, into the Oregon bill, is concerned, it is the veriest abstraction that was ever thrust into any bill by bad men for bad purposes. Nature has erected an insuperable barrier against the introduction of slaves into Oregon, as she has, indeed, against its introduction into any territory above the parallel 36° 30'. It is not, then, that you fear its introduction there. It can never go there ; no one here expects or desires that it ever should. Then why thrust the proviso into the Oregon bill ? You have done it for the purpose of forcing the South to admit by her vote, if she votes in favor of the bill in its present form, that " Congress may exclude slavery from a terri- tory;" and this admission you intend to use against her in after time, when we come to legislate for New JNIexico and California ; or, if we vote to strike out this proviso, we are to be charged with a disposition to introduce slavery into Oregon: and this when you know full well that there is not one man in Congress who desires or expects that slavery is ever to exist in Oregon, or in any other territory above 36° 30'. Before I progress further in my remarks, let me turn to a speech made by an honorable member from Maine [Mr. Smart], some several weeks since. He is a bold man. He comes forward as a sort of Juinter Tonans of the anti-slavery men in his state, asserting that Maine has GOVERNMENT OF THE TERRITORIES. 135 taken her position against ''slavery and involuntary scrvitmle in the territories," and adduces what he calls "precedents" for the legislation by Congress over the question; and because he finds v,liat lie fancies a precedent, he thence concludes that he is right in the bold assumption that Congress may rightfully exclude slavery from the territories. L)id it never occur to the gentleman that precedents might be wrong? Does he mean to assert the perfect infallibility of our ''illustrious predeces- sors ?" If so, I warn him that he bestows a meed of praise which those who come after us will be slow to award him and his associates. For myself, I respect precedents just so far as they are within the pale of the Constitution, and are sustained by reason and sound sense, and no further. But what does the gentleman's precedents amount to ? Nothing, sir ; literally nothing. First, we are told that Congress, by an act of March 2G, 1804, provided that no slave should be brought into Louisiana, then a territory, except by citizens of the United States. Well, sir, what of that? Does the gentleman mean to put citizens of the slave states on no better footing; than forcijiners ? Does he intend to make aliens of them — to remove them from under the protecting influence of the Con- stitution ? We contend that all the citizens of tlie United States have equal rights in the territories, and no more than equal rights; and whilst we admit that a citizen of Maine may freely settle in any terri- tory of the United States, Avith his goods and chattels, of whatever kind or description, we ask the same, and no greater, right for citizens of slave states. But, says the gentleman, Congress has denied to foreigners the right to carry slaves to the territories, and therefore may exclude a citizen of Mississippi with his slaves. Let me remind the gentleman of what seems not to have occurred to him, that the people of the slave states are citizens of the United States, and have rights under the Federal Constitution which do not belong to foreigners — rights equal with those of the free states ; and in this he may find a full answer to his precedent. The gentleman was not more fortunate in his second precedent. He informs us that by so recent an act as of June 30, 1834, Congress abrogated an act of the Legislative Council of Florida, which act levied higher taxes on slaves belonging to non-residents than on those belonging to citizens of the territory. It seems to me, the honorable gentleman was hard pressed for a precedent when he seized on this. So far from the act of Congress which annulled the unequal tax law of Florida operating to exclude slavery from the territory, it was calculated, in an eminent degree, to encourage its introduction there. The climate and the general uncultivated state of the country at that time were well calculated to deter the planters in the Carolinas and Georgia from making a personal residence in the territory. But many of them, in- vited by the wonderful productiveness of the soil, chose to settle planta- tions there. The Legislative Council of Florida, desiring a white population, adopted the plan of levying a discriminating tax, with a view of forcing a white emigration to the country. This, Congress abrogated, or rather declined to sanction ; and for the reason, I suppose, that it was violative of the great conservative principle, that taxation must be equal. "Whether Congress has the right to interfere at all with the legislature of a territory may be well questioned. But if interference is ever ad- missible, this was just such a case as would justify it ; and in it I recognise 136 ALBERT G. BROWN. no pretence of authority over the question of slavery. The act -was calculated in its effects to promote the growth of slavery in the terri- tory, though the design was simply to vindicate a great republican principle. But there is another paragraph of the gentleman's speech so extra- ordinary, so strangely conceived, that I will be excused for adverting to it. The gentleman says, "We are told by some that the 'territories are the common property of the whole Union, and that all the citizens of all the states have a right to go to them with their property.' " Exactly so, sir ; I could not have stated my own views more fairly. We do con- tend for an equal interest in the common property of the nation ; but, unlike the gentleman, we claim no exclusive rights. How does the gen- tleman proceed to combat this idea — I had almost said this self-evident proposition? Why, says he, "gentlemen owning slaves may hold them on every square mile of the territory, and thus propagating slavery, they may exclude both the tenants and their property from the free states as effectually as if they were excluded by law." Was ever so feeble an argument made to sustain so poor a cause ? What rights have the slave- owners there — what have they ever claimed that they do not freely concede to you, in an equal degree with themselves ? The slave-owner purchases the fee in the soil from the Government, and settles on it with his slaves; and anon the anti-slavery man makes his purchase, and settles down in close proximity : does any slaveholder say this shall not be done ? Is there any disposition, anywhere, to exclude the emigrant from a free state ? None, sir, none. But the gentleman goes on — " With the acquisition of California and New Mexico, our country will embrace an area of about 2,600,000 square miles. Of this immense territory, 2,000,000 of square miles would be open to slavery, and less than 600,000 to FREEDOM." I will not charge the gentleman with a wilful intention to mislead the public mind ; but I will say that no case was ever more speciously stated and with so little of real candor. Is there one inch of territory within the broad area of this Union from which freedom is ex- cluded ? Is there one acre of soil in any one of the states or territories, to which a citizen of Maine may not acquire a title, and on which he may not rear his castle of defence, and sit himself down, with his property and familu around him? Yes, sir, two millions six hundred thousand square miles, embracing thirty states, and territories equal to ten other states as large as Mississippi, are now open to the occupancy of the citizens of the free states, their families, and their 'property ; whilst the slaveholder is already confined to fourteen states, including Dela- ware, and you desire still further to circumscribe these narrow limits. A citizen of Maine may come, as hundreds have come, to Mississippi, with his property of every kind. But a Mississippian dare not go to Maine with his property ; and yet the representative from that state tells us that the slaveholder may exclude the people of Maine from the new territories; that the slaveholders will multiply themselves like the locusts of Egypt, and overrun the whole country ; and that modest, re- tiring New England will find the doors of the territories closed against her. Why, sir, lands, as Ave all know, in the new states are like the waters of life, to be had without money and without price. Let the gentleman and his constituents come freely ; we shall be glad to receive them, to GOVERNMENT OF THE TERRITORIES. 1.^7 make slaveholders of them. But if they prefer to cultivate soil Avith their own hands, or to perform their labor -without the aid of slaves, they will find hundreds and thousands of white men doina; the same tliin'r. and not in any degree less honored and less respected on that account. The gentleman will allow me to say that I judge men's faith by their works. If he will come south, enter upon our rich lands, cultivate cot- ton, toil in the open sun as our people toil, sell the products of his labor, invest the money in negroes, and set tuem free, he will have shown his faith by his works ; but I take leave to say that we do not hear with ■ much complaisance a people who have grown rich off our labor through the operation of unequal revenue laws, ask us to emancipate our slaves, to throw away our labor, merely because their tender consciences are lacerated by the existence of slavery in our part of the Union. Congress, I have said, has no power under the Constitution to exclude slavery from the territories. The exercise of such a power is equivalent to the bold assertion of a right to exclude the inhabitants of fourteen states of this Union from all participation in the enjoyment and owner- ship of the property of all the states. True, you do not say in terms to the southern slaveholder, "you shall not settle in the territories;" but you concede him the right to do so, only on condition that he will leave his slaves behind. Thus you concede a right, and then virtually < annul it by making its exercise depend upon the abandonment of another right still more important. To yourselves you concede everything and deny nothing. I dispute your right thus to discriminate ; and at once, and without hesitation, proclaim the great political truth, which lies at the foundation of all our institutions, of equal and exact justice to all. The power to exclude a citizen of the United States with his property, or to close the doors of the territories against the admission of a con- stitutionally recognised institution of the country, is not found among the powers delegated to Congress. It is in itself an important and sub- stantive power, and not the mere incident to some given power. It is a thing to be done by the sovereign, and not by a subordinate. In whom does the sovereignty over the territories reside ? la the people of the ' states, in their separate and distinct capacity as such, and in contradis- tinction to their general capacity as citizens of the United States. I maintain the sovereignty of the people by states, and repudiate the idea of a consolidated sovereignty in the people of the United States. The states, or the people of the states, in their state capacity may, in con- vention, exclude slavery or any other institution from the territories, because they have the right of sovereignty — a right which has never been delegated to any other power. Congress may have a right to legislate for the territories ; but if so, it is a right limited by the terms of the Constitution, and does not affect the question of sovereignty. " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people," is the language of the Constitution. The power over slavery — an institution recognised in the Constitution — w\as not dele- gated, and therefore cannot be exercised. Within the states respectively, it belongs to the state, and in the territories it is reserved to the people. Congress has no other powers or jurisdiction than such as it derived from the states. The power over slavery w^as not thus derived. A state has jurisdiction only within its limits, and has not, therefore, any power 138 ALBERT G. BROWN. over the territories. It is, in truth, a power denied to the states, not delegated to Congress, and must, in the language of the Constitution, be "reserved to the people." The federal and state governments having carved out their respective portions from the mass of political powers, the residue remains to the people, and among these is the sovereignty over the territories. The people hold the territories as tenants in common, and all or any part of them may enter these territories from any and all parts of the United States, and take with them their property. They may enact laws for their personal protection and the preservation of their property, but they cannot exclude others who come after them from the possession and enjoyment of equal rights with themselves. The first who enter the territory cannot assume a sovereignty which belongs to all. The specific exercise of sovereignty over the question of slavery is held in abeyance until the people of the territory ask admission into the Union as a state, according to the Constitution ; and being admitted, the state becomes sovereign Avithin her limits. The power of sovereignty here passes from the people to the state, and the state, in the exercise of this sovereignty, may exclude slavery if she thinks proper. Up to this period, no power exists to exclude it but in the people, acting through a convention of the states. Many political rights were delegated to the states, and many others to the United States. But the people wisely reserved the sovereignty of the territories to themselves. Am I asked, what is to be done if the first inhabitants of a territory undertake to exclude slavery ? I reply, that they are not more likely to exclude a slaveholder than a non-slaveholder ; certainly they have no more right to exclude one than the other. Suppose these early inhabitants should undertake to exclude all who were not slaveholders, what would you do ? You would, if you thought proper, enter the ter- ritory without regard to such impotent pretence. If you were forcibly ejected, you would call it revolution. But it would be no more revolution thus to expel you, than if the same power were to expel me. Our rights being' equal, our remedies would be the same. All are equals ; all have equal rights, whether citizens of the slave or free states ; and whenever the Constitution fails to afford equal protection to all, the powers of the Government are at an end — the days of the republic are num- bered. What I contend for are constitutional rights. I do not say that these rights may not be wrested from me by force, or that a mal-admi- nistration may not render them nugatory. But I do not anticipate such a state of things ; I rely upon the Constitution to protect me ; and shall not admit a doubt that it will prove efGcient for that purpose. I have heard the question asked. Suppose the legislative council of a territory refuses to pass laws to protect slave property, what shall we do in that case ? Suppose this council refuses to pass laws to protect the lives, characters, and personal liberty of the citizens, what would you do V Suppose the first settlers in a territory take possession of its government, and refuse to pass laws to give protection to the persons and property of any others than themselves, what would you do ? You tell me that such suppositions are not admissible, and so I think. It is inadmissible to suppose that legislators in any part of the world neglect the important office of giving protection to the lives and property of the citizens. Fidelity to the oaths they take would exact this, though justice slum- I GOVERNMENT OF THE TERRITORIES. 139 bered in tlicir breasts. All those suppositions are based on the hypo- thesis that discriminations may rightfully be made against slavooAvners and slave property, -which I am far, very far, from admitting. No such discrimination can be made. The same oath, the same conscience, that binds the law-maker to give protection to you and your property, binds him in an equal degree to give protection to me and mine. And I no more fear than you, that this oath or this conscience will be violated. Our rights are precisely equal. I admit that by force, fraud, and per- jury, I may lose my rights, and by the same means you may lose yours. I shall not admit, as some southern men have done, a right in the people of the territory to exclude me and my constituents from a full participation in the use and occupancy of these territories. There is something so monstrous in such a proposition that the mind recoils in- stantly on beholding it. Suppose you receive (as you probably will within the next week) the Mexican treaty ratified, and that you proceed, before the close of this session of Congress, to organize a territorial government in New Mexico and California ; will the present inhabitants of these territories have the right to exclude whom they please ? Do gentlemen mean seriously to contend, that after fighting out this war, at the expense of more than fifty millions of dollars, and the sacrifice of more than five thousand precious lives, we are not now to settle in the territories acquired by this vast expense and sacrifice, until the ISIexicans inhabitants shall be willing to grant us leave ? Do they mean to assert that the victorious and proud-hearted American is to go, cap in hand, to the miserable, cringing Mexican peon, and ask his permission to settle on the soil won by the valor of our troops at Buena Vista, or before the walls of Mexico ? Truly, sir, there is something new in the law of nations — this doctrine that the conqueror may only use his con- quests as the whims and caprices of the conquered may choose to dictate. I should like to hear gentlemen who hold these doctrines advancing them to our southern soldiers. I should be glad to know what response a member of the 1st Mississippi rifles, or the South Carolina Palmetto regimenty.would make to a member of Congress who Avould tell him that he could not take his property to California until the Indians and Mexi- cans in that country gave him special leave to do so. Having conquered the country, they doubtless concluded, as I have done, that if the Mexi- cans remained, they would do so by the special grace of the conqueror. The conclusion, Mr. Chairman, to which my own mind has arrived on the several points involved, are briefly these : That every citizen of the United States may go to the territories, and take with him his property — be it slaves, or any other description of property. That neither the United States Congress nor Territorial Legislature has any power or authority to exclude him ; and that the power of legislation, by whom- soever exercised, in the territories, whether hj Congress or the Terri- torial Legislature, must be exerted for the equal benefit of all — for the southern slaveholder no less than for the northern dealer in dry goods. One other view of the subject, and I am done. Not only, sir, is the law, but the justice and morality of this terri- torial question with the South. Shall the southern soldier, who shed his blood in the acquisition of territory, be told he has no right to the fruits of his own victory ; that his toils have been bootless to himself and his 140 ALBERT G. BROWN. pi)sterity ; that the citizens of Massachusetts, who looked on with cold indiflerence, s^anpathized with our enemies, and received the intelligence of our triumphs with secret pain, have acquired every right — rights pur- chased with blood ; and that he Avho shed that blood, and yielded up his life on the battle-field, got nothing for himself, and left no mheritance to his children. Go, sir, to the other end of this capitol, and witness a meeting of the Senate ; you may see a modest, retiring gentleman, a young man, a young senator, but an old soldier, as he enters that cham- ber, leaning on his staff. He is lame ; his blood stained the battle-field of Buena Arista : shall the gallant and intrepid Davis be told that he has no right to settle in New Mexico or California with his property ; that this is a right reserved to the senator from Ohio (Mr. Corwin), who would have greeted him on this the field of his glory, with "bloody hands, and wel- comed him to a hospitable grave?" A few days since, you may have seen, in this city, another soldier of this war, a major-general in your army — a gentleman, a scholar, a statesman, and a slaveholder. On the breaiiing out of this war, he gave himself wholly to his country — perilled his life — severed the ties that bound him to his family and friends — sacrificed the enjoyments of domestic quiet — abandoned a home blessed with all the comforts that affection could bestow or wealth could purchase, to encounter the hardships of a military camp in a distant and inhospi- table country ; and must he be told to stand back and witness the fruits of his toil-lavished upon the sympathising friends of Mexico ? Must Major-General Quitman be thrust aside, that place may be given to General Appleton Howe ? Must the general who fought the battle yield the fruits of his victory to one who remained at home, sympathizing with his country's enemies, and refusing the last solemn tribute of respect to a son of Massachusetts — a son who yielded up his life in defence of his country's honor, nobly defending his country's flag? General Taylor, whom you would make President even against his will, is himself a slaveholder, an extensive cotton planter, in my own district. Suppose he should desire to remove his slaves to New Mexico or California: is he to be told, that after all his toils, his dangers and privations — after having "won an empire" — he shall be an outcast, without the poor privilege of occupying the very soil which his skill and valor won for his country? But why specify individual instances, when there is not a battle-field, from Palo Alto to Agua Nueva, nor one, sir, from the castle of San Juan to the inner walls of the city of Mexico, that is not crimsoned with southern blood; not a field from which the disembodied spirits of southern patriots have not ascended, where their bones do not now lie bleaching ? Shall the fathers, brothers, sons of these men, be expelled from the country purchased with their lives, and baptized in their blood, and see it given to a miscreant who "played such fantastic tricks before high heaven as made the angels weep" — a wretch who, to gratify the malignity of a vicious heart, libelled his spe- cies, insulted the ashes of a fallen patriot, and wrote infamy on his own brazen front ? The hour that witnesses this black injustice will date an era in the decline of this great republic. The vote by which this foul wrong is consummated will unhinge the Constitution, and leave our country at the mercy of the winds and waves of popular fury. I am not authorized to speak for the entire South ; but for my own gallant little State, I can and will speak. She never will submit to a wrong like this; SLAVERY AND THE POLITICAL TOWER OF THE SOUTH. 141 no, sir ; never, never, never ! There she stands, on the broad platform of the Constitution ; weak in numerical force, strong in the consciousness of her own just cause, fresh from the field of her glory, still dripping with the blood of her best sons; and there she will stand, until the shock that drives her from that position shall crumble the Constitution beneath her feet. She hates injustice, and loves the Constitution ; she cherishes the memory of her fallen sons with all the fondness of paternal alfcction, and she will see justice done their memory; she will demand justice, according to the Constitution, for their families and friends. Xo power on earth can deprive them of this but the power of despotism. When that is exerted, the tocsin will sound ; the spirit of Washington will depart ; the Constitution will pass away as the baseless fabric of a vision ; anarchy will reign triumphant. May God, in His mercy, pre- serve us from such a calamity ! SLAYEEY NO INCREASE OF THE POLITICAL POWER OF THE SOUTH. On the 1st of August, 1848, Mr. Robert C. Sciiexk, of Ohio, in the course of a speech ou the Oregon bill, in the House of Representatives, said : "But, sir, regarding this as a political question purely, or one, if you will, of poli- tical power, there is a thing connected with slavery to which we cannot and will not be blind. It is the advantage in federal representation which it gives. This much we do know in the free states, if we know nothing else : that a man at the South, with his hundred slaves, counts sixty-one in the weight of influence and power upon this floor, while the man at the North, with his hundred farms, counts but one. Sir, ice loant no 7nore of that ; and, with the help of God, and our own firm pui-pose, we will have no more of it. Therefore, above all, it is that we want no more slave territory. That is a sufficient and conclusive reason, if there were I no other ; and it might as well be distinctly understood first as last. " Sir, shall I illustrate to show that we understand this matter ? There is the district of the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, who would amend so as to extend slavery into Oregon. I have not consulted the census to see how it may be in his particular case, but he probably represents some five or six, or eight thousand voters. Now, there are about eighteen thousand voters in my district — eighteen thousand free white male adult citizens. These eighteen thousand freemen have one voice and one vote — I would it were an abler one — on this floor. The five thousand or eight thousand in South Carolina have the same. On every bill or resolution, or other subject of legislation here, the eighteen thousand in Ohio can say aye or no — once and no more — while one-third or one-half that number in South Carolina have also their aye or no. "We do not complain of this. I wish it I were not so. But so it was arranged, so agreed that it should be, by our fathers • when they framed the Constitution ; and we will hold by that agreement in all good faith, and submit to it as part of the price paid for this Union. But let there be no more slave territory to make more slave states, to give us more of this slave representation and inequality of weight in the councils of the nation." Governor Brown promptly responded, exposing the fallacy of slavery 142 ALBERT G. BROWN. increasing the representative power of the South. Having offered an amendiaent ^jro/orm(^, he proceeded to say: — The South had contended for the constitutional right of her citizens to emigrate to the territories •with their property, and the error into whicli Northern gentlemen were continually falling, was in attempting to discriminate between slave and other property. The Constitution made no such discrimination, and it was not in the power of Congress to do so. Mr. B. said his principal object in rising at this time was to correct an error very common of Northern politicians, and into which the remarkably astute gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Schenk] had just fallen. That gentleman had stated, with great earnestness and apparent candor, that the slave states had an undue or disproportionate political influence in this House, in consequence of the slave population within their limits. Exactly the converse of this pro- position was true. The slave states lose political influence, in conse- quence of the slaves within their limits. In the gentleman's state, as in all the free states, the entire population, white and black, were enu- merated, and all were taken into the account in fixing the ratio of repre- sentation. A free negro in Ohio counted as much as a white man, in the general enumeration of her population, and so he did in Mississippi, and in every other state: but how was it with slaves? Under the Con- stitution, two-fifths of the whole number were excluded, the rule being to compute the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, and then add three-fifths of all other persons, in other words, slaves. Now, what was the practical operation of this rule ? Certainly not to increase our power and influence here. In his (M. B.'s) state, a little over one-half of the whole population were slaves. Of these, two-fifths are excluded in fixing the ratio of representation. Two-tenths of the entire popula- tion are left out of the enumeration, and our political influence diminished by that amount ; and yet the gentleman stands np here and misleads the public mind, by asserting that slavery increases the political power of the South. Mr. SciiENK. Does the gentleman represent the slaves in his district ? Mr. Brown. I represent three-fifths of them ; the other two-fifths have no representative. Mr. SciiENK. Do the slaves vote ? Mr. Brown. Certainly not : nor do the women and children. Yet women and children are included in the enumeration, and are repre- sented. The free negroes in the gentleman's district do not vote, yet they are all counted in fixing the ratio of representation. The gentle- man represents all the negroes in his district, though they do not vote. I only represent three-fifths of the negro slaves in my district, and the political power of the district to the extent of the remaining two-fifths is diminished. Mr. ScuENK. Do you not represent them as property ? Mr. Brown. I cannot allow the gentleman to change the issue. Does he not regard them as people — as population ? Set them free, and you do not increase thereby their civil rights, but you would give them their full weight in representation. At present they have a mixed cha- racter : they are property, it is true ; but then, they are persons. By the laws of the land, tliey may commit crimes, and crimes may be com- mitted against them. It is murder, unlawfully and wickedly to kill a ANTONIO TACHECO. 143 slave ; and if a slave maliciously slay a white man, or a fellow-slave, he is guilty of murder. In this and in many other respects, slaves are persons. The gentleman regards them as persons in all respects ; and seeing two-fifths of these persons excluded from representation on this floor, he yet complains that our influence is increased in consequence of our slave population. Suppose there to be five millions of slaves in the United States (we all know there are not so many by great odds), three millions enter into the computation, and are represented on this floor. Set them all free, and the whole five millions would come in, and our influence and power be thereby increased by the additional two millions. But without special legislation for that purpose, free men of color would not have the right to vote any more than slaves have that right. The civil and political rights of the negro are not increased by the mere act of setting him free. He may rise by mere possibility in the scale of social importance ; but the chances are, that in the course of three or four generations, he will relapse into his original position, and become little else than a degraded animal. ANTONIO PACHECO. In the House of Representativef?, December 29, 1848, on the bill making provision for paying the heirs of Antonio Pacheco, for a negro slave, employed by the United States Army in Florida as a guide, who escaped to the Indians and was removed with them by the Government to the lands reserved for the Indians in the West — Mr. Brown said : — The views presented by the gentleman who had just taken his seat were of a character so extraordinary as to require an immediate response. They were the views frequently presented by northern men, and by which the people of the North had continually been led into error upon the subject of slavery. The gentleman had said that he did not desire to inflict any torture upon the feehngs of southern men. He begged the gentleman to accept his acknowledgments ; but he must say, that no one had been seriously injured, or was likely to be, by what had fallen from the gentleman. The people of the South knew their rights, and knowing, dared maintain them both here and elsewhere, and maintain them as men. ^ The gentleman had said there was nothing in the Constitution of the United States which made slaves property, and therefore that he was not disposed to pay for them when taken for public use. Slaves were property under the Constitution whenever it subserved the purposes of the Government to consider them as such. If they wanted to levy taxes upon them, then they were property. This Congress might levy taxes upon slaves as property; they might collect them, and put the avails into the coffers of the Union, to defray the expenses of the Government. For that purpose slaves were property. If it was desired to satisfy an execution in favor of the Government against some 144 ALBERT G. BROWN. southern defaulter — some custom-house officer, some postmaster, or other defaulting agent of the Government — slaves were property enough for that purpose. Whenever it was for the advantage of the Government, their northern friends were ready enough to consider them as property ; but when the Government was asked to give fair compensation for such property which had been appropriated to public use, their northern friends found that there was nothing in the Constitution to justify their being regarded as property. The Supreme Court of the United States, sitting at this hour in this capitol, had time and again adjudicated ques- tions involving the right of property in slaves ; and never had that court intimated that there was as much as a doubt as to the existence of that right. In the case of Groves vs. Slaughter, among other things, that court had clearly and distinctly recognised the right of property in slaves. But the gentleman from New Hampshire found that there was no- thing in the Constitution recognising the right of property in slaves, and therefore he was not going to give it by his vote. He (Mr. B.) would like to know of the gentleman if there was anything in the Constitution which pointed out a horse, or any other animal or thing, as property ? Where was the clause of the Constitution which declared the right of property in a house, in a wooden clock, or any other product of the great state of New Hampshire, or the right of property in corn, in breadstuffs, or in any article of merchandise ? The Constitution of the United States was profoundly silent on all these points, as it was upon the question of the right of property in slaves. So far as the action of this Congress was concerned, the question had time and again been settled, that there was such a thing as the right of property in slaves. But it belonged to gentlemen of the school of politics to which the gentleman from New Hampshire belonged, within the last three or four years to discover that there was no such thing in existence. Why, he would like to know of the gentleman when and where it was that he had made the marvellous discovery, that there could be no right of property in anything unless that thing was specified in the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court, in, he supposed, a thousand cases involving the principle that there was property in slaves, had affirmed, directly or in- directly, that right ; Congress also, in repeated instances, had affirmed it. Gentlemen ought to admit some principle as settled. When we had precedent after precedent, both in our judicial decisions and in the action of Congress, all pointing one way, or (to use more approved language) if the question had been " settled by the various departments of the Government," the principle must be regarded as established ; and (we were told) we were to expect no veto from the President elect, and he should hope that no objections to it would come from the President's friends. He repeated, he had not risen for the purpose of discussing the point whether this particular claim was valid, but to correct the improper, the erroneous doctrine which had been promulgated by the gentleman from New Hampshire — a doctrine which, in his judgment, had done more to poison the minds of the northern people, to lead them into error, and shake the foundations of society, than all other false doctrines com- bined. 6 SLATE TRADE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 145 SLAVE TRADE IN THE DISTEICT OF COLUMBIA. In the House of Representatives, January 31, 1849, on the relations of Congress to the District of Cokimbia, in connection with a bill to prohibit the introduction of slaves into the District of Columbia as merchandise, Mr. Brown said, he did not design, upon taking the floor at the pre- sent time, to enter into a discussion of the various questions which had engaged the attention of the House this morning ; but as a member of the committee on the District of Columbia, he desired to say a word with reference to his own position with regard to the introduction of this bin. The bill was almost a literal transcript of what was the law of the state of Mississippi from the year 1837 down to a period within some three or four years past, with one material alteration, namely, a prohibition against any citizen going beyond the boundaries of the dis- trict and buying a slave for his own use within the District. The law of the state of Mississippi, to which he referred, was founded upon a provision of the constitution of that state which grew out of apprehen- sions (whether well founded or not) of servile insurrections in the minds of the framers of that constitution. The provision was at all events in- corporated into the constitution, and the act in pursuance thereof, to which he had referred, was drawn by his own hand as a member of the Mississippi legislature. In his capacity as a member of the committee on the District of Columbia, he had pointed to that law as containing suitable provisions to be incorporated into the bill which they were to report. The law was acceptable to the committee ; and, with the mate- rial alteration to which he had referred, it was copied and reported to the House. A VOICE. The gentleman is mistaken about the restriction. Mr. Brown (continuing) said he was not mistaken. He had said that, by the restriction to which he objected, citizens of the District were not to go beyond the boundaries of the District, and purchase slaves for their own use within the District. There was, indeed, a pro- vision that they might, by inheritapce, marriage, or bequest, obtain a title to slaves without the District, and so bring them in ; but there was no other provision of the bill by which a citizen of the District could acquire title to slaves in any of the states. He had opposed and ob- jected to this restriction, in the committee, upon the ground that it was never petitioned for by the people. The immediate occasion and basis of the bill was the petition of the mayor and council of the city of Washington. And if he could be induced to vote for a bill of this kind at all, it would be on account of such petition. He did not know that, under any circumstances, it could command his vote ; certainly it never could with this restriction. Aword in regard to his own position. He had always believed that, in his representative character upon that floor, he was called upon to represent the expressed will and wishes of the people of the District of Columbia, having, at the same time, due regard to the rights of the y 146 ALBERT G. BROWN. people of tlie several states, and to the restrictions of the Constitution of the United States. If the people of the Distriet of Columbia peti- tioned for any object which might be granted without violation of the Constitution, or infringement of the rights of other citizens of the United States, he was bound to support their petition ; and it ought to be granted. lie felt that he should no more claim for himself the right to represent the people of the District of Columbia, in accordance with the wishes of the people of the fourth congressional district of Mississippi, than that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Giddings] should claim to rep- resent them in accordance with the wishes of his constituents. He was willing to meet gentlemen here on common ground, and claim no more - for his particular section than he was Avilling to accord to every other section of the country. The District of Columbia was no gladiatorial region, where opposing parties were to meet in conflict. This was neu- tral ground, where the wishes of the people should be fairly represented, having respect always to the rights of others and to the Constitution. He did not believe that the strong party in Congress had any right to pass any law for the District, without respect to the wishes of the people of the District, and without reference to the Constitution and rights of the people outside of the District ; but that in all this branch of their public charge, they should have an eye strictly to the Constitution, and to the rights of the whole people. Such was his policy, and would con- tinue to be so long as he remained a representative on that floor. He should never look to the state of Mississippi for the sole rule of his con- duct in this department of his duty. For, if gentlemen were to look to the wishes of their constituents in these cases, it would not be long be- fore we should have laws for the District of Columbia framed in obedi- ence to the wishes of the people of New England, or the great West, and having no regard to the wishes of the people here. He wanted no such thing. In acting upon a petition from the people of this District, his first object was to inquire how far he might go, and still remain within the limits of the Constitution ? and then how far he might go without in- fringing upon the deed of cession by which the District was acquired from the states of Maryland and Virginia ? These limits being ascer- tained, he should be prepared to go for any law desired by the people of the District, which did not require these fixed limits to be transcended. If gentlemen from New England, New York, and elsewhere, were pre- pared to act upon this rule, he was prepared to go with them. He was glad that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Taylor] had introduced the authority of a late venerable representative from Massachusetts [Mr. John Quincy Adams], in support of the principle, that the people of the District of Columbia were not to be represented according to the views and Avishes of the people residing elsewhere in the United States. If his own views did not happen to accord exactly with those of the people here petitioning, it was his duty to conform his views to tlieirs ; and this was manifestly the only right rule upon which these people could be represented. He appealed, therefore, to his friends, the southern dele- gation, to do what was right upon this question, while he asked only the same thing of gentlemen from the North. He thought gentlemen on all sides might shape their conduct according to the rule he had laid down, SLAVE TRADE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 147 doino- no injustice to the District, and giving no just ground of complaint to the states north or south. Mr. McLane interposed to ask a question ; and (Mr. B. giving way for the purpose) he said he -wouhl ask the gentleman whether he Avent so far with his doctrine as to recognise the right on the part of the people of the District of Columbia to ask of Congress the enactment of a law abolishing slavery in the District ? — whether he did not believe that such an act would be unconstitutional? — in other words, whether the gentle- man's rule went further than to admit of petitions for objects vathin the federal power to grant, while he would exclude all others, as petitions which should neither be demanded on their part nor granted on ours, for the reason that they were incompatible with the federal powers of Congress ? Mr. Brown replied, that he hardly thought the gentleman could have misunderstood him. He would say again, that the people of this Dis- trict, like every other people, had the right to be represented (if they were represented at all) according to their own views and wishes, and not according to the views of people residing elsewhere in the United States. They had no right to ask, nor had Congress the right to grant, laws for their benefit which would outrage the rights of others, whether citizens of the state of Virginia, Maryland, or any other state. He should always expect every gentleman who desired to protect the rights of the people, whether citizens of Maryland, Virginia, or the District of Columbia, to vote against the abolition of slavery here; for such a policy would make of the District nothing but a receptacle for all the free negroes in the country. He could not go into the question of the constitutional power of Congress to abolish slavery here : it was in no way involved in the bill. But he w^ould take occasion to say, he had never conceded the power ; and if he had, there were abundant reasons without the Constitution to determine his vote against such a measure. One word with reference to the complaint made as to gentlemen voting here contrary to their own convictions of right, because of the fear of their constituents. He knew not how it was with the gentleman from New York, but when such a charge was made against him, his reply was, that he was not afraid to give any vote which his judgment might approve. The apprehension of responsibility at home did not swerve him. He was sent here to take responsibility, and he would account himself unfaithful and unworthy of his trust, if he did not take respon- sibility on all proper occasions. Upon all questions involving the rights of the South and the southern institution of slavery, he should vote with the South. And if he had any fears on this subject, they were not for himself or his constituents, but rather for the North. If gentlemen de- sired it of him, he would now tell them, that he felt the necessity, on the part of the South, of standing together upon every question involv- ino' the right of property in slaves, the slave trade, and abolition in all its forms. He knew that they must stand together for defence : there- fore, as the South voted, so he should vote, till the pressure from with- out should be withdrawn. The South acted together upon the principle of self-protection and self-preservation. They stood for protection a"-ainst destruction and annihilation. He knew not the motive which prompted this outward pressure ; he felt its existence and he knew that the South acted purely on the defensive ; they merely warded off the blow 148 ALBERT G. BROWN. directed against their peace, their safety, their lives. Such were his motives for voting with the South. And he now said to all who were opposed to him or his country, withdraw your pressure ; cease to agitate this question ; let us alone ; do whatsoever you think to be right with- out endangering us, and you will find that we, too, are ready to do right. Mr. FiCKLiN desired to inquire of the gentleman from Mississippi, before he took his seat, whether he had stated that the bill before the House was a transcript of a law of the state of Mississippi ? Mr. Brown replied that he had so stated the fact. The law, how- ever, had been repealed by the legislature of Mississippi some two or three years ago. The reason why it had been repealed, he supposed, was of no consequence there. While upon this subject, he might say, that, although he had voted for the motion of the gentleman from Georgia, to lay the bill on the table, he did not fully approve of it. He was perfectly willing now, as he should be at any time hereafter, to see the motion of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Edwards] prevail. He was perfectly willing that the bill should be printed, examined, and discussed fully. He was not so much opposed to the motion of the gentleman from Georgia as he was opposed to the motion of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Wentworth]. The disposition thus manifested to force a bill of this character through the House upon three minutes' consideration, was most extraordinary. As to the question raised by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Burt], he admitted there Avas force in it. How far Congress had the right to legislate upon any question, in any way involving the right of property in slaves, even in this District, was worthy of the gravest con- sideration. The question presented by the bill is not, whether Congress may destroy property in slaves (that would be abolition, and on such a proposition no southern man could hesitate), but the question is simply, whether Congress may do in this District, what almost all the slave states have done within their respective limits — prohibit the introduction of slaves as merchandise or for sale. And even this was not without its difficulties and embarrassments. He was not on that account for shrink- ing from it. The question was before us, and we must consider it. For himself he was ready to meet it, to act upon it as upon every other respectful application coming from those who had a right to make such application. The people of the District had the right to make this application. It was our duty to consider it ; and he would go further, and say it was our duty to grant it, if we could do so without prejudice to the rights of others, and without transcending our constitutional powers. Whether in the end we vote for or against the bill, let us refer it, print it, and give it proper and respectful consideration. Mr. B. trusted he had not been misunderstood ; for it was known, that to a southern member, this was a delicate question. He had ex- pressed his honest views — views which he desired to carry out in good faith. He did very well know, that if the South were let alone — if they were not positively ill-treated, the North might be assured they would come up and do what was right. They stood together now for their own preservation, and nothing less than unity in their councils could be expected of them in the j)resent crisis. If individual members did not always vote exactly according to their views of right upon these ques- tions, it was because of this known, and now universally acknowledged. NEW MEXICO AND CALIFOllNIA. 149 necessity of unity and concert among ourselves. When a sleepless and dangerous enemy stood at our doors, we felt the necessity of acting together. Let that enemy withdraw — let us out into the open sunshine, •where wc could look upon the same sun that you look upon— where the air, the land, the water, everything could he seen in common and enjoyed in common — and we should he ready to meet you as hrcthren, and legislate with you as brethren. But so long as you keep up this pressure, these endless, ceaseless, ruthless assaults upon us, wc must stand together for defence. In this position w^e must regard you as our enemies, and we are yours. NEW MEXICO AND CALIFORNIA. In the House of Representatives, February 10, 1849, — On the proposition of Mr. Preston, of Virginia, to admit New Mexico and California as States; and in reply to Mr. Hunt on the general policy of the Administration; Mr. Brown said: Mr. Chairman : It is not my purpose to follow the line of discussion marked out by the gentleman who has just taken his seat. My chief object in taking the floor is to reply to remarks made some time since by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hunt], in reference to the late presidential election and the general policy of the existing Administra- tion. The question prominently before the committee is certainly one of most absorbing interest ; but my reflections so far have brought my mind to no satisfactorj'' conclusion in regard to it. I am not fully pre- i pared to say in what manner I shall even dispose of my own vote. ! Since, however, the proposition to accord state governments to New I Mexico and California has been presented under such imposing forms ; '■since the eloquent gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Preston] has urged it jwith so much of zeal and ability; since my friend from Alabama [Mr. .Hilliard] has entered the list of its advocates, and urged its favorable consideration with more than his accustomed intellectual power; since the frequent discussion in the other end of the capitol has attracted so large an amount of public attention ; and above all, since it is almost certain that we shall be called upon, before the close of the present session, to vote upon some one, and perhaps all, of the several proposi- tions submitted, and to be submitted, I will avail myself of the oppor- Itunity now presented to assume that position before the country which I desire to occupy. Whether I can finally bring myself to vote for any proposition to admit these territories as states, I cannot now undertake to say. None of those submitted thus far meet my views in their details. The details, however, are matters of secondary importance. The great question to be deter- mined is, " Shall we admit these territories as states at this session of Congress?" Upon this question, for the sake of harmony and the oeace of the Union I am prepared to make very great and important sacrifices. To attain this end I am ready to give up everything but principle and honor ; but, before I move from my present position, I 150 ALBERT G. BKOWN. ■want to know wliether our opponents are ready to meet us in a corres- ponding spirit. Are they ready to make corresponding sacrifices for the sake of peace, harmony, and brotherly union ? I am prepared to go to that point where conflicting interests and opinions may meet, and adjust this dangerous issue upon terms honorable to both sides, and without any undue sacrifice by either party. That such a point exists, no one seriously questions. Shall we meet there, is the only point worth con- sidering. We of the South voted at the last session of Congress for more than one proposition which our judgments did not wholly approve. We did so in a spirit of concession and compromise. But in what spirit were we met ? In a spirit of stern and obstinate resistance. Every tender of the olive branch was rudely, almost indignantly rejected. All our propositions were voted down as they were successively presented, by that party who claimed a right to undivided dominion over these terri- tories. I never have, and never will assent to the justice of this claim ; and hereafter I will vote to maintain the rights of the South in their broadest latitude, unless I shall plainly see, that by an honorable and manly surrender of a portion of these rights, peace may be secured, and the Union rescued from its present perilous condition. I love the Union, but the love I bear it is for its blessings, and not its curses. Let it fulfil the high purpose of its creation, and the people will preserve it at any and every sacrifice of blood or treasure, and nowhere Avill these sacrifices be more freely made than in the South. But divert it from this purpose, resolve it into a mighty engine of oppression, to be wielded by the strong and powerful for the subjugation of the weak and power- less, and you convert our love into hatred ; and these sacrifices which we now freely offer for its preservation, we will then reserve for its destruction. The union of these states rests on a foundation solid and sacred, the affections of the people of all the states. Be careful how you tamper with that foundation, lest you destroy it, and thus destroy the Union itself. Let the Union dispense equal and exact justice to all, special favors to none, and not one murmur of complaint will ever come up here from the patriotic sons of the " Sunny South." We despise injustice of every kind. In the emphatic words of a distinguished chieftain, "We ask no favors, and shrink from no responsibility." It has been charged that my political associates intend to postpone the settlement of this question, to the end that it may be to General Taylor a stream of consuming fire, which it may be impossible to circum- vent, and which he cannot cross in safety. For myself, the unworthy imputation is emphatically disclaimed. I shall vote upon this, as upon i all other questions, precisely as I would have done before the late pre- sidential election — just as I should have done had General Cass been the successful candidate, or as though no presidential election had inter- vened. This, to my mind, is a question above all party considerations. It deeply involves the harmony and stability of the Union, and I should i despise myself if I were capable of shaping my conduct, on such a i question, with a view to partisan results. Upon such issues I shall vote i| ■without reference to party ties, and without stopping to inquire whether I am advancing or retarding the political fortunes of the President elect. And I may lay it down as a general rule, that whilst I will not travel out of my way to remove obstacles from the path of General Taylor-— I .;-} NEW MEXICO AND CALIFORNIA. 151 if, indeed, there be any sucli in his way— I shall not ref:;ara it as com- patible with my duty as a citizen, or dignity as a representative, to in- terpose such obstacles where none now exist. Before dismissing the subject, allow me, Mr. Chairman, to congrat- ulate the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Treston], and, through liim, his political associates here and elsewhere, tliat he and they are at last so near on the "Cass platform." If the gentleman will move a very little to the right, he will find himself in exact juxtaposition with the late Democratfc candidate for the presidency, on this question ; that is, asserting that the people of the territories, under the general limitations and restrictions of the Federal Constitution, may rightfully settle the slavery question for themselves. The gentleman, at the last session of Cono-ress, and throuo-hout the canvass for President, was understood to oppose this doctrine. Mr. Preston interposed. He had been misunderstood by the gentle- man from jNIississippi. Last year, and always and everywhere, he had advocated the doctrine and made the distinction which he had attempted to make day before yesterday. The distinction he drew was, between the territorial rights of a people, contemplated as the people of a terri- tory, and the sovereign rights of a people after they have been created a state government. Mr. Brown. I so understood the gentleman, and have given him due credit for his ingenuity. But the distinction seems to me, when ap- plied to the case in hand, a thing rather of form than substance. Here is a conquered people, possessing as yet no political rights under our laws and Constitution, because not yet admitted to the rights of citizen- ship ; and what is .worse, possessing no practical knowledge of the workings of our system of government, and knowing nothing of our in- stitutions. The substantial question is, shall such a people give laws to our territories, and shape and mould their institutions for the present, and possibly for all after time ? It is a matter of form whether they shall proceed to do this at once, under the general limitations and re- strictions of the Constitution, or whether you shall hoist them into the Union as a State, with the avowed purpose, object, and aim, of giving them the power to do the same thing. Is there a member of this House who would ever have taken upon himself to lead into the Union a state of such huge dimensions as that proposed by my friend from Virginia — embracing, as it does, all of New Mexico and California — but that it seemed to present a feasible means of getting clear of this most dangerous and perplexing question ? Hitherto it has been usual to introduce states with fixed metes and bounds — to know something of the people who were to govern them — to know at least that they were or intended to become citizens of the United States — to have a reason- able assurance that they understood something of our laws and appreci- ated our institutions. But here is a proposition to admit a state, ex- tending from near the thirty-second to the forty-second degree of north latitude — almost six hundred miles on an air line, bounded on the one side by the Pacific Ocean, and having no fixed limits on the other. And this vast country, sparsely settled, with a foreign population knowing nothing of our laws, distrusting from education, the soundness of our political theories, and disliking our people from habit, is to be hoisted, in all its huge proportions and with this strange population, into our 152 ALBERT G. BROWN. Union upon terms of equality with the original states — and for what end ? Disguise it as you will, it is that these people may have the power to exclude slavery from the territories now and for ever. Have they gone through any territorial probation ? Is there any evidence that these people, strangers as they are, desire admission into the Union, or that they will now consent to come in, if you invite them ? or must we bring them in nolens volens ? The gentleman's bill gives to every white male inhabitant over the age of twenty-one years the right to vote, whether Spaniard, Mexican, Swede, Turk, or what not. So he be but a white male inhabitant of the territory, and twenty-one years old, he is to vote, it matters not what may have drawn him there, or what his future intentions may be. If he be but an inhabitant, and white, and twenty-one years old, he is to vote in the formation of a con- stitution, by which your rights and mine, Mr. Chairman, and those of our constituents, are to be controlled through all after time. And this is the proposition of the gentleman who found such mighty fault with General Cass for saying the people of the territories, under the restric- tions and limitations of the Federal Constitution, could do this same thing. I submit to my honorable friend, whether it would not be re- spectful, to say the least of it, towards his constituents and mine, to require these people, before they pass final judgment upon our rights, to make an intimation in some form that they intend to become citizens as well as inhabitants of the United States. But, says the gentleman, there are some one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand American emigrants in that country. It must be a lively imagination that could multipy the few thousand gold hunters who have gone to California to such vast numbers. There may be some ten to twenty thousand Americans there — certainly not more than thirty thousand — mere adventurers, who Avill stay in the country if they find it profitable to dig or pick up gold. The emigrants whose rights are to be afl"ected by this proceeding — the cotton, sugar, and tobacco-grower — have not yet started on their journey, and yet you are proposing to force the territory into the Union as a state, settle its institutions, and for ever exclude this better class of emigrants. These are some of my reflections, Mr. Chairman, hastily thrown out in a discussion which I did not intend, at this time, to participate in. I do not say that I shall vote against the proposition of the gentleman from Virginia. It may be that I shall vote for it. I cannot part with the subject at this moment, however, without saying to my honorable friend, if it was wrong in General Cass to say the people of the terri- tories, under the general limitations and restrictions of the Federal Con- stitution, might exclude slavery, it must be equally wrong in him to give these same people a factitious political character, to the end that they may thereby accomplish the same thing. The people, in the judgment of the gentleman, had not this power last summer ; and what are they now that they were not then ? They are the same people, with the same feelings, passions, and prejudices ; with the same political powerg — no more nor less. I may appeal to my honorable friend if it was quite just in him to hunt down General Cass for his opinions, and then, in effect, to put forth the same opinions himself. But I must leave this subject, to pay my respects to a speech made by an honorable member from New York [Mr. Hunt] some time since. NEW MEXICO AND CALIFORNIA. 153 That gentleman, in the outset of his remarks, declared -with emphasis, that all the measures of the existing Administration had been trium- phantly overthrown, and the President and his party friends signally rebuked at the late presidential election. So strong was this impression on the mind of the gentleman, that he took occasion to mention it two or three times in the course of his speech. Whether it was in truth altogether a strong impression on the gentleman's own mind, or whether it was that he thought so novel an historical fact needed repetition to imprint it on the mind of others, I do not know ; but certain it is, the declaration was several times repeated, and each time with additional emphasis. It is my purpose, among other things, to investigate the truth of this declaration. The gentleman says it is fortunate for the truth of history and the correct understanding of political issues, that deposed ministers and dis- missed secretaries are not the most accredited historians of their own lives, times, and acts ; and I take leave to add, that it is equally fortu- nate for the truth of history and the vindication of men and measures, that partisan leaders and political tricksters are not always the most ac- credited historians of their own lives, times, and tricks. Were the gen- tleman from New York to write a history of the late presidential canvass, he would induce the world to think that the election had turned upon such issues as the bank, the tarift', the independent treasury, and other questions which had hitherto divided the two great political parties.' The gentleman has a way of proving his declaration that all these things were in issue, which is at once novel and unique. He says the Baltimore Convention tendered these issues. True, sir, most true. The Baltimore Convention did tender these issues ; but did the Phila- delphia Convention accept them? It requires two parties to make up an issue. The Democratic party, with an instinctive love of truth and justice peculiar to themselves, did tender all these issues ; but will the gentleman pretend that the Whig party accepted them, or went to the country upon them ? If so, when, where, and by whom was it done ? Certainly not in Philadelphia. Certainly not here. Certainly it has not transpired that any one duly authorized to speak for the Whig party did, at any time or place anterior to the late presidential election, accept the issues tendered. On the contrary, we were everywhere told that the old issues were buried, and that we were before the country on other new and more important issues. And have these new and important issues so soon been forgotten ? Can it be, that in six short weeks after the election is over, the distinguished gentleman does not even dare allude to them in a speech bearing evident marks of preparation ? Must the defunct issues be so soon summoned from their sepulchres, and the new ones be sent to take their places ? When the gentleman comes to write the history of his own life and times, he may perhaps enlighten the world as to the origin of that overruling political necessity which has induced this sud- den abandonment of new issues — this longing after old ones. Summon the old issues, if you like. Call them from their tombs of martyrdom. But let me tell you, the new ones " will not down at your bidding." Mr. Hunt interposed, but the reporter did not catch his remark. Mr. Brown. The gentleman says it was always understood that the Whigs were opposed to the independent treasury. But did they, as a party, say so in the last contest 'i That is the question. Did they give 154 ALBERT G. BROWN. the country distinctly to understand that this measure was in issue, and that General Taylor's success would be followed by the instant repeal of the independent treasury law ? I undertake to say, no such authorita- tive declaration was ever made. On the contrary, the people were everywhere assured that the old party issues were withdrawn, or were permitted to sleep, to the end that the full measure of a nation's grati- tude might be meted out to the successful general — the chieftain who had led our armies in triumph and glory through " an unnecessary, un- constitutional, unholy, wicked, and murderous war." But, says the gentleman, the tariff of 1846 was also overthrown in this general denunciation of popular fury. Indeed ! And pray, sir, who put that measure at issue ? We shall again be told, I suppose, that the Whigs were understood to be opposed to the tariff of 1846, and in favor of that of 1842. However this may be, Mr. Chairman, as a general party rule, it does not hold good in every instance ; for I well recollect to have heard the ablest and most eloquent of the Whig orators in my part of the Union, declare their entire satisfaction with this measure. As a measure of revenue it seemed, they said, thus far, to have an- swered the purposes of its projectors ; and so long as it continued to do so, they were satisfied to let it alone. But again, let me remind the gentleman that this measure was not in issue by any competent party authority. The President elect is not a party man, and is not going to lend himself to any party schemes, if we may believe his own emphatic declarations, repeated time and again, throughout the whole of the late presidential canvass. How dare the gentleman claim his election as a \ verdict for or against any party measure ? Why, sir, to this day the j gentleman cannot himself say what General Taylor is for or against. There are other great measures of the Democratic party, such as vin- 1 dicating the national honor and exacting a due and proper regard for our national rights. By a steady observance of these measures, this Administration has settled a dispute with England of near fifty years' : standing, and has flogged Mexico into a decent respect for our national flag. All this, the gentleman says, has passed under general condem- nation. The President has repeatedly and earnestly recommended the reduc- tion of the price of the public lands. The Secretary of the Treasury! has urged the same great measure Avith zeal and ability. This, too, has been condemned. It will be news to my Democratic constituents who! have been inveigled, by specious Whig promises adroitly put forth, into! voting for General Taylor, that they thereby passed their verdict off condemnation upon this, to them, the most interesting of all the greatl political questions. Not only have the people pronounced against all the measures of the! Democratic party, but, in the gentleman's judgment, they have pro- nounced in favor of all the Whig measures. Let me ask my honorable] friend, what financial scheme for the collection, safe-keeping, and dis- bursement of the public revenue is to take the place of the independent^ treasury ? — or do I offend in asking the question ? Must I assume that' the "obsolete idea" is to be revived — that we are to have a national bank ? I pause for a reply. Mr. Hunt. The public money may be collected and safely disbursed, without the agency of either a bank or sub-treasury. NE^Y MEXICO AND CALIFORNIA. 1G5 Mr. Brown. How ? Mr. Hunt replied, that no difficulty had been found in collecting tlie revenues in the ordinary currency of the country, and making the dis- bursement without loss, by exercising the same judgment and discretion which governs prudent individuals in their own affairs. On the subject of a bank, he had only said there was no occasion for the President to revive that discussion at this time in his annual message. Mr. Brown. I accept the gentleman's answer. In the remarks to which I am replying he took the President seriously to task for discuss- ing the bank question in his late annual message. He now says there was no necessity to revive that discussion at this time. Why not, pray? Is not a bank one of the measures revived in the late Whig victory ? Why this chariness of your old friend ? Must the bank sleep on in its deep, cold grave, whilst all Whigdom is redolent with joy at the resur- rection of its kindred measures 't Or are you afraid that the old Jack- son men, who aided you in achieving your triumph, will raise the war- whoop if you exhibit the carcass of the " old monster ?" I commend your prudence in not saying "bank" too soon to the Democratic sup- porters of General Taylor. But what can the gentleman mean by the Government's collecting, safe-keeping, and disbursing its revenue -without the agency of banks, in the same way that a prudent and discreet individual would do the same thing ? Need I tell the gentleman, that whenever the Government col- lects and disburses its money like a discreet man of business, the sub- treasury is then in full operation ? This is the sub-treasury in all its length and breadth. It simply proposes that the Government shall col- lect, keep, and disburse our money in the same way that a sensible and discreet business man would collect, keep, and disburse his money. After all, sir, the sub-treasury may not turn out such a raw-head-and- bloody-bones as my honorable friend supposes. I commend it to his at- tention as a thing worthy of his confidence, and eminently entitled to his support on the grounds just taken by himself. A mighty cause of complaint is the " profligacy and corruption" of the Administration. These phrases are too often applied to the Presi- dent of the United States. Coarse in themselves, worn threadbare by constant vulgar use, they are singularly out of place in the speech of a gentleman so remarkable for his courtesy as the gentleman from New York. Charges of " profligacy and corruption" are never made by one member against another, by a representative against a senator, or by one gentleman in private life against another similarly situated. We all know to Avhat results such charges, if made in any of these cases, would certainly lead. Is it, then, in good taste thus to assail the Presi- dent, simply because he is President ? I will not say that the known fact, that such charges when made against the President involve no per- sonal responsibility, encourages their repetition. But this I will say, the very fact of knowing that we may assault a man with impunity, should for ever induce us to speak to and of him in language free from insult. The President is, in an eminent degree, the custodian of the national honor ; and whoever degrades the President, to some extent degrades the nation. And for this, if for no other reason, I would wish to see gen- tlemen more circumspect in their language, and more forbearing in their censure. 156 ALBERT G. BROWN. What does the gentleman mean by the profligacy of the President ? If he means to say the President has made a profligate or wasteful use of the public money, I take issue with him. The public money has been used for the purposes for which it was appropriated by Congress. The gentleman knows very well that not one dollar can be drawn from the treasury but in pursuance of lawful appropriations ; that the President is, in fact, further removed from the public money than the gentleman or myself. For though the world were at stake, not one dollar can he take from the national treasury until the members of this House first vote the appropriation. If there have been " profligate and wasteful ap- propriations," to the gentleman and his party belong the responsibility. It is well known that on that side of the House appropriations of every kind find a majority of their supporters. I do not say that these appropri- ations are profligate, least of all do I say they are corrupt. I say the President is not, and that the Whig party is, responsible for the voting of these appropriations. Mr. BoYDEN (interposing, and the floor being yielded) said the Presi- dent should be called upon to declare in what manner the money had been expended which was collected under contributions levied by his order in Mexico. Mr. Brown. There is no difficulty on that point. The money was expended in subsisting our brave troops in Mexico, and to my mind it was a wise, patriotic, and just use of it. I am not displeased, Mr. Chair- man, that the gentleman from North Carolina has thought proper to introduce this topic. It gives me an opportunity to say a word in refer- ence to it, which otherwise I may not have had. When the point was first presented as to the President's right to collect duties in the Mexican ports temporarily in the occupancy of American troops, the learned gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. C. J. Ingersoll] admitted the right to collect, but intimated his doubts as to the power to disburse the money thus collected. I thought then, as I do now, that the right was clear in both cases. If the American general had found a million of dollars in the custom-house in the captured city of Vera Cruz, no one would have questioned his right to take possession of it. It would not only have been his right as the conqueror, but it would have been his duty to have seized such treasure. If he could seize money already collected, might he not also seize such as was subsequently collected? Will it be seriously insisted that the American general would have discharged his duty to his country if he had permitted the Mexican authorities to go on collecting duties at Vera Cruz, after the city was in his military pos- session, and have stood by while the funds thus collected were quietly handed over, to be used in arming and subsisting the enemy's forces ? Such a proceeding could not and would not have been justified. Should he then have closed the ports against our own and the commerce of neutrals, would not our merchants and those of friendly nations have had just cause of complaint against such a rigid use of military power ? \Vhat, then, was his manifest duty ? To admit the commerce of all countries upon terms at least as favorable as those imposed by Mexico, and see that the duties were faithfully kept from the hands of the enemy. True, he may have done this by allowing the Mexican collector to con- tinue in performance of his duties, and establishing a sort of surveillance over him, to see that he faithfully accounted for the money collected. NEW MEXICO AND CALIFORNIA. 157 It was much easier, however, and much more compatible witli the rela- tive position of the two powers, to dismiss the Mexican and appoint an American collector. This was done, and less could not liave been done, short of allowing collections to go on for the use and benefit of the Mexi- can army. Mr. BoYDEN again interrupted, to say that the President s contriI)u- tions upon imports in Mexico were not levied upon the Mexicans, but upon the commerce of American citizens, when they arrived in thoso conquered ports. What right had the President to levy his contributions upon American citizens? Mr. Brown. The contributions were levied upon all commerce alike. Neither our citizens, nor the citizens and subjects of foreign friendly ]iowers, had any just cause of complaint, since the American tariff of duties was less than Mexico herself had collected. I may not fully com- prehend the gentleman. Do I understand him to insist that the Presi- dent had no right to order the collection of duties in the Mexican ports captured by our arms ? Mr. BoYDEN. No, sir ; but I do insist that, under the pretence of levying contributions upon the enemy, the President has no right to take the property of American citizens, and to convert it to the purposes of his will, without any authority of law whatever. Mr, Brown. The gentleman seems to be interposing a new point. I do not understand that the President ever directed the property of American citizens to be taken and converted to his own or the purposes of any one else ; but I do understand that American merchants, by his order, entered the Mexican ports upon terms of equality -with those of England, France, Spain, and other countries. And if an American merchant pays duties in New York for the support of his government, can it be a very great hardship if he does the same thing at Vera Cruz ? Our merchants would not have gone into Mexican ports unless it was to their advantage to do so ; and if they went, it was with the full expecta- tion of paying duties to some one. It would, I think, be a most un- worthy imputation upon an American merchant to say that he was more willing to pay a heavy duty to the Mexican Government than a light duty to his own. Mr. BoYDEN. The gentleman has mistaken my position, or he under- stands only a part of it. I complain that the money was improperly taken by the President, and used without the authority of law. A tax was improperly levied upon the property of American citizens, under the name of levying contributions upon the enemy ; and it was given out that the money collected under this pretence was expended in carrying on the war. But how did we know that ? Does not the Constitution pre- scribe that all appropriations for carrying on war shall be made by Con- gress ? How, then, could the President expend this money ? He not only levied his contributions without authority, but he expended the money so collected in open violation of the Constitution, and without the slightest authority of law. Mr. Brown. I recognise the gentleman's right in its broadest lati- tude : when he finds he has a bad hold, to let go and take hold again ; and if the gentleman shall want again to mend his hold, I Avill again give way. If I now fully comprehend the gentleman, the point to which he specially desires attention is, as to the constitutional power of the • « 158 ALBERT G. BROWN. President to direct the use of the money without an appropriation first made by Congress. Does the gentleman regard contributions of this character as money in the treasury, within the meaning of the Constitu- tion ? If so, he and I diifer widely on that point. I regard it as pro- perty captured of the enemy, to be used, if need be, in conquering that enemy, and to be accounted for in no otherwise than as other captured property. Suppose General Scott had captured in the city of Vera Cruz a thousand barrels of flour and fifty thousand cartridges : could he not have used these articles in prosecuting the war without the special leave of Congress ? Suppose his soldiers had wanted bread — suppose, in the midst of the action, his cartridges had given out : must he say to the hungry soldier, You shall not eat. Congress has not consented that you should consume this captured bread, and I have no other ? or must he cease firing in the midst of the action, because he cannot shoot a cap- tured Mexican cartridge until Congress has given its consent that it may be thus used ? Gentlemen smile, and well they may, for nothing can appear more ridiculous, unless it be the proposition gravely put forth by the gentleman from North Carolina, that if General Scott had been without bread, without transports, and Avithout munitions of war, he could not purchase them with this Mexican money in his hands until Congress had first appropriated it. The contribution was levied as a means of distressing the enemy; and, in my judgment, the levy was right. It was used, when collected, in subsisting our army; and there could have been no better disposition made of it. I am satisfied with the whole affair, and I make no doubt the country is satisfied. The gentleman from North Carolina has led me off from the points I was discussing. I was about to show, when the gentleman interposed, that my friend from New York was wholly mistaken in the assumption that the people, at the late presidential election, had condemned the independent treasury, the revenue tariff of 1846, and other kindred Democratic measures. Let us take the independent treasury by way of illustration : the gentleman says it Avas condemned in the election of General Taylor. I pass by the point that General Taylor, so far as the I world knows, is as much for as against this measure; and I give the gen- tleman the full benefit of his claim, that all the votes polled for the] General have pronounced against the independent treasury — and then; how stands the case? General Cass was known to be in favor of this] measure. Mr. Van Buren claims to have been its father; and however he may have strangled other of his political offspring, he has ever shown an abiding parental affection for this. Now, it so turns out that the two friends of the measure have, together, polled a popular majority of one i hundred and fifty-two thousand votes over General Taylor. And, sir, if it be true, as has been asserted by my honorable friend, that this great measure was an issue, and that the people voted in reference to it, then has it triumphed, and it now stands before the world endorsed by the approving voice of a popular majority of more than one hundred and fifty thousand free American electors. And what I say of this measure is equally true of all the others enumerated by the honorable gen- tleman. Mr. Hunt inquired if the gentleman intended to claim the vote for Van Buren and Adams as part of the Democratic vote ? If he chose to figure out a majority in that way, it was not for him to interfere. NEW MEXICO AND CALIFORNIA. 159 Mr. Brxowx. I claim tliem on the gentleman's own assumption that the independent treasury, the revenue tariff, and other Democratic mea- sures were in issue, and that the late presidential election had been conducted in reference to those issues. This being the case, I maintain that the friends of these measures have polled the largest popular vote by one hundred and fifty thousand, and that the measures are therefore triumphant before the people, and have only been defeated in the elec- toral college by a division among their friends. Just here the gentleman would, I have no doubt, be glad to interpose the Free-soil issue, and I might justly deny his right to do so, since he made a speech closing seven minutes before the expiration of his allotted hour, and wholly neglected to mention the question of Free-soil. The gentleman found time to mention almost every conceivable question that was not in issue, and closed his speech, with seven minutes of time left, ■without alluding, in the smallest degree, to the only question that ivas in issue — I mean the question of Free-soil. Why was this ? Has it been found difficult to unite the AVhigs north and south on this issue ? After running Geenral Taylor at the North as a better Free-soil man than even Van Buren himself, and at the South as the very prince of slave-holders ; after obtaining the anti-war vote of the North by one story, and the votes of the war-party at the South by another story; after traversing the re- public from north to south, representing General Taylor as being " all things to all men," thus obtaining for him thousands of Democratic votes, it is very convenient to forget the real points of the canvass, and claim a victory on other points not introduced, and never discussed before the people. May I ask the gentleman whether he did not himself tell the people in his district that General Taylor would approve of the Wilmot pro- viso ? Mr. Hunt. I said I had no doubt of it. Mr. Broavn. Now, Mr. Chairman, if I should ask you or any other southern representative what you told your constituents, I should be assur- ed that you told them General Taylor never would approve the proviso. Mr. HuxT interposed, to say he would like to know what the gentle- man from Mississippi told the people on that subject. Mr. Brown. I told them General Cass would never approve of the Wilmot proviso, and it was my opinion that General Taylor would. Now, let me ask the gentleman whether he did not assure the people of New York that Ave should have a Free-soil administration if General Taylor was elected ? Mr. Hunt. We expressed our willingness to leave that question to the representatives of the people. Mr. Brown. And you, Mr. Chairman, and your southern colleagues, told your constituents that General Taylor would stand by the South on that question. What I maintain is, that you have no right, after obtaining a victory by such means as were employed in the late presidential election, to come into this House, in six short weeks after closing the drama, and claim a victory on points notoriously not in issue, and omit all mention of the great point on which the election notoriously turned, north, south, east and west. I say again, that on this slavery question, you made General Taylor all things to all men ; and it has been by such means 160 ALBERT G. BROWN. that your boasted victory has been won. And now, sir, let me ask the gentleman from New York, if I was not right in the beginning, when I said it was fortunate for the truth of history, and for the correct in- struction of mankind, that political tricksters were not the most accred- ited historians of their own lives, times, and tricks ? A word in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, as to what the people have not decided in the late presidential race. Rely upon it, sir, they have not decided in favor of Whig measures — they have not decided against Democratic measures. Thousands and tens of thousands of voters in the North have been brought to General Taylor's support on the Free- soil issue. Other thousands of honest, upright Democrats have voted for him as a no-party man. Whilst, by the glare of his military fame, he has carried captive the enthusiastic and ardent youth of the country. You and I, Mr. Chairman, know very well what means were employed in the South to commend the General to Democratic voters : how Gene- ral Cass was denounced as an Abolitionist — a political weathercock — a man of no fixed principles — a very political Judas, standing ready to betray the South with a kiss : how General Taylor was set down as the exact counterpart of all this — a patriot, with nothing to serve but his country — no party ties to bind him — no party wrongs to vindicate — no fixed political prejudices to gratify — a man like Washington, who had filled the measure of his country's glory, and was best deserving his country's highest honors. Banks, tariffs, distributions, were all repudiated — party lines were wiped out — a political millennium was at hand — Gene- ral Taylor would scorn all party rules, and be the president alone of a great, happy, united nation of brothers — and above all things, his warm southern affections would bind him to the South and to southern institu- tions as with hooks of steel. It was by means like these you carried to his support thousands of Democratic voters. Whether all of these, or any considerable portion of them, will continue to follow his political fortunes, remains to be seen, and must, I think, depend on circum- stances. As a Democrat, I could wish General Taylor no worse fortune than to follow the counsels of his friend from New York. If he undertakes to uproot all the wise measures of the Democratic party, and to substi- tute Whig follies in their place, I take it for granted his Democratic supporters will abandon him ; and this done, your boasted triumph will turn out a barren victory. The gentleman from New York seems to have his misgivings, for he dare not go so far as to commit his party for a bank, though he has no doubt, I suppose, it ought and will be estab- lished. The people are now, have been, and always will be, in favor of Demo- cratic measures, because these measures proclaim equality among men — not social, but political equality ; not equality in mental or physical proportions, but equality in the possession and enjoyment of every right under the laws and Constitution. Democracy proclaims no moral, social, intellectual, or religious equality. In all these we admit that one man rises above another as do the stars in the firmament rise above the clods of the valley. But our code recognises no political distinctions among men. Equal and exact justice to all, special privileges to none, is our motto. It is because in practice the Whig leaders repudiate this doc- trine, that the masses always have and always will repudiate the Whig LOUIS KOSSUTH. IGl leaders. What is your doctrine of protection but a cunningly-devised scheme to build up a privileged order in the country — to grant immuni- ties and political rights to the favored few, -which must of necessity be denied to the toiling millions ? "What your banking system but a systcni to plunder the many for the benefit of the few ? And so of all your measures, of all your policy. AYhat right has the manufacturer to de- mand the passage of laws for his special protection ? And how dare you, in this land of equal laws, sanction such demands? Shall the banker have laws to legalize his frauds ? Sliall he be allowed to loan his credit at usury, whilst the honest laborer may only take lawful inte- rest for his hard-earned dollars ? Your whole system is a system of favoritism. Your motto has always been. Let the government take care of the rich, and the rich Avill take care of the poor. Well may Whiggery rejoice in this the hour of its triumph, for a day of reckoning will come. Let Democracy be of good cheer, for the day will be Avhen the people shall winnow the harvest and separate the false from the good seed. In that day Democracy will be stored in their heart of hearts, but Whiggery ■will be scattered as chaff before the winds. LOUIS KOSSUTH. SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 2, ISJO, ON THE RECEPTION OF LOUIS KOSSUTH. I WILL change the resolution so that it will read in this manner : — Be it understood, that the House of ricprescntatlves dccHnos at this time to ex- press any opinion as to -whether this government will or will not be indiflerent to 'the doctrines of Kossuth. - ■ * ""Mr I offer this amendment in good faith. When, a little more than twelve months ago, I voted to send a national ship to bear this distin- guished man to our shores, I did it, sir, that he might come here in the character of an emigrant. I never dreamed — as I am sure no member of the last Congress ever dreamed— that he was coming here as a propa- gandist of new doctrines. I appeal to every member of this Congress, who was a member of the last House of Representatives, if any member supposed he was coming here upon any such mission ? The first we hear of his intentions was in one of his English speeches — I think in his Southampton speecb — when for the first time he made it known that he !was coming to procure the intervention of this government in the strug- gles that were going on in the Old World. I do not desire that our action here, either in inviting this distinguished man to this country, or inviting him to come to take a seat within the bar of this House, shall be construed into any expression of opinion upon the subject of his doc- trine of intervention. And why? I can very readily imagine that in the progress of human events a case may arise in which it may become important for this government to interfere. No such case has, in my judgment, arisen yet. But I would not, by saying that we never would interfere, cut ourselves oflf from the possibility of doing so if a case should arise. So much has been said upon this subject, not only by that 11 162 ALBERT G. BROWN. distinguished man himself, but by his friends in Congress and out of it, tliat the inference may be drawn that we either intend to endorse his doctrines upon the one side, or that we do not upon the other, that, in my judgment, it is imperative upon us to say whether, in our action here, we do intend to express a judgment pro or con. Surely this can- not wound the sentiment of the distinguished Governor of Hungary. But whether it does or does not, we are here the representatives of the American people, not responsible to Kossuth, but to the people of this country — responsible for the exercise of an important trust, and the manner in which Ave shall exercise it will have an important bearing upon the present and future peace and prosperity of the country. I have done nothing, and I shall do nothing captiously. I am willing to do all proper honors to this distinguished man, but I am not prepared to show him such honors as never have been shown to any living man. If it is the will of his friends to vote him an invitation within the bar of this House, when we have sufficiently discussed the question to show to the American people that we do not intend to endorse his doctrine, then I am willing to withdraw opposition and invite him in. But you cannot separate this distinguished man from the great principles he avows. What does he tell you every day ? He says, I am not here to be com- , plimented. I am here to procure the recognition of a great national j principle. And this is the shield which he bears between himself and the American people, from day to day. No man, I undertake to say, can approach him except through this shield. You must endorse his doctrines, or he seeks no intercourse with you. I am for saying, in the language of that amendment, that we neither endorse nor refuse to en- force his doctrines at this time, reserving any such question until a pro- per case shall arise. THE SLAVE QUESTION. In the House of Representatives, January 30, 1850, on the subject of Slavery, and on the action of the Administration in relation to California and New Mexico, Mr. Brown said: — Gentlemen say they deprecate discussion on the subject of slavery. My judgment approves it. We have gone too far to recede without an adjustment of our difficulties. Better far that this agitation should never have commenced. But when wrong has been perpetrated on one side and resented on the other, an adjustment in some form is indispen- sable. It is better so than to leave the thorn of discord thus planted, to rankle and fester, and finally to produce a never-healing sore. We need attempt no such useless task as that of disguising from ourselves, our constituents, and in truth the world at large, that ill blood has been engendered, that we are losing our mutual attachment, that we arc daily becoming more and more estranged, that the fibres of the great cord which unites us as one people are giving way, and that we are fast verg- ing to ultimate and final disruption. I hold no communion with the spurious patriotism which closes its eyes to the dangers which visit us, THE SLAVE QUESTION. 1C3 and with a loud voice, sing hosannas to the Union ; such patriotism will not save the Union, it is destructive of the Union. Open wide your eyes and look these dangers full in the face, and with strong arms and stout hearts assault them, vanquish them, and on the field of your triumph erect an altar sacred to the cause of liberty, and on that altar oifer as a willing sacrifice this accursed demon of discord. Do this, and we are safe ; refuse, and these dangers will thicken, these misty ele- ments will grow darker and blacker as days roll on. The storm which now lingers will burst, and the genius of dissolution will preside where the Union now is. I am for discussion, for an interchange of sentiments. Let there be no wrangling about small grievances, but with an elevated patriotism — a patriotism high as our noble mountains, and broad as the Union itself — let us come to the consideration of the difficulties and dangers which beset us. In all matters of dispute it is important to consider who committed the first wrong ; until this is done, no satisfactory basis of an adjust- ment can be established. The Union is divided in sentiment upon a great question, by a geo- graphical line. The North is opposed to slavery, and the South is in favor of it. The Nortii is for abolishing it, the South is for maintaining it. The North is for confining it w*ithin it in its present limits, where they fancy it will languish, and languishing, will die. The South is for leaving it unrestrained to go wherever (within our limits) it may be in- vited by soil, climate, and population. These issues and their necessary incidents have' brought the two ends of the Union into their present perilous position — a position from which one or the other must recede, or a conflict, dangerous to liberty and fatal to the Union, will certainly ensue. "Who is at fault, or rather who was first in fault in this fraternal quar- rel ? We were the owners of slaves ; we bought them from your fathers. We never sought to make slaveholders of you, nor to force slavery upon you. When you emancipated the remnant of your slaves, we did not interpose. Content to enjoy the fruits of our industry at home, within our own limits, we never sought to intrude upon j'our domestic quiet. Not so with you. For twenty years or more, you have not ceased to disturb our peace. We have appealed in vain to your forbear- ance. Not only have you disregarded these appeals, but every appeal has been followed by some new act of outrasie and ago-ression. We have in vani pomted to our domicils, and begged that you would respect the feelings of their inmates. You have threatened them with conflagration. When we have pointed to our wives and our sleeping infants, and in •their names besought your forbearance, you have spurned our entreaties and mocked the fears of these sacred pledges of our love. Long years of outrage upon our feelings and disregard of our rights have awakened in every southern heart a feeling of stern resistance. Think what you will, say what you will, perpetrate again and again if you will, these acts of lawless tyranny ; the day and the hour is at hand Avhen every south- ern son will rise in rebellion, when every tongue will say, Give us justice or give us death, I repeat, we have never sought to disturb your quiet. We have foi- borne to retaliate your wrongs. Content to await a returning sense of 164 ALBERT G. BROAVN. justice, we have submitted. That sense of justice, we fear, never will return, and submission is no longer a virtue. We owe it to you, to our- selves, to our common country, to the friends of freedom throughout the world, to warn you that we intend to submit no longer. Gentlemen tell us they do not believe the South is in earnest. They believe we will still submit. Let me Avarn them to put away that delu- sion. It is fatal to the cause of peace. If the North embrace it the Union is gone. It is treason to encourage a hope of submission. Tell the truth, speak out boldly, go home and tell your people the issue is made up ; they must now choose between non-interference with southern ri2:hts on the one side, and a dissolution of the Union on the other. Tell them the South asks nothing from their bounty, but only asks their forbearance. The specious arguments by which you cover up your unauthorized attempts to drive us from the territories may deceive the unwary, but an enlightened public sentiment will not fail to detect its fallacy, and posterity will award you the credit of destroying the Union in a lawless effort to seize the spoils of a victory won by other hearts and hands than yours. Territory now free must remain free, say you. Who gave you the right to speak thus oracularly? Is this an acquisition of your own, or is it a thing obtained by the joint effort of us all? I have been told that the United States acquired the territory from Mexico, and that the Congress, speaking for the United States, must dispose of it. Techni- cally speaking, the United States did make the acquisition ; but what is the United States? a mere agent for the states, holding for them cer- tain political powers in trust, to be exercised for their mutual benefit, and among these is the power to declare war and make peace. In the exercise of these powers the territory was acquired, and for whom ? Not certainly for the agent, but for the principal. Not for the United States, but the states. Who fought the battles, who won the victories which resulted in the acquisition ? The people of the United States ? Certainly not. There is no such thing as the people of the United States. They can perform no act — have in fact no political existence. Do the people of the United States elect this Congress ? No ; we are elected by states — most of us by districts in states. The states elect senators, and the President is himself elected by state electoral colleges, and not by the people of the United States. There is no such political body as the people of the United States ; they can do nothing, have done nothing, have in fact no existence. When the war with Mexico began, on whom did the Presi- dent call ? Not, certainly, on the people of the United States, but on the people of the states by states, and by states they responded, by states they made their contributions to the grand army ; and whatever was acquired, was of necessity acquired for the states, each having an equal interest ; and the United States, as agent, trustee, or general re- pository of the common fund, is bound to do equal and exact justice to all the parties interested. The army was created and supported by thirty sovereignties allied together. These sovereignties acted through a common head for the common defence and general welfare of all. But it does not follow that such head may rightfully appropriate the award of the conflict to fifteen of the allies, leaving nothing to the remaining fifteen. Sovereigns are THE SLAVE QUESTION. 1C5 equal ; tlicvc is no such thing as great or small sovereigns, or, to speak more correctly, sovereigns of great and small degree. They arc equals, except when by conventional agreement that c(|uality is destroyed. No such agreement has been made between the sovereigns composing our confederacy. Hence, Delaware is equal to New York, and the fifteen southern states are equal to the fifteen northern states. It follows that the fifteen sovereignties of the North cannot exclude the fifteen sove- '^ rcignties of the South from an equal participation in, and control over, the joint acquisition or property of all. Nor can the common agent, the United States, hearken to the voice of the fifteen northern in prefer- ence to those of the fifteen southern allies. So long as one of the sovereigns in alliance protests against a common disposition of what be- longs to all and to each one in an equal degree, no disposition can be rightfully made. The strong may take by force from the Aveak, but in such case power gives the right. The North may take from the South in this way, unless perchance it should turn out in the course of the con- flict that the South is the stronger party, in which case it would be our right to take from you. Without pursuing this course of reasoning, unprofitable as I feel it must be, I come at once to the conclusion, that we of Mississippi have the same right to go into the territories with our slave property as you of New York have to go there with your personal estate of wdiatever kind. And if you deny us this right, we will resist your authority, and to the last extremity. You affect to think us not in earnest in this declaration. Look at the attitude of the South ; hear her voice as it comes up from her bench, her bar, her legislative halls, and, above all, from her people. Sir, there is not a hamlet in the South from which you will not hear the voice of stern resistance to your lawless mandate. Our men will write it 'on their shields, our women will teach little chil- dren to lisp it with their earliest breath. I invoke your forbearance on this question. Ask yourselves if it is right to exasperate eight millions of people upon an abstraction ; a matter to us of substance and of life, but to you the merest shadow of an abstraction. Is it likely, let me ask, that the Union can survive the shock which must ensue if you drive eight millions of people to madness and desperation ? Look, sir, to the position of Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and the glorious old state of South Carolina ; listen to the warning voice of these, and all the Southern States, as they come to us upon every breeze that sweeps from the South, and tell me if we are not sporting above a vol- cano. Oh ! gentlemen, pause, I beseech you, in this mad career. The South cannot, w'ill not, dare not submit to your demand. The conse- quences to her are terrible beyond description ; to you forbearance would be a virtue — virtue adorned with love, truth, justice, and patriot- ism. To som.e men I can make no appeal. I appeal not to the gentle- man from Ohio. He, like Peter the Hermit, feels himself under some religious obligation to lead on this crusade. I make no appeal to the putative father of the Wilmot proviso ; like Ephraim, he is joined to his idols — I will let him alone. But to sound men, to patriotic and just men, I do make a solemn appeal that they array themselves on the side of the Constitution, and save the Union. When the fatal step is taken it will be too late to repent the folly of this hoar. When the deed is done, and the fatal consequences have fallen upon us, it will be vain, 1C6 ALBERT G. BROWN. idle, worse than folly to deprecate the evil councils wliicli now prevail. Now, now is the time for good men to do their duty. Let those who desire to save the Constitution and the Union come out from among the wicked and array themselves on the side of justice. And here in this hall, erected by our fathers and dedicated to liberty and law, we will make new vows, enter into new covenants to stand together and fight the demon of discord until death shall summon us to another and better world. You think that slavery is a great evil. Very well, think so ; but keep your thoughts to yourselves. If it be an evil, it is our evil ; if it be a curse, it is our curse. We are not seeking to force it upon you ; we intend to keep it ourselves. If you do not wish to come in contact with this crying evil, stay where you are, it will never pursue you. For myself, I regard slavery as a great moral, social, political, and religious blessing — a blessing to the slave, and a blessing to the master. This is my opinion. I do not seek to propagate it. It does not concern me whether you think so or not. I have seen more of slavery than you, know more about it ; and my opinions are, I think, worth more than yours. Slavery, African slavery, was, as I religiously believe, planted in this country through the providence of God ; and he, in his own good time, will take it away. Civilization dawned in Africa. The Christian religion was preached to the African race before its votaries carried it to other lands. Africa had the glad tidings of the Saviour long before his divine mission was revealed to us. And where is she now ? Centuries have passed away, and all traces of Christianity, every vestige of civiliza- tion, have departed from that degraded and benighted land — a race of cannibals', roasting, eating men as we do swine and cattle. Resisting with fire and sword all eftbrts of Christian ministers to lift them from the deep degradation, they perseveringly worship idols and graven images, and run continually after false gods. Look at the condition of this people, and contrast it with the worst condition of the same race in this country, and tell me if the eye of fancy, in its utmost stretch, can mea- sure the elevation at which the Southern slave stands above the African in his native jungle ? And yet philanthropy, double distilled, extra refined philanthropy, bewails in piteous accents the fallen condition of the poor slave. The negro race in the South have been civilized ; many of them evangelized. Some are pure Christians ; all have been improved in their moral, social, and religious condition. And who shall undertake! to say it was not within the providence of their Creator to transplant them to our soil for wise, beneficent, and holy purposes ? It is no part of my purpose to discuss this proposition. The subject, . in this view of it, belongs rather to the pulpit than to the halls of legis-j lation. It may seem to those not familiar with the state of public sentiment North and South, and the dangerous issues to which it is conducting us, out of time and out of place for us to discuss the value of the Union. I am not afraid of the consequences of such a discussion. It is a dis- cussion not to be coveted, but one which the times and tempers of men have forced upon us. It is useless to deny that the Union is in danger. To discuss its value is to ascertain its worth. When we shall have done this, we can better decide how great a sacrifice we can afford to make to secure its perpetuity. THE SLAVE QUESTION. 107 We of the South have ever been the fast friends of the Union. Wo liave been so from an earnest attachment to its founders, and from a feeling of elevated patriotism, a patriotism which rises above all grovel- ling tlioughts, and entwines itself about our country, and our whole country. We have made, and are now making day by day, greater sacrifices to uphold and maintain the Union in all its purity and dignity, than all the other parts of the country. Drop for a moment the sacri- fice of feeling ; forget the galling insults you are habitually heaping upon us, and let us look to other sacrifices. We export annually, in rice, cotton, and tobacco, the peculiar products of our soil, more than seventy- five millions of dollars in value. Your whole national exports do but a little exceed one hundred and forty millions of dollars. These articles of southern export arc the support of your immense carrying trade, and of all your flourishing and profitable commerce ; and these do not include the sugar of Louisiana, Texas, and Florida, nor do I estimate the cotton, rice, and tobacco consumed in the United States. If all these were embraced, our exports could not fall short of one hundred and twenty millions of dollars. I need not add, that as a separate, inde- pendent confederacy we should have the heaviest agricultural export of any people on the face of the earth ; and that our w'oalth would in a short time be commensurate with our immense exports, no reasonable man can doubt. In the Union, our exports become the common trading fund of the nation, and the profits go into the general coffers. We know all this; and more, we know how much we contribute to the support of the Government, and we know too how little we get back. It gives me no pleasure to discuss questions like this, but a solemn duty I will not forego, from any mawkish, sentimental devotion to the Union. It is .right that Ave fully understand one another. You think the South is not in earnest. Now, this opinion is based upon one of two hypotheses, either that we are too much devoted to the Union to run the hazard of its dissolution by a manly vindication of our rights ; or else that we are afraid to encounter the perils of a dissolution. That we have loved the Union is most true. That our affections entwine themselves about it, and are reluctant to give it up, is also true. But our affection is no ordinary plant. Nourish it, and it will grow in the poorest soil. Neglect it, or trample upon it, and it will perish in the richest fields. I will not recount the story of our wrongs. I but ask you, can such wrongs ever be the handmaids of love, of that mutual and earnest, devoted love, which stood godfather when the infant Union was baptized, and without whose fostering care it cannot, will not, must not survive ? Throw an impartial eye over the history of the last twenty years, and answer me if there is an^'thing there which challenges our devotion ? Who does not know that time after time wo have turned away in sorrow from your oppressions, and yet have come back clinging to the Union, and proclaiming that " with all her faults Ave loved her still." And you expect us to do so noAV again and again; you expect us to return, and, on bended knees, crave your forbearance. No, you do not; you cannot think so meanly of us. There is nothing in our past history Avhich justifies the conclusion that Ave Avill thus abase ourselves. You knoAV hoAV much a high-toned people ought to bear ; and you knoAv full Avell that Ave have borne to the last extreuut3\ You know that Ave ought not to submit any longer. There is not a man of lofty soul among you all, who in his secret heart does not feel that wc ought lo8 ALBERT G. BROWN. not to submit. If you fancy that our devotion to the Union will keep us in the Ujiion, you are mistaken. Our love for the Union ceases with the justice of the Union. ^Ye cannot love oppression, nor hug tyranny to our bosoms. Have we any reason to fear a dissolution of the Union ? Look at the question dispassionately, and answer to yourselves the important inquiry, Can anything be expected from the fears of the southern people ? Do not deceive yourselves — look at things as they really are. For myself, I can say with a clear conscience, we do not fear it ; we are not appalled at the prospect before us ; we deprecate disunion, but we do not fear it ; we know our position too well for that. Whilst you have been heaping out- rage upon outrage, adding insult to insult, our people have been calmly calculating the value of the Union. The question has been considered in all its bearings, and our minds are made up. The point has been designated beyond which we will not submit. We will not, because sub- mission beyond that point involves consequences to us more terrible than disunion. It involves the fearful consequences of sectional degradation. We have not been slow in manifesting our devotion to the Union. In all our national conflicts we have obeyed the dictates of duty, the behests of patriotism. Our money has gone freely. The lives of our people have been freely given up. Their blood has washed many a blot from the national escutcheon. We have loved the Union, and we love it yet ; but not for this, or a thousand such Unions, will we suffer dishonor at your hands. I tell you candidly, we have calculated the value of the Union. Your injustice has driven us to it. Your oppression justifies me to-day in discussing the value of the Union, and I do so freely and fearlessly. Your press, your people, and your pulpit, may denounce this as treason ; be it so. You may sing hosannas to the Union — it is well. British lords called it treason in our fathers when they resisted British tyranny. British orators were eloquent in their eulogiums on the British crown Our fathers felt the oppression, they saw the hand that aimed the blow, and they resolved to resist. The result is before the world. We will resist, and trust to God and our own stout hearts for the consequences. The South afraid of dissolving the Union ? — why should we fear ? What is there to alarm us or awaken our apprehensions? Are we not able to maintain ourselves ? Shall eight millions of freemen, with more than one hundred millions of annual exports, fear to take their position among the nations of the earth ? With our cotton, sugar, rice, and to- bacco, products of a southern soil, yielding us annually more than a hundred millions of dollars, need we fear the frowns of the world ? You tell us all the world is against us on the slavery question. We know more of this than you; fanaticism in the Old World, like fanaticism at home, assails our domestic relations, but we know how much British commerce and British labor depend for subsistence on our cotton, to feel at all startled by your threats of British power. Massachusetts looms will yield a smaller profit, and British looms will stop when you stop the supply of southern cotton. When the looms stop, labor will stop, ships will stop, commerce will stop, bread will stop. Build yourselves no castles in the air. Picture to your minds no such halcyon visions as that Great Britain will meddle with our slaves. She made an experiment in the West Indies in freeing negroes. It cost her one hundred millions \ THE SLAVE QUESTION. ICO of pounds sterling, and crippled her commerce to more than three times that amount, and now her emancipated hlacks are relapsing into a state of harharism. Bj the united verdict of every British statesman the experiment was a signal failure, injurious to the negro and detrimental to the kingdom. Enfrland will not interfere with southern slaves. Our cotton bags are our bonds of peace. Have we anything to fear from you in the event of dissolution? A little gasconade, and sometimes a threat or two, altogether out of place on so grave an issue as this, are resorted to on your part. As to there being any conflict of arms growing out of a dissolution, I have not thought it at all probable. You complain of your association with slaves in the Union, We propose to take them out of the Union — to dissolve the unpleasant association. Will you seek a battle-field to renew, amid blood and carnage, this loathsome association ? I take it for granted that you will not. But if you should, we point you to the record of the past, and warn you, by its blood-stained pages, that we shall be ready to meet you. ^V^hen you leave your homes in New England, or in the great West, on this mission of love — this crusade against the South ; when you come to take slavery to your bosoms, and to subdue eight millions of southern people, I warn you to make all things ready. Kiss your wives, bid your children a long farewell, make peace with your God; for I warn you that you may never return. I repeat, we deprecate disunion. Devoted to the Constitution — reve- rencing the Union — holding in sacred remembrance the names, the deeds, and the glories of our common and illustrious ancestry — there is no ordinary ill to Mdiich we would not bow sooner than dissolve the political association of these states. If there was any point short of absolute ruin to ourselves and desolation to our country, at which these aggressive measures would certainly stop, we would say at once, go to that point and give us peace. But we know full well, that when all is obtained that you now ask, the cormorant appetite for power and plunder will not be satisfied. The tiger may be driven from his prey, but when once he dips his tongue in blood, he will not relinquish his victim without a strucrgle. I warn gentlemen, if they persist in their present course of policy, that the sin of disunion is on their heads — not ours. If a man assaults me, and I strike in self-defence, I am no violator of the public peace. If one attacks me with such fury as to jeopardize my life, and I slay him in the conflict, I am no murderer. If you attempt to force upon us sectional desolation and — what to us is infinitely worse — sectional degra- dation, we will resist you; and if in the conflict of resistance the Union is dissolved, we are not responsible. If any man charges me with har- boring sentiments of disunion, he is greatly mistaken. If he says that I prefer disunion to sectional and social degradation, he does me no more than justice. Does any man desire to know at what time and for what cause I would dissolve the Union, I will tell him : At the first moment after you con- summate your first act of aggression upon slave property, I would declare the Union dissolved ; and for this reason : such an act, perpetrated after the warning we have given you, would evince a settled purpose to inter- pose your authority in the management of our domestic affairs, thus degrading us from our rightful position as equals to a state of depend- 170 ALBERT G. BROWN. cnce and subordination. Do not mistake me ; I do not say tliat such an act would, per se, justify disunion ; I do not say that our exclusion from the territories would alone justify it ; I do not say that the destruction of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, nor even its abolition here, nor yet the prohibition of the slave trade among the states, would justify it. It may be, that not one, nor two, nor all of these combined would justify disunion. These are but the initiative steps — they lead vou on to the mastery over us, and you shall not take these steps. The iiian must have studied the history of our revolt against the power of ]jritain to but little purpose who supposes that the throwing a few boxes of tea into the Avater in Boston harbor produced, or had any ma- terial influence in producing, the mighty conflict of arms which ensued. Does any man suppose that the stamp act and its kindred measures pro- duced the revolution ? They produced a solemn conviction on the minds of our fathers that Britain was determined to oppress and degrade the colonies. This conviction prepared a heroic people for resistance ; and the otherwise trivial incident of throwing the tea overboard supplied the occasion for manifesting that state of public sentiment. I warn gentle- men by the history of these transactions, not to outrage the patience of a patriotic people, nor yet, like the British king and parliament, to spurn our entreaties, and turn a deaf ear to our prayers for justice. Before the first fatal step is taken, remember that we have interests involved which we cannot relinquish ; rights which it were better to die with than live without. The direct pecuniary interest involved in this issue is not less than twenty hundred millions of dollars, and yet the loss of this will be the least of the calamities which you are entailing upon us. Our country is to be made desolate. We are to be driven from our homes — the homes hallowed by all the sacred associations of family and friends. We are to be sent, like a people accursed of God, to wander through the land, homeless, houseless, and friendless ; or, what is ten thousand times worse than these, than all, remain in a country now pros- perous and happy, and see ourselves, our wives and children, degraded to a social position with the black race. These, these are the frightful, terrible consequences you would entail upon us. Picture to yourselves Hungary, resisting the powers of Austria and Russia ; and if Hungary, which had never tasted liberty, could make such stout resistance, what may you not anticipate from eight millions of southrons made desperate by your aggression ? I tell you, sir, sooner than submit we would dis- solve a thousand such unions as this. Sooner than allow our slaves to become our masters, we would lay waste our country with fire and sword, and with our broken spears dig for ourselves honorable graves. You tell us, sir, there is no intention of pushing us to extremities like these, I do not doubt the sincerity of gentlemen who make this avowal. If there was fixedness in their positions I would believe them, I would trust them. If members of Congress were to the political what stars are to the planetary system, I would take their solemn — and, I hope, sin- cere — declarations, and be satisfied. I should feel secure. But a few days, a brief space, and you will pass away, and your places will be filled by men more hostile than you, as you are more hostile than your predecessors, and the next who come after your successors will be more hostile than they. Look to the Senate — the conservative branch of the government. Already there are senators from the mighty states of New THE SLAVE QUESTION. 'n. 171 York and Ohio, wlio repudiate the Constitution. One [Mr. Chase, of Ohio] says the Constitution is a nullity as regards shivery, and another [Mr. Seward, of ]S[e^Y York] declares that slavery can and will he abolished, and that you and he will do it. lie tells us how this is to he done. He, too, repudiates the constitutional obligation, and says that slavery rests for its security on public sentiment, and that public senti- ment must and will destroy it. These are fearful declarations, coming from that quarter. They evince a settled purpose to pursuethcse ag- gressive movements to the last terrible extremity; and yet, sir, we arc asked to fold our arms and listen to the syren song that all your ills will soon be o'er. And now, Mr. Chairman, before the sands of my brief hour have quite run out, let me turn for a moment to the late recent and extraordinary movements in the territory of California, — movements fraught with in- calculable mischief, and, if not arrested, destined to entail calamities the most terrible upon this country. I am told that the late administration is in some degree responsible for these movements. I know not if this be true. I hope it is not. Indeed, I have authority for saying it is not. Certainly no evidence has been advanced that the statement is true. But I care not who prompted the anomalous state of things now- existing in California. At whatever time, and by whomsoever done, it has been without precedent, against the voice of the people's representa- tives, in derogation of the Constitution of the United States, and intended to rob the Southern States of their just and rightful possessions. Viewing the transaction in this light, and without stopping to inquire whose it was, I denounce it as unwise, unpatriotic, sectional in its tendencies, in- sulting to the South, and in the last degree despicable. Twelve short months ago it was thought necessary to invoke the authority of Congress for the people of California to form a state con- stitution. The present Secretary of the Navy, then a member of this House, did, on the 7th day of February, 1849, introduce a bill for that purpose. The first section declared " that the Congress doth consent that a new state may be erected out of the territory ceded to the United States," &c. {See Congressional Globe, 2 S'ess. 30 Co7i. p. 477.) Whether the honorable Secretary, as a member of the cabinet, ad- vised and consented to the late extraordinary proceedings in California, I pretend not to know. I do know that he bitterly inveighed against General Cass, in 1848, for a supposed intimation that the people of the territories might settle the slavery question for themselves, and chiefly on the ground that it was a monstrous outrage to allow aliens and foreigners to snatch from the South territory won by the valor of her troops. I knovr that he introduced the bill to which I have adverted, and urged its passage in a speech which was said to have given him his position in the cabinet. He certainly thought at that time, that the consent of Congress was necessary to the formation of a state govern- ment in California. The bill itself, to say nothing of the speech, assigned one pregnant reason for this thought, for by its second section it declared " that the foregoing consent is given upon the following re- servations and conditions : First, that the United States hereby uncoji- ditionally reserves to the federal government all right of property in the public lands." It was then thought a matter of some moment to reserve to the par- 172 ALBERT G. BROWN. , r ties in interest, their right of property in the soil. But the progressive spirit of the Tresident and cabinet has gone far beyond such idle whims, and "the introduction of California into the Union as a sovereign state is earnestly recommended," without reservation of any kind, save alone that her constitution shall conform to the Constitution of the United States. If any one here knows the secrets of the cabinet councils, he can best inform us whether Mr. Secretary Preston thought it worth his while to intimate to the President and his associates that the formation of an independent government in California would of necessity vest in such government the right of property in the soil, and that her incorpo- ration into the Union vv'ithout reservation, would be to surrender the right of eminent domain. It would disclose an interesting piece of cabinet history to ascertain whether so trivial a matter ever engrossed the thoughts of that most august body — the President and his constitu- tional advisers. It is amusing to see with how much cunning the author of the late special message endeavors to divide the responsibility of this nefarious proceeding with the late administration. Several times in the rnessage it is broadly hinted that President Polk took the initiative in this busi- ness. This may be so. I have seen no evidence of it, and do not believe it ; but whether true or false, it does not render the transaction less odious or more worthy of support. The President himself seems to think it too much for one administration to bear, and, therefore, strives to divide its responsibility with his distinguished Democratic predecessor. I commend his discretion, more than his generosity. It is discreet in him to shake off as much of the odium of this thing as possible. If it had been a worthy action, I doubt if he would not have appropriated the honors of it entirely to himself. The President sees, as well as you or I, that there is a fearful ac- countability ahead, and he cries out in time, " Polk was to blame — I only followed up what he began." I would to God he were as willing to carry out all of Polk's unfinished plans. Is there nothing wrong, let me ask the friends of the President, in this thing of the Executive — of his own volition, and upon his own re- sponsibility — establishing a state government over the territory of the United States, and that too after Congress had been invoked and had refused her consent to the establishment of such a government ? I have seen the time when if this thing had been done, the nation would have reverberated with the eloquent burst of patriotic indignation from gen- tlemen on the other side. General Jackson was charged with taking the responsibility, but he never assumed responsibility like this. The manner of doing this thing is still more extraordinary than the thing itself. General Riley, a military commander, charged with the execution of certain necessary civil functions, is made the man of power in this business. That officer, on the 3d day of June, 1819, issued his proclamation, a paper at once novel and bold. His object is to make a new state, and he commences thus : — " Congress having failed at its recent session to provide a new government for this country, the undersigned would call attention to the means which he deems best," &c., &c. Yes, sir, there it is. Congress having failed to give government to THE SLAVE QUESTION. I73 California, Gonoi'al Riley notifies the inhabitants that ho lias taken matters into his own hands; that he will give them a government, and that HE will authorize them to make a state for themselves. lie does this, too, because Congress had refused. I must do General llilej the justice to say he is not wholly an usurper in this business. He declares to the world in this same proclamation (a document by the way drawn up with acumen and legal precision), that j the course indicated by him " is advised by the President and the Secre- j taries of State and of War," and he (General Riley) solemnly affirms that his acts are "fully authorized bylaw." I hope the General did not understand that Mr. Secretary Preston's bill was the law that "fully authorized" his acts. There might be a difficulty in sustaining the opinion on that basis, inasmuch as the bill did not pass Congress. There are stranger things than these in this Riley proclamation " ad- j vised by the President, and Secretaries Clayton and CraAvford." The i General not only sets forth circumstantially what is to be done, but he < designates the persons who are to do the things which he bids to be done. Hear him : — " " I " Every free male citizen of the United States and of Ujyper California, 21 years of age, will be entitled to the riiiht of suffrage. All citizens of Lower California who have been forced to come into this territory on account of having rendered assistance to the American troops during the recent war with Mexico, should also be allowed to vote in the district wiiere they actually reside," &e. Now, sir, I humbly ask who gave the President and his cabinet the right to "advise" this military commander by one sweeping proclama- tion to admit the '■'■free male citizens of Upper California," and "all the citizens these people that dearest privilege of an American freeman, the right: of suftrage ? By what authority does he confer the power to hold office,, to sit in a convention, and to trample under foot the rights of the southern people? The late Administration had something to do with making this treaty, and they provided that these people, at a proper time, to be judged of by Congress, should enjoy all these rights. Con- gress has not judged in the matter. Congress has done nothing. Con- gress has refused to act, and the President tells these people to vote, toj accept office, to make a state constitution, to elect governors, secreta- ries, auditors, members of Congress, &c., &c. And when they have done as he bid them, he " earnestly recommends their acts to the favora- ble consideration of Congress." And this is the President who wag going to act according to the laws and the Constitution, and abstain from all interference with the duties of Congress. tempora ! mores ! [Here the hammer fell, and Mr. Brown gave notice that he would! append the unfinished remarks to his printed speech.] The present President of the United States delights in doing in a;^ things like Vv^ashington. In his annual message he alludes no less thai: three times, with evident self-complacency, to supposed similitudes be- tween his acts and those of the illustrious Father of his Country. In the earlier history of the republic, and in the time of Washington*! presidency, a case bearing close resemblance to the one under discussioi was presented for his consideration. IIow closely the second Wa-shing THE SLAVE QUESTION. 175 ton copies the precedent of the first may be gathered from the history of the transaction. That history hns been briefly sketched by a distin- guished, eloquent, and aged friend of President Taylor. I read from a pamphlet by George Poindexter : — _" Shortly after the cession by North Carolina of the south-western territory, cer- tain influential individuals, anxious to hasten tiie fonaation of an independent state government within the ceded territory, induced the inhabitants to call a convention and frame a state constitution, to which they gave the name of ' the State of Frank- lin.' This proceeding met the unhesitating frowns and disapprobation of the Father of bis Country — the illustrious Washington — who caused it to be instantly sup- pressed, and in lieu of this factitious state government, a territorial government was extended to the inhabitants by Congress, under which they lived and prospered for many years." If the first President, the great, the good, the illustrious Washington, ■would not listen to the proposition of the Franklanders, citizens as they were of the United States, for admission into the Union, under the cir- cumstances attending their application, I ask how the present President shall justify his proceeding, in first prompting the free male citizens of Upper California, all the people of Lower California, and in fact the interlopers and adventurers from all the nations of the earth, now upon our territory, to form a state constitution, and ask admission into our Union ? And now when this constitution, the creation of such a con- glomerate mass, is about to be presented, let the friends of the President justify, if they can, his " earnest recommendation that it may receive the favorable consideration of Congress." Frankland was not admitted as a state, but a territorial government was given to the country under the name of Tennessee. As a territory these people again applied for admission, and again their application was rejected. I read from Poindexter 's pamphlet the history of this second application: — "Subsequent to these transactions, the inhabitants of the south-western territory having increased, as it was believed, to a sufficient number to entitle them to become one of the states of the Union, the territorial legislature directed a census to be taken under the authority of an act passed by that body. This census having been so taken, exhibited a number of free inhabitants exceeding G0,000 — being a greater number than was required by the ordinance of 1787 to admit them into the Union ; and on the 28th of November, 1795, the governor being authorized thereto by law, issued his proclamation requiring the inhabitants of the several counties of the ter- ritory to choose persons to represent them in convention, for the purpose of forming a constitution or permanent form of government. This body so chosen, met in con- vention on the 11th January, 1796, and adopted a constitution, in which they de- clared the people of that part of said territory which was ceded by North Carolina, to be a free and independent state, by the name of the State of Tennessee. With- out entering into minute details of all the proceedings which took place in relation to this constitution, it will be sufficient for my present purpose to refer to the Sen- ate Journal of the first session of the fourth Congress, to which that constitution was submitted for the reception and approbation of Congress. In the report of the com- mittee of the Senate, to whom this constitution was referred, it will be seen that this act of the territorial authorities was deemed premature and irregular ; that the cen- sus ordered to be taken of the inhabitants was in many respects deficient in detail, and more especially that the enumeration of the inhabitants must, by the Constitu- tion, be made by Congress ; that this rule applied to tiie original states of the Union, and as their rights as meml:)ers of the Union are affected by the admission of new states, the same principle which enjoins the census of their inhabitants to be taken under the authority of Congress, equally requires the enumeration of the inhabi- tants of any new state, laid out by Congress in like manner, should be made under '■ their authority. This rule, the committee are of opinion, left Congress without dis- cretion on this point. The committee therefore reported, that the iiihabitants of that 176 ALBERT G. BKOWN. part of the territory south of Oliio, ceded by North Carolina, are not at this time entitled to be received as a new state into the Union. This example is drawn from the action of Congress during the administration of Washington, and -will serve to show you, sir, the great caution with which, under the administration of that illus- trious individual, the state was admitted into the Union." In the purer and better days of the republic it was thought necessary to consult Congress as to the disposition to be made of the territory be- lonn-inn; to the United States, and our fathers thought it necessary to show a decent regard to the demands of the Constitution, m admitting new states into the Union. But in these latter days, when soldiers be- come statesmen, without study, and men intuitivdy understand the Con- stitution, the old-fashioned notions of Washington and his compatriots are treated with scorn, and we are given to understand that the soldier- President can make new states without the aid of Congress, and in de- fiance of the Constitution. "Whether the people will submit to this high- handed proceeding I do not know ; but for my single self I am pre- pared to say, that '■'-live or die, sink or swim, survive or perish," I will oppose it " at all hazards and to the last extremity." What, Mr. Chairman, is to be the effect of admitting California into the Union as a state ? Independent, sir, of all the objections I have been pointing out, it will effectually unhinge that sectional balance which has so long and happily existed between the two ends of the Union, and at once give to the North that dangerous preponderance in the Senate, Avhich ambitious polititions have so earnestly desired. The admission of one such state as California, opens the way for, and renders easy the admission of another. The President already prompts New Mexico to a like course. The two will reach out their hands to a third, and they to a fourth, fifth, and sixth. Thus precedent follows precedent, with locomotive velocity and power, until the North lias the two-thirds required to change the Constitution. When this is done THE Constitution will be changed. That public opinion, to which Senator Seward so significantly alludes, will be seen, and its power will be felt — universal emancipation will become your rallying cry. We see this. It is clearly set forth in all your movements. The sun at noon- day is not more visible than is this startling danger. Its presence docs arouse our fears and set our thoughts in motion. It comes with giant strides and under the auspices of a southern President, but we will meet it, and we will vanquish it. The time for action is almost come. It is well for us to arrange the order of battle. I have listened, and will again listen with patience and pleasure, to the plans of our southern friends. My own opinion is this : that we should resist the introduction of California as a state, and resist it successfully ; resist it by our votes first, and lastly by other means. We can, at least, force an adjournment without her admission. This being done, we are safe. The Southern States, in convention at Nashville, will devise means for vindicating their rights. I do not know what these means tvill be, but I know what they tnag be, and with propriety and safety. They may be to carry slaves into all of southern California, as the property of sovereign states, and there hold them, as we have a right to do ; and if molested, defend them, as is both our right and duty. We ask you to give us our rights by NON-INTERVENTION ; if you refuse, I am for taking them by armed occupation. SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. SQUATTER SOYEREIGNTY. SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 1^, 1850, DISSENT- ING FROM CERTAIN VIEWS PRESENTED TO THE SENATE BY MR. CASS. Mr. Brown said be would occupy a very few minutes, in presenting some views wliich he should have presented the other day, but for the expiration of his hour. Having already taken bis position against the President's recommen- dation of the California constitution, and having expressed his abhor- rence of the whole series of movements, which led to its adoption by the people in that country, be should not further allude to the President or Cabinet in that connection. A new character had presented himself, as one of the champions of this new and extraordinary political movement. Ho alluded to General Cass, the late Democratic, candidate for the Presidency. That distin- guished gentleman bad redeemed his pledge, and the pledge of his friends, on the subject of the Wilmot proviso. He had spoken against it. He had expressed his determination not to vote for it. With this he was satisfied ; he would go further, and say, that the speech, so fai as it related to the proviso, challenged his admiration and excited bis gratitude. It was replete with sound views, eloquently and happily ex- pressed. And no one could read it attentively without conceding to its author great ability. If the distinguished gentleman bad closed bis speech with bis argument against the proviso, there would not have been a man in all the country more Avilling than himself to award him the highest honors. But the speech was marred by the expression of opinions, in its closing paragraphs, to which he (Mr. B.) and the south- ern people generally would dissent. General Cass had (if Mr. B. cor- rectly understood him) avowed bis opinion to bo, that the people of the territories have the right to exclude slavery ; and he was understood to sustain the action of the people in California in forming a state govern- ment. Against all these parts of the speech of General Cass, be (Mr. B.) entered bis solemn protest. He felt bound to do this, because in the late presidential canvass he had, as the friend of General Cass, given a different interpretation to bis views, as foresbadovred in the Nicholson letter. True, he bad not done this without some misgivings, at first, of its correctness. But gentlemen nearer the person of General Cass than himself had interpreted the Nicholson letter to mean, that when the people of a territory were duly authorized to form a state con- stitution, they could then admit or exclude slavery at will, and whether they did the one thing or the other was not a matter to be questioned by Congress. He now conceded, as he bad done in the presidential can- vass, that whenever a people duly authorized to form a state constitu- tion, have exercised this authority and asked admission into the Union, it is not properly a subject of inquiry whether their constitution admits or excludes slavery from the proposed state. But be understood Gene- ral Cass as going further than this — to the extent of giving to the people of the territories the right to exclude slavery during their territorial 173 ALBERT G. BROWN. existence, and indeed before government of any sort had been established by Congress. He understood the doctrine as advanced by General Cass to be, that the occupants of the soil where no government existed — as in New Mexico, California, Deseret, &c. — had the right to exclude slavery; and against this doctrine he raised his humble voice; and though he might stand alone, without one other southern representative to sustain him, he would protest against it to the last. In the late presidential canvass, men of all parties had assailed this doctrine. The Whigs charged General Cass with entertaining these views, and the Democrats had vindicated him against the charge. The doctrine was universally denounced by men of all parties in the South ; and now we were startled with the intelligence that General Cass and General Taylor both approve it. For himself, no earthly consideration should keep him silent on such a question. No consideration personal to himself — no party ties nor political obligations, should seal his lips, when his country was about to be betrayed and sacrificed. He had de- nounced this doctrine before his constituents, he now denounced it before the House. He would not consume time, and prevent other gentlemen from speaking, by going into an argument on the subject. He had felt it due to his own position — to the cause of truth and justice, to make known at the first convenient moment, that what he condemned in General Taylor he equally condemned in General Cass ; and having done this, he was satisfied. LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. Fellow-Citizens : I feel impelled, by a strong sense of duty, to ad- dress to you this communication. If it shall seem to you more appro- priate that I should have delivered the sentiments which follow, in the form of a speech in the House of Representatives, I reply, that the difficulty of obtaining the floor interposes at all times serious obstacles to that mode of address. At this period of excitement, when events of the greatest consequence are pursuing each other in rapid succession, it ap- pears to me neither wise nor safe to risk the doubtful chances of an early opportunity of addressing you through the ordinary medium of a congres- sional speech. Events of the utmost magnitude are transpiring at the seat of the national government. In these events you have a deep interest, and I would not leave you a single day in ignorance of my views, or in doubt as to the manner in which I mean to discharge the high and important trusts which your partiality has devolved upon me. It is well known to you, that the people in California, following the lead of General Riley, an officer of the United States army stationed ir that country, took upon themselves, during the last summer, the respon- sible task of forming a state constitution, and setting up a state govern ment in that territory. This proceeding has been extensively criticised, and very generally LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 179 condemned, as altogether anomalous and irregular. It is no part of my present purpose to follow up these criticisms. That the Tvhole proceeding was irregular and in total disregard of the rights of the South, is beyond dispute. That it was basely fraudulent, I have ever believed, and do now believe. That the people in that country were prompted to the course pursued by them, by the secret spies and agents sent out from Washington, I have never doubted for a single moment. That they were induced to insert the '' Wilmot proviso," in their so-called state constitu- tion, by assurances held out to them that such a course would facilitate their admission into the Union of these states, I as religiously believe as I do in the existence of an overruling Providence. Pursuing the idea that there had been illegitimate inhuences at work' to produce particular results in California, I on two several occasions introduced into the House of Representatives resolutions directing a searching inquiry into all the facts. But the dominant power would give no countenance to my object. I have seen it stated in a letter written in California, and published in the Republic newspaper in this city, "that it was everywhere under- stood in that country, that the President desired the people of California to settle the slavery question for themselves." I endeavored to bring the public mind to bear on this point, and in a card published in the Republic, I inquired " how it came to be everywhere thus understood?" but no response was ever made to the inquiry. The semi-official declara- tion, however, quickened my suspicions that some one had spoken as by authority for the President. Thomas Butler King, Esq., one of the President's agents in California, has repeatedly declared that the California Convention was held under the sanction of President Polk and Secretaries Buchanan and Marcy; and that it was to these functionaries General Riley made allusion when he said to the people in that country that he was acting in compliance with the views of the President, and the Secretaries of War and of State. Mr. Polk is dead, and the two ex-secretaries positively deny the truth of Mr. King's declaration. If General Riley stated officially to the people of California, on the 3d of June, 1849, the date of his proclamation, that tue President, the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of State approved his conduct — meaning thereby Mr. Polk, Mr. Buchanan, and Mr. Marcy — it was a fraud upon the people of California. The statement could only have been made with a view to give the highest official sanction to his conduct, and he knew perfectly well that all three of the gentlemen alluded to, were private citizens at the date of his proclamation. When he said the President, he meant to give the weight of presidential influence to his acts. He meant that the people should understand him as alluding to the man in power, and not to a retired gentleman and private citizen. Mr. King undertakes to prove that he is right in his declaration, and asserts that the steamer which carried him to California Avas the first arrival in that country after General Taylor's inauguration, and " that she conveyed the first intelligence that Congress had failed to provide a government for that territory ;'' and by way of giving point to his declara- tion in this respect, he asserts that he landed for the first time at San Francisco, on the 4th day of June ; that General Riley was then at Mon- ' terey, distant about one hundred and fifty miles, and that he (Mr. King) 1 80 • ALBERT G. BROWN. did not see liim (Riley), or have any communication with him ; and that the proclamation, calling the California Convention, bore date June 3d, 1849. Thus rendering it impossible, as he assumed, that said proclama- tion could have been based on information received from the present President and his Secretaries, through his (Mr. King's) arrival. Unfor- tunately for the accuracy of these statements and the legitimacy of the conclusions. General Riley commences his proclamation with the em- phatic declaration "that Congress had failed to provide a government for California;" and the inquiry at once arises, how, if Mr. King landed at San Francisco on the 4th of June, 1849, with the first intelligence of this failure on the part of Congress, could General Riley have known and proclaimed the important fact at Monterey, distant one hundred and fifty miles, on the 3d of June of that year ? We see at once that it could not be so. President Polk and his cabinet could not have sent advice to Cali- fornia of this failure on the part of Congress ; for it is historically true that the failure occurred in the very last hour of Mr. Polk's adminis- tration. Through some channel General Riley was advised that Congress had failed to provide a government for California, and this after President Taylor came into power. I do not say that Mr. King was this channel, but I do say that from the same medium through which he derived the information that Congress had failed to provide a government, he may, and jjrohably did, receive also the views of the President and his cabinet, and hence he was enabled to speak as he did wiih positive certainty of the one and of the other. "You are fully possessed," says the Secretary of State, Mr. Clayton, to Mr. King, in a letter bearing date of April 3, 1849, " You are fully possessed of the President's views, and can \;\i\\ jJropricty suggest to the people of California the adoption of measures best calculated to give them effect. These measures must, of course, originate solely with themselves." Mr. King, then, was informed that he could with propriety suggest the adoption of measures to carry out the President's views, he having been fully possessed of those views. But these measures must originate with the people ! Beautiful ! Mr. King is sent to California to suggest to the people the adoption of measures to carry out the President's views, but these measures must originate with the people ! And more beau- tiful still, Mr. King comes home, after disburdening himself of the views whereof he was "fully possessed," and gravely tells the country he did not go to California on a political mission, and had nothing to do with the local affairs of that country ; and this, too, after he was denounced in the convention as the President's emissary. I suspect Mr. King could tell how it came to be "everywhere understood in California that the President wanted the people to settle the slavery question for them- selves." I have thought proper to present these facts and deductions, for the purpose of showing you that mine are no idle suspicions. When I say that, in my opinion, a great fraud has been perpetrated, I want you to understand that there is some foundation for ray opinion. The action of Congress, I am free to admit, may have had much to do ■ in fixing the sentiment in the mind of the President and of the Califor- • nians, that no territorial government would be allowed which did not; LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 181 contain the "Wilmot proviso ; and judging from the temper constantly I displayed in urging this odious measure at all times and in all seasons, it was, I grant, a rational conclusion that no government asked for or established by the people would be tolerated unless slavery was prohi- bited ; but was this a sufficient reason why the President or his agents, or even the people of California, should trample under foot the rights of the South ? We had our rights in that country, and they ought to have been respected ; I risk nothing in saying that they would have been, had we been the stronger party. Our fault consisted in our weakness, and for this we were sacrificed. It is said, I know, that California is not suited to slave labor — that the soil, climate, the very elements themselves, are opposed to it. Slave labor is never more profitably employed than in mining ; and you may judge whether slaves could be advantageously introduced into that country, when I inform you, on the authority of the debates of their convention, that an able-bodied negro is worth in California from two to six thousand dollars per annum. I pass over the studied and systematic resistance which the California admissionists have constantly and steadily interposed against all inves- ti gress to admit California, and he told us plainly to leave the others to their fate. Not only does he fail to give them a friendly salutation, but he in truth turns from them in scorn. Not a word does he utter in their behalf, or in defence of their independent conduct. Their modesty failed to commend them to his paternal notice. In Congress, and throughout the country, a general outcry is now .heard in favor of California. Everywhere throughout the length and breadth of the land, the cry of California, glorious California, is heard. It comes to us from the east and from the west, from the north and (I am pained to say) in some instances from the south. If any man has dared to interpose the slightest objection to the immediate admission of California — if any one has hesitated about yielding to California all that she so boldly demands, he has been denounced, black-balled, hooted at, and almost driven from society. Meantime no voice has been heard in defence of the rights of New Mexico and Deseret. They, too, assume to settle their own affairs in their own way. Yet no whisper of encour- agement and hope greets their modest agent and delegate at Washing- ton. The great national voice is engaged to sing and shout for Cali- fornia. Why has this been so ? Why this marked distinction between these several parties ? The people, we are told, have a right to act for themselves. California acted for herself, Deseret for herself, and New Mexico for herself ; and yet, amid the din and clamor in favor of Cali- fornia, we have lost sight of her more retiring and modest sisters. Why is this ? I'll tell you, fellow-citizens. Deseret and New Mexico did not insult the South by excluding slavery. With a becoming modesty they were silent on this subject. California, influenced by unwise counsels, flung defiance in your teeth, scoff'ed at your rights, and boldly threw herself into the arms of the North. Here is the secret of all this boiling and bubbling in favor of California, and here, too, may be found the end of the great doctrine that the people may settle the slavery question for themselves. If they settle it against the South it is well, and if they do not it is no settlement at all. Ah ! but we are told there is a vast difference between these terri- tories ; New Mexico and Utah have but few inhabitants, and California has many thousand — some say one hundred thousand and some say two hundred thousand. I do not understand that because a people are fewer in number, that therefore they have no political rights, whilst a greater number may have every right. But how stands the case in regard to these hundreds of thousands of people in California? We all know that the emigration to that country has been confined to hardy male adults, robust men. In most cases their families and friends have been left in the states, to which, in four cases out of five, they themselves have intended to return. At the elections last summer they voted about twelve thousand, and later in the fall, on the important question of adopting a state constitution, with the ballot-box wide open and free for every vote, they polled less than thirteen thousand. I should like to know where the balance of this two hundred thousand were. At least one hundred and fifty thousand of them, I suspect, were never in the country, and the rest regarded the whole thing as a ridiculous farce, with which they had nothing to do. And this is the state and these the people who have excluded slavery, and sent two senators and two representatives to Washington. LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 185 You will have no difficulty in determining in your own minds that I am opposed to allowing the people of the territories to settle this (lucstion, either for us or against us. It is a matter with which they have no con- cern. The states are equals and have equal rights, and whatever tends to impair or hreak down that equality, always has and always shall en- counter my stern and inflexihle opposition. My position in reference to congressional action on this subject is easily explained. I am for non-intervention — total, entire, unqualified non-intervention. Leave the people of all the states free to go with their property of whatever kind, to the territories, without let and with- out hindrance, and I am satisfied. But this I must say, that whenever Congress undertakes to give protection to p^ajyerty in the territories, on the high seas, or anywhere else, there must be no insulting discrimina- tion between slave property and any other species of property. To say that Congress may protect the northern man's goods in California, but that Congress shall not protect the southern man's slaves, h interven- tion. It is intervening for the worst ends, and in the most insulting manner. We have been told, fellow-citizens, that we once said the people of a territory, when they come to make a state constitution, might settle the slave question for themselves, and that we have now abandoned that ground. Not so — I speak for myself. I have always maintained, and I maintain to-day, that the people of a territory, when duhj authorized to form a state constitution, may settle this and all other questions for themselves and according to their own inclinations. But was California duly authorized ? "Where did she get her authority ? We have been told that she got it from the Almighty. This is very well if it is so. But it would be more satisfactory to me to know that she got it from the proprietors of the soil, and that her action had been subordinate to the Federal Constitution. I have no inclination to discuss this point at length. Whenever it can be shown that California has been subjected to the same ordeal through which Mississippi, Arkansas, Florida, and other slaveholding states have been compelled to pass, I will, if in Congress, vote for her admission into the Union, without a why or wherefore, as concerns slavery. But it is asking of me a little too much to expect that I shall vote for her admission, under all the remarkable circumstances attend- ing her application, until she has passed this ordeal. . If it shall be shown that I am getting a fair equivalent for surrender- ing your rights in California, you may reasonably expect me, in your name, to favor a compromise. The great national mind wants repose, and I for one am ready for any arrangement which may afford a reason- able augury of a happy adjustment of our differences. This brings me to a brief review of Mr. Clay's so called compromise scheme. The leading bill presented by Mr. Clay from " the Committee of Thirteen" contains three distinct and substantive propositions : First, the admission of California. In this, as in every other scheme of settle- ment tendered to the South, California, in all her length and breadth, stands first. Secondly, we are offered territorial governments for New Mexico and Utah (Deseret that was), ivitliout the Wilmot proviso ; and thirdly, we have a proposition to dismember Texas, by cutting off" enough of her northern possessions to make four states as large as Mississippi, 186 ALBERT G. BROWN. and for the privilege of doing this we are to pay millions of dollars. The suggestions for filling this blank have varied from five to fifteen millions of dollars. I have already suggested some reasons why the admission of Cali- fornia, as an independent proposition, ought not, in my judgment, to re- ceive your sanction. I now propose to inquire whether the union of these three measures in one bill makes the whole, as a unit, more worthy of your consideration and support. All the objections to the admission of California stand out in the same force and vigor in Mr, Clay's bill as in all former propositions for her admission. We are asked to make the same sacrifice of feeling and of principle which we have so often and so long protested we would not make — unless indeed it shall be shown that we are getting a fair equivalent for these sacrifices. Mr. Clay has himself told us, in effect, that we were making these sacrifices. He has told us, as I remarked to you in another place, that California was not a state, and could not become so out of the Union. That, in truth, her constitution had no binding force, as a constitution, until the state was admitted into the Union. The constitution of California con- tains the anti-slavery clause, the " Wilmot proviso." But the constitu- tion is a dead letter, so far as we are concerned. It has no vitality, no binding effect until the state is admitted. Congress admits her, and by the act of admission puts the proviso in force — gives it activity and life. Who, then, but Congress is responsible for the active, operative " proviso" — for that proviso which excludes you from the country? Congress and Congress alone is responsible. You can now understand more fully what I meant, when I signed a letter to his excellency the governor, saying, " that the admission of California was equivalent to the adop- tion of the Wilmot proviso." The northern people understand this, and to a man they are for her admission. The question now is, are we offered any adequate consideration for making this sacrifice of feeling and of principle ? This is a question worthy of the most serious and critical examination. By the terms of the resolutions, annexing Texas to the United States, it is expressly provided " that such states as may be formed out of that portion of her territory lying south of the parallel of 36° 30' north latitude, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each state asking admission may desire." And it is as expressly stipulated, that "in such state or states as may be formed out of said territory lying north of that line slavery shall be pro- hibited." In pursuance of these resolutions Texas came into the Union. The South consented to this arrangement, and to-day, as at all former periods, I am ready to abide by it. Examine these resolutions, and what do we find? A clear and dis- tinct recognition of the title of Texas to the country up to 36° 30', ?s slave territory, for it is stipulated that the people may determine for themselves, at a proper time, whether slavery shall or shall not exist in all the country below that line. Nay more, the rights of Texas above this line are admitted ; for it is expressly provided that in the state or states to be formed out of the territory north of 36° 30', slavery sh^U be prohibited, but not until such state or states ask admission into *ne Union. We have, then, the clearest possible recognition of the title cf LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 187 Texas up to 36|° as slave territory, and to sufficient territory above tliat line to make one or more states. Now, what do we hear from the North ? That Texas never had any just claim to any part of this territory ; that it always did, and docs now belong to New Mexico. But, as Texas is a young sister, and one with whom we should not deal harshly, we will give her millions of dollars for her imaginary claim. Mr. Benton, in the exuberance of his liberality, offers fifteen millions of dollars ; and other gentlemen, less ardent, propose smaller sums. But our present dealing is with Mr. Clay's plan for a compromise. If the reader has a map, I beg that he will first trace the line of thir- ty-six degrees and thirty minutes, north latitude ; and then fix his eye on the north-eastern boundary of Texas at the point where the one-hundredth parallel of longitude crosses the Red River ; and, from this point, run a direct line to a point twenty miles above El Paso, on the R-io Grande ; and between these two lines, he will have the slave territory which Mr. Clay's compromise proposes to sell out. It will be seen, on comparison, that this territory is nearly twice as large as the state of Mississippi. "Whether five or fifteen millions of dollars are given for it, it is needless to say we shall have to pay more than our due proportion of the money. To me, it is not a pleasant thing to sell out slave territory, and pay for it myself; and I confess that this much of the proposed bargain has not made the admission of California a whit more palatable to me. I say nothing of Texas above 36° 30' ; that country was virtually surrendered to abolition by the terms of the Texas annexation. If Texas thinks proper to give it or sell it to the Free-Soilers, in advance of the time appointed for its surrender, I make no objection. But all the South has a direct political interest in Texas below this line of 36° 30' ; and I do not mean to surrender your interest without a fair equivalent. What is to be the destiny of this territory, if it is thus sold out, and what its institutions ? It is to become an integral part of New Mexico, and I risk nothing in saying it will be dedicated to free soil. Its insti- tutions will be anti-slavery. If the character of the country was not to undergo a radical change in this respect, or if this change was not confidently anticipated, we all know that the northern motive for making this purchase would lose its existence. As the country now stands, it is protected by the annexation resolutions against all congres- sional interference with the question of slavery. Transfer it to New Mexico, and we expose it to the dangerous intermeddling which has so long unhappily afilicted that and all our territorial possessions. This brings me to the only remaining proposition in Mr. Clay's eom- promise bill — that to establish territorial governments for New Mexico and Utah, Yfithont the " Wilmot proviso." If this were an independent proposition, tendered in good faith, and accepted by the North with a fixed purpose to abide by it, I have no hesitation in saying it would receive my cordial support. I repeat what I have often said, that whilst I shall resist the exclusion of slavery by congressional action, I have no purpose or design to force or fasten it upon any country through the agency of Congress. Whilst I demand that Congress shall not oppose our entrance into the territories with our slaves, I do not ask it to assist 168 ALBERT G. BROWN. US in going there. All I ask is, that -^e may be treated as equals — that no insulting discrimination shall be drawn between southern and northern people — between southern property and northern property. How is this proposition regarded by the northern men to whom it is tendered, and by whom it may be accepted ? The spirit in which it is accepted is a part of the res gesta ; and I therefore press the inquiry, in what light is the proposition regarded ? — in what spirit will it be ac- cepted, if it is accepted at all, by northern men ? "When we shall have answered this inquiry, it will be seen whether there is leaveyi enough in this little lump to leaven the whole loaf. Mr. Webster is positive that we can never introduce slaves into the territory. "The laws of God," he thinks, will for ever forbid it. He, and those who go with him, will not vote for the " proviso," because it is unnecessary. They are opposed, uncompromisingly opposed, to the introduction of slaves into the territories ; and they are ready to do any- thing that may be found necessary to keep them out. It is easy to see what they wilt do, if we commence introducing our slaves. They will at once say, "the laws of God" having failed us, we must try what virtue there is'^in the " Wilmot proviso." Mr. Clay and those who follow him are quite certain that "we are already excluded by the laws of Mexico." They, too, are opposed to the introduction of slavery into the territories, and stand ready to see it excluded. The northern men who stand out against the coynprornise, insist, and will continue to insist, on the Wilmot proviso, as the only certain guarantee that slavery will be permanently excluded. All, all are opposed to our going in with our slaves, and all are ready to employ whatever means may be necessary to keep us out. / assert the fact distinctly and emphatieaUy, that we are told every day that if we attempt to introduce our slaves at any time into New Mexico or Utah, there will be an immediate application of the " Wilmot proviso," to keep us ont. Mark you, the proposition is to give territorial govern- ments to Xew Mexico and Utah. These are but congressional acts, and may be altered, amended, explained, or repealed, at pleasure. No one here understands that we are entering into a compact, and no northern man votes for this compromise, with the expectation or under- standing that we are to take our slaves into the territories. Whatever additional legislation may be found necessary hereafter to effect our perfect exclusion, we are given distinctly to understand will be resorted to. But there is yet another difficulty to be overcome, a more serious obstacle than either "the laws of God," as Mr. Webster understands them, or " the laws of Mexico," as understood by Mr. Clay. In regard to the first, I think Mr. Webster is wholly mistaken, and if he is not, I am willing to submit; and in regard to the second, I take the ground, that when we conquered the Mexican people, we conquered their laws. But Mr. Clay's bill contains a provision as prohibitory as the "proviso" itself. The'^territorial legislature is denied the right to legislate at all in respect to African slavery. If a master's slave absconds, no law can be passed by which he may recover him. If he is maimed, he can have no damages for the injury. If he is decoyed from his service, or har- bored by a vicious neighbor, he is without remedy. A community of slaveholders may desire to make laws adapted to their peculiar wants in this respect, but Congress, by this compromise of Mr. Clay's, denies them the right to do so. They shall not legislate in regard to African LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 189 slavery. AVhat now becomes of the hypocritical cant about the nVht of the people to regulate their own affairs in their own way ? With these facts before us, it becomes us to inquire how much we give and how much we take, in voting for Mr. Clay's bill. "We admit Cali- fornia, and, being once in, the question is settled so far as she is con- cerned. We can never get her out by any process short of a dissolution of the Union. We give up a part of pro-slavery Texas, and we give it beyond redemption and for ever. Our part of the bargain is bindino'. Our follies may rise up and mock us in after times, but we can never escape their effects. This much we give ; now what do we take ? We get a government for Xew Mexico and Utah, without the Wilmot proviso, but with a declaration that we are excluded already " hy the laws of God and the Mexican nation," or get it with a prohibition against territorial legislation on the subject of slavery, and with a distinct threat constantly hanging over us, that if we attempt to introduce slaves against these prohibitions, the "Wilmot proviso" will be instantly applied for our more effectual exclusion. ; Such is the compromise. Such is the proposed bargain. Can you, fellow-citizens, expect me to vote for it ? Will you demand of your representative to assist in binding you hand and foot, and turning you over to the tender mercies of the Free-Soilers ? It is said, we can get nothing better than this. But is that any suffi- cient reason why we should vote for it ourselves ? If I am beset with robbers, who are resolved on assassination, must I needs lav violent hands on myself? or if my friend is in extremis, must I stranr^le him? We can get nothing better, forsooth ! In God's name, can we get any- thing worse ? It is said that if we reject this, they will pass the " Wil- mot proviso." Let them pass it ; it will not be more galhng than this. If the proviso fails to challenge our respect, it at least rises above our contempt, If it ever passes, it will be the Act of the American Con- gress — of men learned in the law, and familiar with the abstruse readings of the Constitution. It will be done deliberately, and after full reflection. It will not be done by adventurers on the shores of the Pacific, who seem to know but little of our Constitution or laws, and to care less for our rights. I have heard it said that it will be dangerous to reject the application of California for admission into the Union. Already she is threatening to set up for herself, and if we reject her, she will withdraw her applica- tion and establish herself as an independent republic on the Pacific. Let her try it. We have been told that if the South refuse to submit to the galling insults and outrageous wrongs of the North, the President will call out the naval and military power of the nation, and reduce us to submission. When California asserts her independence, and sets up her republic on the Pacific, we shall see how quick the President will be to use this same military and naval force, in bringing her back to her allegiance. These threats have no terrors for me. As I could respect the reckless and bold robber who, unmasked, presents his pistol and demands my money or my life, above the petty but expert pickpocket, who looks complaisantly in my face Avhile he steals my purse, — so can I respect the dashing and dare-devil impudence of the Wilmot proviso, which robs the South, and takes the responsi- bility, above the little, low, cunning, sleight-of-hand scheme, which robs 190 ALBERT G. BROWN. US just as effectually, and leaves us wondering how the trick was per- formed. So long as I remain in your service, fellow-citizens, I will represent you faithfully, according to my best judgment. In great emergencies like this, I feel the need of your counsel and support. It would give me pain, if any important vote of mine should fail to meet your appro- bation. Whilst I shall never follow blindly any man's lead, nor suffer i myself to be awed by any general outcry, I confess myself not insensible to the applause of my countrymen. In a great crisis like the present, men must act, responsibility must be taken, and he is not fit to be trusted who stops in the discharge of his high duties to count his per- sonal costs. I cannot vote for Mr. Clay's compromise bill. With very essential changes and modifications, I might be reconciled to its support. These I have no hope of obtaining, and I therefore expect to vote against it. Like the fatal Missouri compromise, it gives up everything and obtains nothing ; and like that and all other compromises with the North, it will be observed, and its provisions maintained, just so long as it suits the views of northern men to observe and maintain them, and then they will be unscrupulously abandoned. It will give me great pleasure to find myself sustained by my consti- tuents, in the votes I intend to give. My head, my heart, my every thought and impulse admonish me that I am right, and I cannot doubt or hesitate. Your fellow-citizen. Washington Citt, May 13, 1850. A. G. Brown. ADMISSION OF CALIFOKNIA. On the 13th of June, 1850, in the House of Representatives, an amendment to the bill admitting California was rejected, to the effect that thereafter it should noti constitute an objection to the admission of a state lying south of the Missouri i Compromise line that her constitution tolerated slavery. Mr. Brown, of Missis- sippi, renewed the amendment, pro Jbi-ma, and said: I LONG since made up my mind that I would introduce no proposition! of my own, nor vote for any other man's proposition, which did not give ample justice to my section. My determination was not formed without; consideration. The whole ground had been duly examined, and my*,' judgment was based on a solemn conviction, that no proposition which i did not inflict positive injury on the South had the least chance of favorr in this House. If I had ever been brought to doubt the correctness of this judgment, the vote just taken would have convinced me beyond all dispute that I was right. l)ay by day our ears are filled with the cry of " compromise !" " ad- justment ! !" We have been invoked time and again to come forward ,| and settle this angry dispute, on terms equitable and just to all sections of the confederacy. ^Ve have been admonished, in high-sounding phra- l: ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA. 191 seology, that to the people of the states, when forming their constitu- tions, belonged the duty and the right of settling for themselves the question of slavery or no slavery. Some, we have been told, fanatical and violent, would repudiate this doctrine ; but the great body of the moderate men of the North, of all parties, we have been assured, had planted themselves on this broad, republican platform. Now, sir, what have we seen ? The question has been taken on a proposition declaring that it shall hereafter be no objection to the admission of a state lying south of 36° 30' that her constitution tolerated or prohibited slavery, and this proposition has been voted down — voted down, sir, by a strictly sectional division — all the southern members voting for it, and all the northern members, with but one honorable exception, voting against it. Mr. Harris, of Illinois. Three or four. Mr. Brown. I saw but one — Mr. McClernand. There may have been three or four. It may have been that five or six threw up their hats and cried " God save the country !" Mr. BissELL. I was not in my seat. I should have voted for it with great pleasure. Mr. Harris, of Illinois. I voted for it. Mr. Brown. It may be that five or six voted for the proposition. But what of that ? Where was the great body of the northern members, Whigs and Democrats ? They were just where I have always predicted they would be when it came to voting. They were found repudiating the very doctrine on which they ask us to admit California — the doctrine of self-government in regard to slavery. There could be no mistaking the intention of this vote. The gentle- . man from Kentucky [Mr. Marshall], in a speech of marked emphasis, had called on the South to cease debating, and let us have a vote — a vote which should test the question, whether northern members were prepared to assert the doctrine, that under no circumstances should any other slaveholding state enter this Union. The debate did cease in obedience to that appeal, the vote was taken, and the result is before us. And now, sir, in reference to that result I have a word to say. It explodes at one dash, the hollow-hearted and hypocritical pretension that this question was to be left to the people, when they came to form their respective constitutions. It verifies what I have said here and elsewhere, that this doctrine was a miserable cheat, an infamous impo- sition, a gross fraud upon the South. If the people, as in the case of California, make an anti-slavery constitution, the doctrine is applied a,nd the state is admitted ; but if any other state shall offer a pro-slavery constitution, we are given by this vote distinctly to understand, that such state, her constitution, and this doctrine, will all be trampled under foot together. - • I want my constituents and the country to see to what end we are to come at last. The bold stand is taken by this vote that not another slave state is to be admitted, no odds what her constitution may say. I take ground with the eloquent gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Toombs], and now declare, that if this is to become the ruling principle of the North — if we are thus to crouch at the footstool of power — if we ''^^ are to be brought down from our high position as equals to become your dependants — if we are to live for ever at your mercy, rejoicing in [your smiles and shrinking from your frown — if indeed, sir, it has come mn vl in, lie i92 ALBERT G. BROWN. . to this, that the Union is to be used for these accursed purposes, then, sir, by the God of my fathers, I am against the Union ; and so help me Heaven, I will dedicate the remnant of my life to its dissolution. Men nay talk of adjustments, letters may be written, speeches may be made, newspapers printed to glorify the Union — but, sir, if this is the Union you would glorify, it is base-born slander to say the South is for it. If we are to have a Union of equals, it will for ever rest upon all our hearts and all our hands — it will be eternal. But if it is to be a Union of the tyrant and the serf, a Union of the monarch and the menial, a Union of the vulture and the lamb, then, sir, I warn gentle- men it will be a Union of perpetual strife. Say what you will, write what you will, speak what you will, think what you will, the South will wage eternal warfare upon such a Union. We will invoke with one voice the vengeance of Heaven upon such a Union — we will pray unceasingly to the God of our deliverance that he will send us a bolt from heaven to shiver the chain which thus binds us to tyranny and oppression. DELEGATE FROM XEW MEXICO. SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 19, 1850, ON THE AD- MISSION OF THE DELEGATE FROM NEW MEXICO IN ADVANCE OF HER TERRITORIAL ORGANIZATION. Mr. Brown said he had taken no part in the debates on the question of admitting the delegate from New Mexico, nor did he intend to par- ticipate in this discussion at any great length. The honorable gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gentry] had an- nounced the principle which had governed his vote in favor of Mr. Smith, as a delegate from New Mexico, and had informed us that he should govern himself by the same principle in voting for Mr. Babbit, the delegate from Deseret. To the correctness of the honorable gentle- man's theory, Mr. B. made no sort of objection, and if the theory was applicable to the matter in hand, he should be found voting with the gentleman from Tennessee. The honorable gentleman says, it is a part of the early theory of our government, that, whenever you govern a people, you should grant them representation. No one could mistake the meaning of the gentleman. He meant to assimilate this case to that of our colonial forefathers, and to assume that, as they complained with justice of the British Crown for governing them without giving them representation, the people in New Mexico and Deseret may justly make the same complaint of us. The colonics ivere governed. The Crown sent them governors, secretaries, judges and tax-gatherers. It required the acts of their local legisla- tures to be sent liome for approval. It governed them with most despotic sway ; but do we govern New Mexico and Deseret ? How, sir, in what manner have we governed these territories? We have steadily refused, them all governments. The oegis of our protection has not been ex- tended over them. We have sent them neither governors, secretaries, DELEGATE FROM NEW MEXICO. * 193 judges nor tax-gatlierers. We have taken no cognisance of them, or of their condition. This state of things ought not so long to have existed. It was the solemn dutj of Congress to have taken these people under its care — to have extended over them the shield of the Constitution to have given them laws and government. It was a reproach to Con^-ross that all this had been neglected or refused. He (Mr. B.) took his due share of this general reproach. It had been the misfortune of himself and of others, that they could not agree on a form of government proper to be granted. It had been the misfortune of the people who were now seeking this informal admission on the floor of Congress, that these differences of opinion existed. But were we on that account to set all precedent at defiance, disregard the law, and trample the principles of the Constitution under foot ? He could not agree to this. He stood ready now, as he had stood from the beginning, to vote a proper repub- lican form of government to these territories — to fix for them proper metes and bounds ; and this being done, he should vote for the admis- jion of delegates from each. , Mr. B. said he disclaimed all sectional feelings in the votes he was tgiving. He had taken ground against the admission of Mr. Smith vvhen he avowed himself a zealous pro-slavery advocate. He based his opposition then, as now, on the ground that the laws of the United States and the Constitution had not been extended over the territory ; :hat no territorial government had been established ; that nothing had oeen done which gave to New Mexico any legal right to have her dele- gate on the floor of Congress. When Mr. Smith changed his position, md to propitiate certain influences, he turned Free-Soiler, and published I vulgar tirade against the South, he (Mr. B.) had not changed his posi- Jon. He voted against him, as he had originally intended to do. He ihould now vote against Mr. Babbit, albeit he was understood to be at jeast not unfriendly to the South. He could not consent to admit every one to a seat on this floor who ;omcs here and demands admission. If the people on Tiger Island ;hould send us a delegate, he would vote against him. If John Ross or Peter Pitchlyn ask admission from the Choctaws and Cherokees, he vould vote against them. If the hunters and trappers on the Rocky Viountains should send their delegate here, he would vote against him. In all this proceeding he should govern himself by no sectional feel- ing, but by the sternest principles. Whenever delegates came here, as hey had pome in the earlier and better days of the republic, from Ohio md Mississippi, from Alabama and Indiana, from Arkansas and Michi- gan, and, indeed,^ from all the territories, he should vote to admit them, xnd ask no questions as to whether they or their constituents were for )r against slavery. He would not pursue this subject. He had risen simply to reply to I remark of his friend from Tennessee. He feared that the popular 'dea that government and representation should go hand in hand, when propagated by a gentleman so distinguished as the honorable member Vom Tennessee, and coupled with the question in hand, might mislead -he public mind. He had, therefore, felt bound to point out the clear listi notion between the case before us, and the one assumed by the gentleman to exist. He concluded by repeating that, whenever delegates presented them- 194 ALBERT G. BROWN. selves from territories formed by the United States, and elected accord- ing to law, he should vote for their admission. Beyond this he would not go. HOMESTEADS. SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 26, 1850. When arrested in the progress of my remarks yesterday, I was about to say that I approved of the main object of the bill reported by the Committee on Agriculture, and which had been advocated with so much zeal and ability by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Johnson]. I was about to say that my judgment approved the policy of supplying^ by some appropriate means, a home to every citizen. Ours is essentially an agricultural community. The national pros- perity of this country, more than any other, depends upon the production of its soil. Whatever tends to increase that production, enhances the national wealth, and, by consequence, increases the national prosperity. The first care of this nation should be to promote the happiness andl prosperity of its citizens; and acting on this hypothesis, it has been my' constant aim to promote the passage of all laws Avhich tended to ame- • liorate the condition of the toiling millions. I have always thought, and now think, that some salutary reform in i our land system, by which a fixed and permanent home should be placed 1 within the reach of every citizen, however humble his condition in life, ,' would promote the national prosperity, add to the wealth of the states,,' and give fresh impetus to the industry and perseverance of ourr people. _ _ 'i] I repeat, sir, that I am for giving to every man in the United States a;», homo — a spot of earth — a place on the surface of God's broad earthii which shall be his against the demands of all the world — a place wliere, ,, in the full enjoyment of all his senses, and the full exercise of all his^; faculties, he may look upon the world, and, with the proud consciousness- of an American citizen, say, This is my home, the castle of my defence; ^ here I am free from the world's cold frowns, and exempt from the Shy lock demands of inexorable creditors. These, sir, are my sentiments,' long entertained, and now honestly expressed; nor am I to be deterred j from their advocacy by any general outcry. Call these sentiment^' Socialism, Fourierism, Free-Soilisra — call them what you please — say this, is the doctrine of " vote yourself a farm" — say it is anti-rentism — snj], what you please — it is the true doctrine ; it embraces great principle9,^ which, if successfully carried out, will lead us on to higher renown as a. nation, add to the wealth of the separate states, and do more for th( substantial happiness of the great mass of our people than all your othei legislation combined. Congress has been in session nearly eight months, and what have yoi done ? — what have you been trying to do ? iMore than six months of that time has been expended in attacking and defending the institutioi of slavery — the North depreciating and trying to destroy the sixteei I !i( li 8to: ofi ki \ IfM 1 HOMESTEADS. I95 hundred millions of dollars invested in this species of property; and the , South, forgetting for a season her party diiferences, bandino- tof^ethcr ( for the defence of this vast interest. Sometimes the monotony of this tedious drama has been relieved by a glance at other matters, — a mem- ber has appeared to advocate the manufacturing interests, or possibly to put on foot some grand scheme of internal improvement. But, Avhatever has been said in all our discussions, or by whomsoever it has been said, "the upper ten" have been constantly in view. No one has thought it worth liis while to take account of the wants of the millions who toil for bread. The merchants and the manufacturers, the mariners and the speculators, the professions and the men of fortune everywhere, have their advocates on this floor. I speak to-day for the honest, hard-fisted, warm-hearted toiling millions — I speak here, in the councils of this nation, as I speak in the midst of my constituents ; and whilst I do not object to the consideration which you give to other interests and other pursuits, I stand up here to demand even-handed justice for the honest 'but humble cultivator of the soil. I cannot forget my allegiance — I know the men whose devotion sus- tains this government — I know the men whose friendship sustains me against the attacks of slander and the malignity of the interested few. For them I speak, and by no senseless cry of demagoguism, will I be turned from my purpose of vindicating their rights on this floor. Talk, sir, of your lordly manufacturers, your princely merchants, your professional gentry, and your smooth-tongued politicians. The patriot- ism of one simple-hearted, honest old farmer would outweigh them all ; and, for private friendship, I had rather have the hearty good will of one of those plain old men than the hypocritical smiles of as many of your smooth-tongued oily fellows as would fill this Capitol from its dome to its base. It is my fortune to represent a constituency in which is mingled wealth and poverty; — whilst some are wealthy, and many possess more |than a competency, there are many others on whom poverty has fixed his iron grasp. All, I hope, are patriotic. But, sir, if I were going to hunt for patriots who could be trusted in every emergency ; patriots who would pour out their blood like water; and who would think it no priva- tion to lay down their lives in defence of their country, I would go among the poor, the squatters, the preemptors, the hardy sons of toil. Though I should expect to find patriots everywhere, I know I should find them here. , Sir, in the great matter of legislation, shall men like these be neglected ? I invoke gentlemen to forget for a moment the loom and the furnace, the storehouse, and the ships on the high seas, and go with me to the houses of these people ; listen to the story of their wrongs, and let us together do them justice. Men in affluent circumstances know but little of the wants of other men, and, unfortunately, care less for the miseries of the poor. Rocked in the cradle of fortune from infancy to manhood, they do not under- stand why it is that some men toil Avith poverty all their lives, and die at last in penury. Let gentlemen picture to themselves a man reared in humble life, without education, and with no fortune but his hands ; see him going into the wild woods with a wife and a family of small children, there, by his unaided exertions, to rear his humble dwelling, to I9G ALBERT G. BROWN. clear the forest and make way for his planting. See him after the toils of the day are over, returning to that humble dwelling to receive the smiles of his wife and hear the merry prattle of his little children. Watch him as he moves steadily and firmly on from day to day; fancy to yourself his heart buoyant with hope as he marks the progress of his growing crop, and pictures to himself the happiness of his wife and little children when he shall have gathered the reward of his summer's toil, sold it, and with the proceeds secured this his humble home. Look, sir, at this scene ; gaze on that sun-burnt patriot, for he is worthy of your admiration. Now go with me one step further, and behold the destruction of all these fairy visions ; blighting seasons, low prices, disease, a bad trade, or some unforeseen disaster has overtaken him. His year of honest industry is gone — the time has come Avhen government demands her pay for this poor man's home. He is without money — government, with a hard heart and inexorable will, turns coldly away, and the next week or the next month she sells her land, and this man's labor, his humble house and little fields, are gone. The speculator comes, and with an iron will, turns him and his family out of doors; and all this is the act of his own government — of a government which has untold millions of acres of land. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask you, can this man love a government that treats him thus ? Never, sir, never. To do so, he should be more than man, and scarcely less than God. Treatment like this would have put out the fire of patriotism in Washington s breast, and almost justified the treachery of Arnold. Instead of treating her citizens thus, I would have this government interpose its strong arm to protect them from the iron grasp of the heartless speculator. By doing so, you encourage industry, promote happiness, develope the resources of the soil, make better men and purer patriots. In a word, you perform a vast amount of good without the possibility of doing harm. Not having seen the bill reported by the committee under circum- stances which afforded an opportunity for a critical examination, I am not prepared to say that its details meet my approbation. I am disinclined to give to the settler an absolute title to lands. I am so, sir, because I would secure him in the possession of his home against his misfortunes, and even against his own improvidence. If he is an honest and industrious man, he should have a home where that honest heart could repose in peace, and where the hand of industry could find employment. If he be dishonest, give him a home where, in the bosom of his family, he may hide his shame, and where they may find shelter from the frowns of a cruel world. If he is idle and worthless, give him a home where his Avife and children may toil, and, by their ■ example, bring him back to habits of honest industry. In any and in* '' every event, give him a home, and secure him in the possession of that home, against all the contingencies of life and vicissitudes of fortune, so f When you have done this, rest satisfied that you have at least made anjlHii better man, and done something towards the general prosperity. ' ' ' My own scheme has been reduced to the form of a bill, and before I'; ,_ . take my seat I beg leave to send it to the Clerk's desk, that it may bei» read — premising that I am wedded to no special plan. The object is aikliui good one; it meets my cordial ajiprobation, and I shall most heartilySnflie unite in any scheme which gives reasonable promise of success. off c: HOMESTEADS. 197 I offer the paper -whicli I hold in my hand as a substitute for the original proposition, and ask that it may be included in the motion to print. Mr. Brown's proposition was read. Strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert as follows : That the laws now in force granting preemption to actual settlers on the public lands, shall continue until otherwise ordered by Congress, and that the same be ex- pended to all the territories of the United States. Sec. 2. AjuI be it further enacted, That from and after the passage of this act, the 'ights of preemptors shall be perpetuated : that is to say, persons acquiring the right )f preemption shall retain the same without disturbance, and without payment of iny kind to the United States, but on these conditions : First, The preemptor shall not sell, alienate or dispose of his or her right for a consideration, and if he or she volun- ;arily abandons one preemption and claims another, no right shall be acquired by iuch claim, until the claimant shall first have testified, under oath, before the register )f the land ofiice when the claim is preferred, that he or she has voluntarily aban- ioned his or her original preemption, and that no consideration, reward or payment )f any kind has been i-eceived, or is expected, directly or indirectly, as an inducement or such abandonment ; and any person who shall testify falsely in such case, shall je deemed guilty of perjury. Second : Any person claiming and holding the right of preemption to lands under this act, may be required by the state within which the iame lies, to pay taxes thereon in the same manner, and to the same extent, as if ho )r she owned the said land in fee simple ; and in case such lands are sold for taxes, he purchaser shall acquire the right of preemption only. Thii-d: Absence of the preemptor and his family for six consecutive months, shall be deemed an abandon- nent, and the land shall, in such case, revert to the United States, and be subject to he same disposition as other public lands. Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That lands preempted, and the improvements ■hereon, shall not be subject to execution sale, or other sale for debt; and all con- racts made in reference thereto, intended in anywise to alienate the right, or to .•mbarrass or disturb the preemptor in his or her occupancy, shall be absolutely null ind void. Sec. 4. And be if further enacted, That the preemptor may, at any time, at his or ler discretion, enter the lands preempted, by paying therefor to the proper ofiicer of ■he United States one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre. Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That in case of the preemptor's death, if a mar- •ied man, his right shall survive to his widow and infant children, but the rights of he older children shall cease as they respectively come of age, or when they reach he age of twenty-one years ; in all cases the right of preemption shall remain in the roungest child. And in case of the death of both father and mother, leaving an nfant child or children, the executor, administrator, or guardian, may at any time vithin twelve months after such death, enter said preempted lands in the name of aid infant child or children, or the said preemption, together with the improvements m the lands, may be deemed property, and as such, sold for the benefit of said nfants, but for no other purpose, and the purchaser may acquire the right of the leceased preemptor by such purchase. ^ -K- w -Js- ♦ ' 4fr "if- -TC* In reply to Mr. Morse, of Louisiana, Mr. Brown said : Mr. Chair- nan, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Morse], in the progress of his emarks was understood by me to assume the ground that my proposition s unconstitutional. I did not, as you know, Mr. Speaker, undertake explain, much less to vindicate that proposition. Its provisions are few and so simple, that it may be well left to speak its own vindica- ion, even against the furious assault of the honorable gentleman. It proposes simply to perpetuate a law which has stood for years on 'Our statute book, an honorable monument to the wisdom and justice f Congress. To-day, for the first time, it has been discovered to be nconstitutional. The preemption law struggled into existence against he combined opposition of many of the first minds in the country. It as received the repeated sanction of Congress, and to-day I know of no 198 ALBERT (j. BKOWN. man from the new states who desires its repeal, or who has the boldness to avow such desire if he feels it. Instead of limiting the right of the preemptor to one year or two years, I simply propose to perpetuate that riffht, and this is the measure which the astute gentleman from Louisiana says is unconstitutional. I shall not stop to vindicate the measure from such a charge. The government has full power to dispose of the public lands, and in the exercise of this power, it has from time to time reduced the price, and in many hundred instances given them away. , I ask the honorable gentleman if the act by which five hundred thou- sand acres of the public lands were given to the state of Louisiana was unconstitutional ? Were the various acts giving lands to the states, Louisiana among the rest, for educational purposes, unconstitutional? Did the honorable gentleman violate the Constitution last year, when he voted to give to his own state five millions of the public lands for works of internal improvement ? Did we all violate the Constitution the other day, Avhen we voted bounty lands to the soldiers of the last war with Great Britain and all our Indian wars ? No one knows better than the honorable gentleman, that this govern- ment has habitually given away the public lands — given them to the ; states for internal-improvement purposes ; given them to establish col- leges and primary schools ; given them to railroad and canal companies given them to states and to soulless corporations, for almost every con- • ceivable purpose ; and all this has been done within the Constitution;; but now, sir, when it is proposed to allow the humble citizen to reside oni these lands, the gentleman starts up as though he had just descended! from another world, and startles us with a declaration that we are; violating the Constitution. It has pleased the honorable member to denominate this as a villanous^ measure ; and with great emphasis he declares, that its supporters are; demagogues. It will not surprise you or others, Mr. Speaker, if I speak- warmly in reply to language like this. The gentleman was pleased to extract the poison from his sting, by declaring that he used these words in no offensive sense. In reply, I shall speak plainly, but within the rules of decorum. "Demagoguing," — " demagoguing," says the honorable gentleman, "for the votes of the low, ill-bred vagrants and vagabonds." Sir, this is strange language, coming from that quarter. I know something ofi the gentleman's constituents. Many of the best of them are of this despised caste ; many of them are the low, ill-bred vagabonds, of which the gentleman has been speaking. Many, very many, of them are squatters on the public lands. Sir, I should like to hear the honorable gentleman making the same speech in one of the upper parishes of: Louisiana, which he has this day pronounced in the American Congress.- I can well conceive how his honest constituents the squatters, would' stare and wonder, to hear a gentleman, so bland and courteous last year, now so harsh and cruel. Yes, sir, the gentleman's squatter constituents would stand aghast to hear the representative denouncing them as a dirty, ill-bred set of vagabonds and scoundrels — when the candidate, with a face all wreathed in his blandest smile, had told them they were the cleverest fellows in the world ! It may do very well, Mr. Speaker, for gentlemen, when they come otij to Washington, to get upon stilts and talk after this fashion. It maj HOMESTEADS. 190 Bound beautiful in the ears that are here to catch the sound, tlius to denounce a measure intended to relieve the poor man's -wants as villan- ous, and its advocates as demagogues. But, sir, I take it upon myself to say there is not a congressional district in the West or Southwest where a candidate for Congress -would dare to use such language. Sir, I kno-vv very well how popular electioneering canvasses are con- ducted, and bold and valiant as the gentleman is, he would scarcely commit the indiscretion of saying to any portion of the voters in his district that they were an ill-bred set of vagabonds, and if he did, they ■u-ould hardly commission him to repeat the expression in Congress. Let me warn the gentleman, that if the speech made by him to-day shall ever reach his constituents, it will sound his political death-knell. If I owed the gentleman any ill-will, which I take this occasion to say I do not, it would be my highest hope that he would write out and print that speech just as he delivered it. I should at least have a comfortable assurance that the speech would be the last of its kind. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have to repeat that, notwithstanding the maledictions of the gentleman from Louisiana, I am still for this proposition ; and though that gentleman may continue to denounce the squatters on the public lands as a worthless, ill-bred set of vagabonds, I am still their friend. They are honest men, pure patriots, and upright citizens. They are worthy of our care. If the candidate can aftord to flatter them for their votes, the representative should not skulk the responsibility of voting to protect their interests. I hold but one lan- guage, and it shall be the language of honest sincerity. I would scorn to flatter a poor squatter for his vote in the swamps of Louisiana, and then stand up before the American Congress as his representative, and denounce him as a worthless vagabond. Sir, if the men are worthless the women are not, and I could appeal to the well-known gallantry of the honorable member to interpose in their behalf. If you will do nothing for the ruder sex, interpose the strong arm of the law to shield the women and children, at least, from the rude grasp of the avaricious speculator. If a man be worthless, let the appeal go up for his wife and little children. Secure them a home, and that wife will make that home her castle. It will shelter her and her little children from the rude blasts of winter, and the rude blows of a wicked world. She will toil there for bread, and with her own hand plant a shrub, perchance a flower. She will make it useful by her indus- try, and adorn it by her ingenuity. Give it to her, sir, and she will invoke such blessings on your head as a pious Avoman alone can ask. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana, not for his speech, but for his courtesy in giving me a part of his time in -which to reply. 200 ALBERT G. BROWN. TEXAS AND NEW MEXICO. SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AUGUST 8, 1850, ON PRESIDENT FILLMORE'S MESSAGE CONCERNING THE TEXAN BOUNDARY. Mr. Brown said : — When the President's message was read at the clerk's desk on Wednesday, it struck me as the most extraordinary paper which had ever emanated from an American President. I have since read it carefully, and my first impressions have been strengthened and confirmed. The document is extraordinary for its bold assumptions ; extraordi- nary for its suppression of historical truth ; extraordinary for its war- like tone ; and still more extraordinary for its supercilious defiance of southern sentiment. The President assumes that to be true which covers the whole ground in controversy, and to do this he has been driven to the necessity of suppressing every material fact ; and having thus laid the basis of the message, he proceeds to tell us what are the means at his disposal for maintaining his positions ; and winds up with a distinct threat, that if there is not implicit obedience to his will, these means will be employed to insure the obedience which he exacts. Kings and despots have thus talked to their subjects and their slaves, but this is the first instance when the servant of a free people, just tossed by accident into a place of power, has turned upon his masters, and threatened them with fire and sword if they dared to murmur against his imperial will. The President sits down to address his first important message to Congress, and, as if forgetful of his position, and mistaking this for a military, instead of a civil government, he tells us he is commander-in- chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states when called into actual service. He next proceeds to inform us that all necessary legislation has been had to enable him to call this vast military and naval power into action. No further inter- position of Congress is asked for or desired. His duties are plain, and his means clear and ample, and we are told with emphasis, that he intends to enforce obedience to his decrees. A stranger, who knew nothing of our institutions, might well have supposed, from the reading of the message, that the President was a military despot ; and to have seen him striding into the House of Rep- resentatives with a drawn sword, pointing first to the army, and then to the navy, and then to the militia, one, by a very slight transition, might have supposed himself in the presence of Oliver Cromwell, instead of Millard Fillmore. Why, sir, this redoubtable military hero, who " never set a squadron in the field, nor does the division of a battle know more than a spinster," talks as flippantly to Congress and the people about commanding the army and navy and militia of the United States, as if he were a conquering hero addressing his captives, instead of a civil magistrate making his first obeisance to his superiors. Am I to be told by the friends of the President, that no threat was TEXAS AND NEW MEXICO. 201 implied in his late insolent and insulting message — that he did not mean to threaten or menace Texas or the South, by the language employed in that paper ? Then why inform us that he is commander-in-chief of the naval and military power of the government ? Why buckle on his armor ? Why present himself here panoplied, as if for war, if his mis- sion was one of peace ? Was it necessary for the information of Con- gress, or of the country, that the President should tell us that he is the constitutional commander-in-chief of the army and navy ? Why tell us with so much of precise detail, what laws were in force amplifying his powers under the Constitution, if he did not mean to intimidate us ? Why, sir, did he inform us that his duty was plain, and his authority clear and ample, if he did not mean to close the argument, and rely upon the sword ? The whole scope and purpose of the message is clear and palpable. It was intended to drive Texas and the South into meek submission to the executive will. Instead of entering into a calm and statesman-like review of the matters in controversy, he leaps at one bound to his conclusions — asserts at once that Texas has no rightful claim to the territory in dispute. He plants his foot, brandishes his sword, and, in true Furioso style, declares that — " Whoso dares his boots displace, Shall meet Bombastes face to face." Well, sir, we shall see how successful this display of military power on the part of the illustrious " commander-in-chief of the army and navy" will be in bringing the South to a humiliating surrender. If there be any one here or elsewhere, Mr. Chairman, who supposes that the President has acted properly in this matter, let me speak to him calmly. Is there an instance on record where a friendly power has gone with arms in his hands to treat with another friendly power? Texas is not only a friendly power, but she is a state of this Union, allied to us by every tie, political, social, and religious, which can bind one people to another. Her chief magistrate has witnessed with pain and sorrow, an attempt on the part of this government to wrest from his state a portion of her territory. He thinks the President may not be cognisant of these transactions. He knows it is being done without authority of law ; and what course does he take ? He writes to the President a respectful note, informing him, in substance, that an officer of the army, stationed in Santa Fe, had interposed adversely to the authority of Texas, and was fomenting discord, and exciting the inhabi- tants to rebellion. He made a respectful inquiry, as to whether this officer was acting in obedience to the will or wishes of the President. Now, sir, how was this inquiry answered ? Did the President make a respectful answer to a respectful inquiry ? No, sir. He goes oft" in a blaze of military fire ; points to his military trappings — " Here is my army, here is my navy, and there is the militia; my mind is made up; I do approve of the conduct of my civil and military governor in Santa Fe ; and if you attempt to displace him, or question his authority, war, war, war to the knife, will be the consequence." Such, sir, is my read- ing of the President's message. Was there ever such a beginning to a friendly negotiation? Suppose Great Britian had sent a military force to take possession of our northeastern territory or of Oregon, and the British officer in command had issued his proclamation calling the I 202 ALBERT G. BROWN. inhabitants together to make and establish a government adverse to the United States, and in total disregard of her claim ; suppose that, on seeing this, the President of the United States had addressed a respect- ful inquiry to the British government, to know if this proceeding was approved ; and then, sir, suppose the British Minister had replied, " Her majesty has so many ships of the line, so many war-steamers. Her military resources are thus and so. She approves of the conduct of her officer in Oregon or in Maine. Her duty is plain, and her means ample for maintaining the authority she has assumed." What, let me ask you, men and patriots, would have been thought of conduct like this ? Would the American President have dared to outrage the sentiment of his country by pocketing such an insult, and then proceeding with the ne- gotiation ? If he had, is there one man in all this broad land who would not, with his last gasp, have heaped curses and imprecations upon his head ? And shall this government force an insult upon Texas, a sister of the confederacy, which she would not and dare not take from any power on God's earth? I know not what course Texas may think it her duty to take in this emergency. But, sir, if she strike for her honor — if she strike for her altars and her firesides — if she strike for liberty and law, I warn her oppressors that she will not strike alone. But, Mr. Chairman, I have said that the President has virtually taken this question of the disputed boundary between Texas and the United States out of the hands of Congress, and has assumed, by an executive pro7iunciamiento, to settle the whole matter adversely to Texas ; and I will show that he means this, if he means anything. As for anything which appears in the message, Texas never had a shadow of claim to any part of the country in dispute. The President is particular in stating that the country was a part of New Mexico prior to the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and recites at full length the fifth, eighth, and ninth articles of that treaty, to show that the country belongs to the United States, and that he is bound to protect it by military power. But he wholly omits to say anything of the grounds on which Texas bases her claim ; not one word of her revolutionary rights ; nothing of her treaties with Mexico ; not a syllable about her boundary as defined in her constitution of 1836 ; no reference to the negotiations which led to her annexation ; nothing of the opinions of his predeces- sors and their cabinets, recognising the rights of Texas within the boundary as prescribed by her constitution ; and lastly, no mention of the crowning act of annexation — the resolutions of March 1, 1845, by which the star of her existence was blotted out and her political institu- tions buried in those of the United States. If Mr. Fillmore had thought it worth his while to look into these mat- ters, he would have found his duty not quite so plain, nor the obliga- tion quite so imperative to use the naval and military power of this government to crush Texas, if she dared to assert her rightful claim to the country in dispute. I commend the history of this transaction to the President and his advisers before they commence hanging the Texans for treason. Per- haps it may be found that Texas acquired some rights by her revolution and by her treaty with Santa Anna. It may turn out that she placed i the evidence of her rights on record in the enduring form of a written TEXAS AND NEW MEXICO. 203 constitution. It may appear that these rights were recognised by every department of this government in its negotiations and debates on the treaty of annexation. It will most certainly appear that these rights were solemnly recognised by this government in the final consummation of that treaty. By the resolutions of annexation, approved March 1, 1845, it was provided, among other things, that all that part of Texas lying south of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, should be admitted into the Union with or without slavery as the people might elect; and in all that part lying north of the said parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, slavery should be prohibited. Now, sir, what does this language mean, and why was it employed ? Texas, as we all know, had defined her boundaries ; she fixed her western limits on the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its source, and she extended her northern limits to the parallel of 42°. Hence, when she asked ad- mission into the Union, there was no dispute between her and the United States as to where her boundaries were. She presented herself with fixed boundaries, and we took her as she was._ By a solemn compact, as binding in its forms as a treaty between nations could make it, and as plain in its terms as our language could express it, we accepted her, and shaped her policy through all after time on the subject of slavery. Her territory north of 36° 30' was to be free, and all south of that line was to be slave territory. Such was the contract between Texas and the United States — the only contracting parties. Texas presented her- self bounded on the west by the Rio Grande and on the north by the 42d parallel, and we took her as she presented herself. We had either to do this or not take her at all. All the debates, all the negotiations, all that was written or said on the subject pending the treaty of annexa- tion, shows that this was the understanding of both parties. True, there was an outstanding dispute between Texas and Mexico about the separate or independent existence of Texas. Mexico denied the nation- ality of Texas. The United States admitted it ; and treated with her as a sovereign. Mark you, Mexico did not dispute with Texas about a boundary, but about her separate national independence.^ We admitted Texas, by a treaty entered into between her and the United States, into the Union of these states, and we undertook to defend, to protect and maintain her against Mexico. We did this in good faith — we went to war with Mexico. That war resulted in Mexico giving up all the terri- tory that lay within the limits of Texas, as defined by herself, and in her ceding other vast tracts of country to the United States. Now, sir, what do we hear ? Why, that certain territory within her constitutional limits at the period of annexation, never did belong to Texas ; but that it was an integral part of Mexico. And though we assumed to say how much of it should be free and how much slave territory, it was in truth and in fact foreign territory. By what right did the American Congress undertake to say that so much of Mexican territory as lay north of 36i° should be free, and all below that slave territory ? Con- gress undercook no such thing. We all thought then, as^ I think now, that the country belonged to Texas ; and we consulted with no one else — contracted with no one else in regard to it. The President has with great care traced out the line between the United States and Mexico, as defined in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and has dwelt on the fifth, eighth, and ninth articles of that 204 ALBERT G. BROWN. treaty with great apparent unction, as sustaining his position of hostility to Texas. Sir, what had Texas to do with that treaty ? What matters it with Texas as to what contract the United States may have made with Mexico ? Time was, when Texas was a sovereignty among the nations of the earth ; we so acknowledged her ; we contracted with her in that capacity : — what she demands to-day is, that you fulfil the contract made with her. She is no party to your contract with Mexico ; she demands good faith in the execution of that contract hy which you ob- tained her sovereignty, and agreed to protect her against Mexico ; — she protests against your protecting her against Mexico, and dismember- ing her yourself. When, Mr. Chairman, the President was telling us what were his duties under our treaty with Mexico, I pray you, was it not his duty to have told us what were his duties under the treaty with Texas ? And when he was dwelling with so much delight upon the three articles of the treaty of Hidalgo, as the law which he was going to enforce with fire and sword, was it not worth his while to have made some passing notice of the treaty of 1845 with Texas ? Or has it come to this, that a Free- Soil President feels under no obligations to execute a contract with a slave state? I suppose, with true Catholic instincts, he does not feel bound to keep faith with heretics. Santa Fe, the country where Lieutenant-General Fillmore is going to halt his grand army, and through which, I suppose. Commodore Fillmore may be expected to sail with his naval fleet, lies not only south of the northern boundary of Texas — that is, 42° north latitude — but it is in fact south of the compromise line of 36° 30' by many miles. Not only has the President, in setting aside the legal boundary of Texas, as defined in her constitution and recognised by this government in various forms, outraged her rights, and covered at one sweep every inch of ground in dispute between the United States and Texas, but he has gone further, much further ; he has established, or attempted to establish, a principle which threatens the very existence of Texas as a separate state. What says the President ? That he is bound, by the highest official obligations, to protect the Mexican inhabitants of Santa F6 or New Mexico, as he is pleased to call it, against the authority of Texas. He has announced, that if Texas attempts to assert her authority in that country, and to punish those who commit overt acts of treason against her, he will resist her with the whole naval and military power of the government. Bear in mind, that this country is within her limits, as defined by her constitution of 1836, and within the limits of the slave portion of this territory, as defined by the resolutions of annexation. Now, where does the President look for his authority thus to resist the authority of Texas ? Not, sir, to the treaty of annexation, but to the treaty with Mexico, and to the eighth and ninth articles of that treaty. He finds here that Mexicans residing in the territory ceded to the United States by Mexico, shall be protected in their lives, liberty, property, and religion. Planting himself on these stipulations, he announces his fixed determination to defend the Mexican inhabitants against the authority of Texas. The treaty with Mexico is the only law for his government in this regard. He wholly discards and treats with contempt the treaty with Texas. He looks to but one boundary — that established by the Mexican treaty. He looks to but acquisition, and that the acquisition TEXAS AND NEW MEXICO. 205 from Mexico. Now, sir, wliat is this boundary? and what tliis acquisi- tion ? The boundary is the Rio Grande to the southern limit of New Mexico, thence to the Gihi river, and to the Pacific. The acquisition embraces all the territory lying between Louisiana and Arkansas and the Indian territory, on the one side, and this Mexican boundary on tlio other. We must recollect that Mexico never recognised the independ- ence of Texas; and when we treated with her, we treated for California and New Mexico, and Texas from the Louisiana line to the Rio Grande. The President does not respect the line of Texas, as defined in her con- stitution and recognised by the resolution of annexation. He kicks this line out of his way, and has announced his intention to be governed alone by the treaty of Hidalgo. He says he will resist Texan authority beloAV the line of forty-two degrees ; aye, he will resist it below thirty-six and a half degrees. I know of no other line. The President admits in his message that he does not know where the true boundary is. Then it becomes a matter of interesting inquiry where his authority is going to stop. If the only boundary known to any law as existing between the United States and Texas, is disregarded, and the President is resolved to protect all Mexicans living on territory ceded to the United States by Mexico, and it is true, as we have seen, that Texas was as much a cession, so far as the treaty of Hidalgo is concerned, as New Mexico and California ; and if the President is going to protect Mexicans against the authority of Texas in Santa F4, — I should like to know how much further down he is going to extend his protecting care. Will he go down to Austin ? Will he punish as far down as Houston ? May Mexicans expect the shield of his protecting care in Galveston ? Is the authority of Texas everywhere to fall before the triumphant march of this most valiant hero — this commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States ? It might economize blood, sir, if this conquering chief would only deign to fix a boundary — put up a sign-post at the point where he intends to stop hanging and chopping ofi" heads. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for true and genuine heroism ; but I confess myself rather restive in the presence of the bastard pro- geny which this slavery agitation has brought forth. When we Avere threatened with thirty-nine western regiments, I grew impatient ; when we were threatened with ten thousand Kcntuckians, led on by the great compromiser, I felt still more provoked ; but when Millard Fillmore mounts his Pegasus, and attempts to drive over us with the whole naval and military power of the nation, I cannot think or speak with patience. AVhen Jackson threatened, there was dignity in the threat. When Taylor threatened, it was not quite contemptible ; but for Millard Fillmore, a mere come-by-chance — a poor little kite, who has fallen by accident into the eagle's nest — when he attempts to play the hero, and to threaten the South, one scarcely knows what limit to fix to contempt and scorn. If these feelings have a deeper depth in the human soul, let the upstart hero, not yet warm in the seat of accidental honor, know and feel that he has reached that deeper depth in the heart of every true and faithful son of the yet proud and independent South. What, Mr. Chairman, is the meaning of all this ? Why does the President disregard the most solemn obligations ? Why, sir, does he manifest so much of impatience to wrest successfully from Texas that which is so justly her own, and which she never can surrender without 206 ALBERT G. BROWN. dishonor? And why, sir, independent of all considerations of justice and national faith, are we of the South hound to make common cause with Texas ? Because, sir, you and I, and every other southern man, know that the question of slavery lies at the hottom of all these move- ments. That question out of the way, and the President and his cabi- net, and his friends on this floor, would not care a single rush whether Santa F6 was in Texas or New Mexico. That question out of the way, and we should have no disputing about this country. The treaty obli- gations between the United States and Texas would be faithfully main- tained, and harmony would be restored in twenty-four hours. Is it not melancholy, is it not alarming to every true patriot, to see that this war upon a section, this eternal and never-ending assailment of the South, has not only warped the judgment of the best and purest men of the North, but has so far influenced the action of the President of the United States, that he not only does not execute a treaty for the advan- tage of slavery, but, in dereliction of the plainest dictates of duty, absolutely refuses to do so ? . Can any man look at this state of things and not see the frightful end we are approaching? What was the manifest duty of the President, and in this conjuncture of our affairs — admitting that he thought, as I certainly do not, that there was reason- able grounds of dispute as to the true boundary of Texas ? Was it not, sir, to have occupied the country peaceably and quietly until the ques- tion was settled — taking no advantage to himself, and giving none to the other party? I hear a voice say. That is just what he did. Not so, sir. His predecessor. General Taylor, found a military government there, and he allowed that military government to foment disloyalty to Texas, and to take incipient steps for throwing off" the authority of Texas. The acting President goes further, and not only approves this conduct, but gives us to understand that he means to maintain it by force of arms. The President knows full well that if the rebels against Texas throw off" her authority and establish an anti-slavery constitution, a free-soil majority here stand ready to admit her into the Union as a state. It is said that the President never threatened to use military power until Texas had first threatened. We all know, Mr. Chairman, on what state of facts the movements of Texas have been based. We all know that Texas acquiesced in your sending a military establishment to Santa Fe, under an assurance that it was not to be used against her claim, or to her prejudice ; and we all know that this same military power in the hands of the President was used to subvert the authority and trample under foot the rights of Texas. Thus it was, sir, when Texas saw herself, by means like these, driven from her rightful pos- session, that she first spoke of force. But even then, sir, she asked respectfully what was meant by all these proceedings, and whether the President approved them ; and we have already seen in what spirit that civil inquiry was responded to. Texas would be unfaithful to her past history if she feared to assert her rights, or faltered in maintaining them against whatever odds. In what attitude, Mr. Chairman, does the northern Democracy pre- sent itself on the question of the Texas boundary ? It is within your recollection, that in the memorable political contest of 1844, Texas was inscribed on all our banners ; and from the loud huzzas that went up continually, I thought it was inscribed on all our hearts. Mr. Van TEXAS AND NEW MEXICO. 207 Buren was discarded, and Mr. Clay crippled in the affections of his friends on account of their mutual hostility to the project of annexation. Mr. Polk was nominated and elected on the issue. The measure was consummated in compliance with the people's mandate. War ensued, and the people turned out en 7nasse to prosecute it to a successful ter- mination. The first blood was shed between the Nueces and the Rio Grande ; and the Democracy voted on their oaths that it was American blood shed on American soil. You defended the President through the whole of the war, always maintaining that the Texas we acquired, was Texas according to the constitution of 1836 ; Texas as she presented herself, and as she was accepted under the resolution of annexation. Now, where are you ? Will you vote to-day as you voted in 1844 ? Will you vote to-day as you continued to vote through the whole of the Mexican war ? And if not, why ? I can understand a northern Whig who votes against the claim of Texas. He belongs to a party who was opposed to annexation ; opposed to the war ; opposed to the acquisition of additional territory ; opposed to everything that you and I were for. But how you can oppose this claim, recognised as it has been in every form, supported as it has been by you and me through all its various forms and phases, I must confess myself at fault to understand. There is one other matter to which I must advert. It is become quite too common of late, for certain political censors, in and out of Congress, to speak of southern men who demand justice for the South, as ultras; and if we persist in our demands, and can neither be bribed or brow-beaten into acquiescence with northern wrongs, the next step is, to whistle us down the winds as disunionists and traitors. It is not, sir, .because I fear the effects of charges like these on the minds of my con- stituents that I now speak. They have known me for many long years ; I have served them here and elsewhere ; and if there is any earthly power to persuade them that I am a disunionist or a traitor to my coun- try, I would scorn to receive office at their hands. I allude to charges like this, that I may hold them up to public scorn and reprobation. The miserable reptiles who sting the South while they nestle in her bosom, are the authors of these base calumnies. Sooner or later they will be spurned as the veriest spaniels who ever crouched at the footstool of power. I fancy, sir, that there is perfect harmony of sentiment between my constituents and myself on the subjects which now divide the North and the South. We are southerners and go for the Constitution, and the Union subordinate to the Constitution. Give us the Constitution as it was administered from the day of its formation to 1819, and we are satisfied. Up to that time Congress never assumed to interfere with the relation of master and servant. It extended over all, and gave to all equal protection ; give it to us to-day in the same spirit, and we are satisfied. Less than this we will not accept. You ask us to love the Constitution, to revere the Union, and to honor the glorious banner of the stars and stripes. Excuse me, gentlemen ; but I must say to you, in all candor, that the day has gone by when I and my people can cherish a superstitious reverence for mere names. Give us a Constitu- tion strong enough to shield us all in the same degree, and we will love it. Give us a Union capacious enough to receive us all as equals, and we will revere it. Give us a banner that is broad enough to cover us as a nation of brothers, and we will honor it. But if you offer us a broken 208 ALBERT G. BROWN. constitution — one that can only shield northern people and northern property — we will spurn it. If you offer us a union so contracted that only half the states can stand up as equals, we will reject it ; and if you offer us a banner that covers your people and your property, and leaves ours to the perils of piracy and plunder, we will trample it under our feet. "We came into this Union as equals, and we will remain in it as equals. We demand equal laws and equal justice. We demand the protection of the Constitution for ourselves, our lives, and our property. Wherever we may be, we demand that the national flag, wherever it may wave, on the land or on the seas, shall give shelter and security to our property and ourselves. These are our demands : will you comply with them ? You have the power to grant or refuse them. Grant them, and our feelings of harmony and brotherhood will be restored. These evi- dences of decay that we witness all around us will vanish, and a strong, healthy, vigorous national prosperity will spring up. I shall not predict the consequences of your refusal ; they are so plain that " a wayfaring man though a fool" cannot mistake them. They exhibit themselves in a thousand different forms — in the divisions of our churches, in the estrangement of family ties, in jealousies between the North and the South, in the gradual but certain withdrawal of all confidence and fellowship between the people of the two great sections. Where is the patriot heart that has not throbbed with the deepest anxiety as from day to day the growth and progress of these things has become more apparent ? I will not dwell upon a theme so full of melancholy ; but allow me to add, in conclusion, I sincerely hope your conduct may not force us in the end to say. We once were brothers, but you have become our enemies and we are yours. SLAVERY QUESTIOIST. SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AUGUST 29, 1850. Mr. Brown said he designed to make a few remarks only in reply to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. McClernand], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks], who had just taken his seat. Both these gentlemen had taken a position which had been assumed since the begin- nino- of the session by many gentlemen from the Northern States, and ' had put forth views which they seemed to regard as likely to obtain the •, favor of the South. If these gentlemen (said Mr. B.) were right in sup- -I posing that we of the South are mere shadows, occupied only in the 'I pursuit of shadovv'S, then they might succeed in the object at which they aim. But if we are real, substantial men, things of life and not shadows, i then they will find themselves mistaken in their views. What was it the South had demanded ? She had asked to be permitted to go into these newly-acquired territories, and to carry her property with her, as the North does ; and he desired to tell his friends from Illinois and from New York, that she would be satisfied with nothing less than this. If was in vain to tell the people of the South that you will not press the SLAVERY QUESTION. oqq proviso excluding slavery, because circumstances are such as to exclude slavery without the operation of this provision, and therefore it is not 1 necessary to adopt it. lie would tell gentlemen who use this argument, i I that the southern people care not about the means by which slavery is ': to be excluded. They will not inquire whether nature is unpropitious i to the existence of slavery there, while they know that the whole course ■ and desire of the North has been with a view to its exclusion from the ■ .shores of the Pacific. It was only necessary to look at the history of the last few years to satisfy ourselves that it has been the purpose of the '|, North to produce this exclusion. I'l The honorable gentleman from Illinois had administered a well- 1' deserved rebuke to the factious spirit of free soil, as manifested in the • proposition of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Root] ; for that he (Mr. B.) \ felt as profoundly grateful as any other man. It was a spirit which : ought to be rebuked everywhere. It deserved the universal execration of all good men. But it was his duty to say to his honorable friend, : that so much of his remarks as were directed against the proviso, on the . ground that it was not necessary to our exclusion, failed to excite his i (Mr. B.'s) gratitude, as they would fail to elicit the gratitude of the 1 southern people. The gentleman from Illinois would not be informed that he had Mr. B.'s highest respect as a gentleman, and his sincere 1 personal regard — but, as a southern man, he felt bound to say at all ; times, and on all occasions, to all persons, friends and foes, that he and ; his section demanded as a right an equal participation in all these terri- it |tories, and they could not feel grateful to any man who placed his e ^opposition to the proviso on no higher grounds than that they were excluded by other means. If his honorable friend had placed his opposi- tion to the proviso on the grounds that the South had rights, and that ithose rights ought to be respected, then Mr. B. and the whole South svould have felt a thrill of gratitude which none of them would be slow to express. If the proviso was wrong, it ought to be opposed on the [liigh ground of principle, and not on the feeble assumption that it was unnecessary. To oppose it on the ground that it was not necessary, R-as to say in effect that it would be sustained if it was necessary. j The gentleman from New York had just informed the House that he was elected as a Wilmot proviso man, and now he rises and makes it his boast that he is backing out from the position he then assumed. . Mr. Brooks (Mr. Brown yielding) said, that although this proviso was nade a test, he had told the people who elected him that he would not oledge himself to vote for it ; that he was willing to remain at home, but ;hat, if he was elected, he must go as an independent man. Mr. Brown resumed. The gentleman from New York had certainly ;aken high ground. But, if he was not mistaken, that gentleman was ;he editor of a daily paper in New Y^'ork (the Express), and in that ejljournal, unless he was again mistaken, the Wilmot proviso had been ri, liupported. The gentleman, therefore, had not left much room for doubt it jis to his real sentiments. There was very little occasion for him now 4) l;o come forward and to say whether he was for or against the proviso. 3i But he desired to ask that gentleman, whether he was for or against this ^j jDroviso when its adoption was deemed necessary for the exclusion of jj slaves from the new territories ? If he was then in favor of the proviso, [Ik lAe fact that he is now opposed to it, because he is satisfied that the 210 ALBERT G. BROWN. South cannot carry her slaves thither on account of the hostility of the climate and soil, and other more potential causes, his position was one not calculated to excite the gratitude of the friends of the South. Mr. Brooks (Mr. Brown yielding) said, he had not changed one principle, but he had been converted to the gentleman's doctrine of non- intervention, or non-action. It had always been his opinion that the power of the general government ought never to be exercised, whether in favor of or against slavery. If the South should suflfer from her inability to carry her slave property into these territories, the North would suffer still more if she was permitted to do so, because her citizens would not consent to go to these territories if slavery existed there. Mr. Holmes. I congratulate the whole country that the gentleman from New York has given up his adhesion to the Wilmot proviso. Mr. Brown (resuming). The conversion of the gentleman from New York to the doctrine of non-intervention had come about as much too late as his abandonment of the Wilmot proviso. They were both too late to do any good. If the gentleman had kept his hands off slavery before the last presidential election, then, indeed, the southern people might have had some reason for gratitude. But, instead of doing that, the gentleman adheres to the proviso until it is too late for non-interven- tion to do any good, and then he forsakes the former and becomes a convert to the latter. The gentleman from New York appeared to be greatly horrified at what he was pleased to call political associations on this floor — at the' strange phenomenon of the two great extremes of the North and thei South voting together. He would explain this apparent inconsistency. The South regarded the whole of the territory to latitude 42° and east of the Rio Grande as the property of Texas, and was not disposed tc permit any portion of that territory to be surrendered for the purpose of being made free soil. This was the position occupied by the southerc extreme. The northern extreme considers the title of the United States to all this territory as clear beyond dispute, and therefore are opposec to purchasing it. This is the reason why the two extremes are acting together on principles apparently antagonistical, for the purpose of defeating this bill. Is it remarkable that he (Mr. B.) and his southerr associates, believing conscientiously that the title to the country, in th( language of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Marshall], is in Texas and that the United States has neither title nor color of title, shouh refuse to give it up ? Is it strange that other gentlemen, believing, a, they say they do, that the title of the United States is clear and indis putable, should refuse to pay Texas ten millions to withdraw an un founded claim ? Gentlemen may pretend to marvel at this singula political conjunction, but they all know perfectly well the motives whicl have produced it. He, however, deemed that it would be found quite as remarkable political phenomenon that the gentleman from New York, and many o; his political friends from the South, should be found cheek-by-jowl wit these same detested Free-Soilers on another question. We vote wit them from exactly opposite motives, as the gentleman and the whol country very well know. But from what motive does the gentlema and his southern friends vote with them for the admission of California Is there any opposite motive there ? None, sir, none. There is on SLAVERY QUESTION. iJll , " motive common to them all, and that is, the admission of a free state into the Union. The gentleman expresses special wonder that we are found voting with the Free-Soilers. Can he give any other reason than the one just assigned why he and his southern friends vote with them on another question ? Until the gentleman could assign some satisfactory reason why he and his party, North and South, were found in political fellowship with every Free-Soiler and Abolitionist in the land for the admission of California, it would be modest to suppress his wonder at the accidental association of Free-Soilers and southern gentlemen on the boundary of lexas. The difference between us (said Mr. B.) is this : we act with them from extremely opposite motives ; you from concurrent opinions and sentiments ; and we will leave to posterity and the country to decide , , ..which stands most justified in the eyes of all honest and impartial men. But his main object in rising to address the House was to say what were the demands of the South. She asks for an equal participation in the enjoyment of all the common property ; and if this be denied, she demands a fair division. Give it to her, give it by non-intervention, by non-action, or by any other means, and she will be satisfied. This is her right, and she demands it. But if, instead of doing this, the North insists on taking away the territory and abridging the rights of the South, she will not submit to the wrong in peace, nor meanly kiss the hand that smites her. He uttered no threat, but it was his duty to say that the South could neither forget nor forgive a wrong like this. She cannot forget that these new territories were purchased in part by her blood and treasure, and she will not forgive the power that snatches them from her. He had never undertaken to say what course the Soutli would feel it her duty to pursue on the consummation of her unjust exclusion from these territories, but he would say, that the act of her exclusion would sink like a poisonous arrow into the hearts of her peo- .pie, and it would rankle there, and in the hearts of their children, as ■■^ong as the union of these states continued. The consummation of northern policy may not produce an immediate disunion of these states; but it will produce a disunion of northern and southern hearts ; and he left it to others to say Avhether a political union under such circumstances could be long maintained, or whether it was worth maintaining. It can excite no feeling of gratitude that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks] says he is now opposed to the Wilmot proviso. He :s for the spirit of the proviso. He would be for its letter, if it was accessary for our exclusion. He consents to abandon it simply because |!t is useless. There was a day when it was potential. Then the gentle- man was for it. Now, when he supposes our exclusion almost perfect, and the means at hand for its entire consummation, he magnanimously abandons the proviso. Wonderful liberality ! Amazing generosity to the South ! If the gentleman is not canonized as the most generous man of his age, surely gratitude will have failed to perform her ofiice. We of the South well understand the means employed for our exclu- sion. This proviso, once so much in favor with the gentleman from New York, now so graciously abandoned, performed its ofiice. It was held in terrorera over California: southern property, termed as propei'ty always is, was kept out of the country. The column of southern emigra- 212 ALBERT G. BROTVN. tion was checked at the onset — whilst every appliance was resorted to to swell the column of northern emigration. Every means was resorted \] to which political ingenuity could devise and federal power make effeo tive, to hurry on this emigration, and then, with indecent haste, the ■: emigrants, yet without names or hahitations in the country, were induced I to make a pretended state constitution, and insert in it the Wilmot pro- ' viso. The gentleman need not be told how far the federal administra- • tion was responsible for these things. He need not be reminded that he -i and his quondam proviso friends were prominent actors in all these scenes.. Need he be told that the proviso was the shibboleth of their power ?;f It was used so long as it was effective. It was used for our prostration, , and now it is thrown aside for no better reason than that it is useless — that it is no longer necessary. Does not the gentleman from New York know very well that the ' California constitution is no constitution until adopted by Congress ? ' Does he not know that that constitution contains the proviso ? Does he ^ not know that the proviso is powerless in that constitution until sane- • tioned by Congress ? And does he not mean to vote for that constitu- ■' tion, with the full intent and purpose of giving vitality to that proviso ? ' With how much of liberality — with how much of justice to the South, , does the honorable gentleman come forward to assure us that he isf against the proviso ? The gentleman is opposed to ingrafting the pro- ■ viso on the territorial bills for Utah and New Mexico; and we thank: him for his opposition. But what reason does the gentleman give for.' this opposition ? The decrees of God have already excluded us. He has no idea that slavery would ever penetrate the country. He ia^ opposed to the proviso, because it is unnecessary. If it was at all neces- sary for our exclusion, the honorable gentleman would be for it. He must excuse us if our gratitude fails to become frantic for this singular exhibition of forbearance and liberality. Mr. Brown was willing to trust the rights of the South on the strict ' doctrine of non-intervention. If God, in his providence, had in fact decreed against the introduction of slavery into Utah and New Mexico, , he and his people bowed in humble submission to that decree. We think the soil and climate are propitious to slave labor ; and if they are not, we shall never seek the country with our slaves. All we ask of you is, that you will not interpose the authority of this government for us or ■ against us. We do not fear the Mexican laws, if you will in good faith stand by the doctrine of non-intervention. We will risk the protection of the Federal Constitution, and the banner of the stars and stripes, for ' ourselves and our property. All we ask of you is, that you will in good faith stand neutral. He had never announced his purpose of voting against the territorial '- government for Utah. He meant to vote for it, and he should vote for the territorial government for New Mexico if the boundary was so arranged as to respect the rights of Texas. He was opposed to the admission of California, because her constitution was a fraud — a fraud . deliberately perpetrated for the purpose of excluding the South ; but he was in favor of giving governments to Utah and New Mexico on the ground of strict non-intervention. He did not want to be cheated in this business, and ho therefore proposed this question to the honorable gentleman from New York : Suppose we pass these Utah and New SLAVERY QUESTION. 213 Mexican bills at this session without the "Wilmot proviso ; and suppose :he Southern people commence moving into the territories with their slaves, and it becomes apparent that they are to be slave territories and iltimately slave states ; and suppose that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Root], at the opening of the next Congress, offers the Wilmot proviso vith a view to check our emigration and to exclude us from the territo- ies with our slaves, will the gentleman, if a member of Congress, then rote for the proviso ? Mr. Brooks replied in the negative, as far as he was heard. Mr. Brown. Then if we take our slave property into the territories, ve are assured that we are not to be disturbed in its peaceable and quiet mjoyment by any act of this government. Mr. Brooks said, that if he should be here he certainly should noi '■ote to repeal any territorial bill for which he had voted. He only ipoke for himself. Mr. Brown was gratified to hear this statement ; whilst he could not nsist on the gentleman answering for the North, he must express his ■egret that he did not feel authorized to answer at least for his political riends. The gentleman had answered manfully, and, he did not doubt, incerely; and if the whole North, or a majority even, would answer in he same way, it would go far towards restoring harmony. He asked lonorable gentlemen whether they were ready to pipe to the tune set hem by the gentleman from New York ? If they were, the whole South vould listen. It was a kind of music they liked to hear from the North. There was in it more of the gentle harp, and less of the war-bugle than hey had been accustomed to from that quarter. Mr. Brooks said, it appeared after all that there was no essential lifference between them. Mr. Brown. So far as this Congress is concerned, we ask nothing Qore than that we shall be treated as equals, and that no insulting dis- rimination should be made in the action of Congress against slave iroperty. If the gentleman agrees to this, there can be no essential difference between us. Now, Mr. Speaker, to the subject of the Texas boundary. Is there ne man in this House, or throughout the nation, who does not know hat but for the question of slavery, there would be no such question as hat of the Texas boundary ? Suppose, sir, that Texas and New Mexico /ere both as clearly slaveholding countries as North and South Caro- ina, how long, sir, do you think it would take this Congress to fix a .oundary between them ? Not one hour — certainly not one day. Of rhat consequence could it be to the North, whether Texas extended to he 32d or to the 42d degree, or to any intermediate point ? Take out he question of slavery, and of what consequence is it where the boundary f Texas may be fixed ? Does any man suppose that the money-loving ,aen of the North would vote ten millions of dollars from a common reasury to buy a slip of soil from a slaveholding State, simply to give it p a slaveholding Territory ? No, no. We all understand this matter. f the country is left in the possession and ownership of Texas, it must e slave territory, and if it is given up to New Mexico, you mean that ; shall become free territory, and you do not intend to leave any stone ^nturned to accomplish this end. We know this, and we govern our- plves accordingly. Let northern gentlemen speak out on this subject. ZlA ALBERT G. BROWN. The thin covering, that they want to do justice between Texas and New Mexico, furnishes a poor disguise to the real purpose. We all know that slavery restriction is the lever with which you are lifting the title of Texas off this country, and giving it up to New Mexico ; and we all know that you are attempting to do this without right, or color of right, to perform such an act. Mr. McClernand (Mr. Brown yielding) said, that Texas claimed the Rio Grande for its whole extent to be her western boundary. By the resolutions annexing Texas to the United States, slavery is interdicted north of 36° 30' within her professed limits. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Boyd) provides that slavery may exist in any portion of the territory west of the boundary of Texas, as proposed by the Senate bill, between 32° and 38° north latitude, east of the Rio Grande. That is, the amendment provides that slavery may exist in any part of said territory, according as the people inhabiting it may determine for themselves when they apply for admission into the Union. So that to the extent of so much of said territory now claimed I by Texas, lying between 36° 30' and 38° north latitude, the South, ,j according to the test of my able and worthy friend from Mississippi, .■ stands upon a better footing under the amendment proposed than she does under the resolutions of Texas annexation. Mr. Brown resumed. If we are left in that condition in which we were by the annexation resolutions, we are satisfied. What we ask in regard to Utah, New Mexico, and California, is, that the North will not, . by means direct or indirect, disturb us then in the quiet enjoyment of our property. What we ask in regard to Texas is, that you will abide by the resolutions of annexation. We are satisfied with the contract, . and we are opposed to making any other. This contract gives us all south of 36° 30' as slave territory, and dedicates all north of that line to ■ free soil. We stand by this. If gentlemen want to buy from Texas her territory north of 36° 30', let them do it. They had his full consent to give her ten, twelve, or fifteen millions of dollars. He should interpose no objection. But when it came to selling out slaveholding Texas with a view of enablincr the North to make New Mexico a non-slaveholding state the more readily, he felt it his duty to interpose by all the means in his power. He never meant to give his vote for any proposition or; combination of propositions which looked to the deprivation of Texas oft one inch of her rightful soil. He wanted to deal fairly by all parts of the country. He trusted he should be as ready to act fairly by the North as by the South, but he invoked the vengeance of Heaven if ever he gave his vote for any bill or proposition to buy the soil of a slave state to convert it into free soil. THE EWING INVESTIGATION. 216 I Be aci THE EWING INYESTIGATIOK lij; In the House of Representatives, Wednesday, September 11, 1850, — On the report of the Select Committee appointed April 22, 1850, to examine into certain official acts of Thomas Ewing, late Secretary of the Interior, and in reply to Mr. Yintox of Ohio, Mr. Brown said: . Mr. Speaker : It is with extreme reluctance that I venture, at this late period of a protracted session, to address the House. I feel called upon, however, by an imperative sense of duty, to make a brief response to the speech which the honorable gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vinton] has just now concluded, and to that end I crave the indulgence of the House. Before proceeding to the consideration of the subjects embraced in the report and resolutions, allow me to advert for a moment to the man- ner in which that report and the accompanying resolutions were received in this House. Now almost five months since, a series of resolutions were passed by the House of Representatives directing an inquiry into the official con- >' duct of the then Secretary of the Interior, Thomas Ewing. A select committee was appointed, and they were charged with the direction and prosecution of these inquiries. They entered upon the discharge of the duties assigned them. It was then spring, the summer has come and gone, and here in the beginning of autumn your committee have concluded their labors. They bring their report, and lay it upon your table, and through their chairman they ask for it that courteous and re- Ik spectful consideration which has been uniformly awarded to all reports coming from committees of this House. They ask that the report may lie upon the table and be printed, and that a day may bo fixed for its consideration. This has been denied. A judgment is evoked in iii advance of all consideration or reflection ; without reading, without printing, before a single member has had an opportunity of examining the report, a judgment is asked. On its first introduction into the House, the gentleman from Ohio, himself a member of the committee, calls upon the House to pass its judgment. How well he has succeeded in this, the House and the country already know. Why, sir, was the gentleman from Ohio so impatient to have this a ' report acted upon, or rather slurred over ? Was there any important public interest suffering, or likely to suffer by a little delay ? No, sir ; another and a very different interest was to be protected by smothering this report. The conduct of a distinguished friend, political and per- sonal, of the gentleman, had been criticised and justly censured ; impor- tant and startling facts had been brought to light. The existence of these facts was wholly inconsistent with the idea of a faithful and proper administration of the Department of the Interior, and it was necessary to give them the go by — to bury them, if possible, among the unpublished and useless papers which accumulate during a long session of Congress. The gentleman was familiar with all the facts. He had attended upon the committee for more than foui' months. He knew ii 21 u ALBERT G. BROWN. what the report and the papers contained ; and I take it upon myself to say, that in opposing the motion to print, and in insisting upon bring- ing the House to an immediate vote on the resolutions, he took a course which his experience assured him could result in nothing less than an acquittal, without a trial, of Mr. Ewing. Mr. Vinton said he had insisted upon an immediate consideration of the report because to postpone it would have been equivalent to doing nothing, as it would never again have been reached. Mr. Brown. That excuse shall not avail the gentleman. If he had been anxious to have a fair hearing, why not have asked to make the subject the special order for some subsequent day? Then it would have certainly come up for consideration. No, sir, the gentleman's knowledge of the facts assured him that it would not do to risk a fair investigation, and his tactics were employed to hurry on a decision before the House could be informed of these facts. The gentleman knew very well that if members could be forced to a vote without a knowledge of the facts, they would acquit the Secretary. They would do this on the well-known ground that all men are presumed to be innocent until their guilt is established. His legal acumen was not severely taxed to discover that if the facts could be withheld until a vote could be exacted, the pre- sumption of innocence would be strongly in favor of the accused. Mr. Vinton said, he had consented to the printing of the report. Mr. Brown. I know that ; I know the gentleman made a virtue of necessity, and consented to have the report printed after his course had been assailed by the chairman of the committee [Mr. Richardson]. But what was the gentleman's first movement ? To oppose any postponement of the subject, even to allow the report to be printed. He succeeded in defeating the postponement, and we have been actually forced into the consideration of the whole subject, and are now considering it, when not a member, save those on the committee, has ever seen the report or knows anything of the real state of the facts. The gentleman now makes a merit of consenting to have the report printed. In the course of some days it will have been published. In the mean time the House will be called on to vote. We shall have the verdict first, and the evi- dence submitted to the jury afterwards. This, to say the least of it, will be rather an irregular proceeding. The gentleman, with the adroitness of a politician of twenty or more winters, laid his whole scheme so as to give it the best possible assurance of success. It is far from my purpose to charge the gentleman with dishonorable conduct. But really, sir, there is something about this transaction which excites my curiosity, and seems to invite the most rigid scrutiny. The gentleman from Ohio will correct me, if I err in my relation of the facts. He went to the diairman of the comnTittce and obtained the report of the majority before its delivery to the House, as he said (and no doubt truly), to prepare a minority report. It became important to have the report copied, and though the capitol was full of clerks, and though the streets were crowded with persons seeking em- ployment, the gentleman could find no one to copy this report but young Mr. Ewing, the son of the ex-Secretary, whose conduct had given rise to and had been criticised in the report. The first Ave hear of the report, it is in the hands of Mr. Ewing ; next Senator Mason, of Vir- ginia, has it; and then a copy is handed round among the Virginia THE EWING INVESTIGATION. 217 members on this floor. All this was before the report had been mado to the House, and without the knowledge of the chairman or any mem- ber of the majority of that committee. Now, sir, I want to show the effect of this proceeding. Mr. Vinton. I have already stated that I had nothing to do with furnishing the Virginia members with copies of that report. Mr. Brown. I recollect the gentleman's disclaimer, and do not mean to impugn his veracity. He placed the report in the hands of young Mr. Ewing ; he, of course, showed it to his father, and he to the Vir- ginia senators and representatives. The gentleman gave it a particular direction, and he was shrewd enough to know where it would land. But why, you are ready to ask, was it shown to the Virginia members ? I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker ; a particular object was to be accomplished. The report was to be smothered. The gentleman was all-powerful with his Whig friends. He could bring them up to the work with a pretty united front. There might be some bolters, however, and if there was not, the party was a little too weak to carry out the scheme. Besides, it would give the whole thing a partisan look, if the Whigs went in a body for smothering, and the Democrats against it. It became necessary to have some Democratic allies. The report contained a severe criticism on certain important Virginia interests. The gentleman, with a skill and diplomacy, worthy of Talleyrand, went to Avork to secure these allies in the persons of the Virginia members. Tiie report was very quietly, if not secretly circulated among them. They saw the assault on the Virginia interests — the scheme took. The vote was taken ; the great body of the Whig party voted with the gentleman, and all the Vir- ginia Democrats went over to his standard. He carried his point, and here we are precipitated into a discussion, before anybody save the favored few, have seen the report or know anything of its contents. (Here Messrs. Seddon, Millson, Bayly, and McMullen, all of Virginia, severally interposed, and said that they had not been influenced in the votes given by anything said in the report against the Virginia in- terests.) Mr. Brown resumed. I certainly never meant to say that honorable gentlemen would knowingly and wilfully give an improper vote merely for the sake of sustaining an unjust local claim. But we all know that the representative is not the most impartial judge of the rights of his own constituent. Indeed, sir, the interest of the constituent is almost inseparable from the prejudices and predilections of his representative. The gentleman from Ohio well understood this, and he rightly conjec- tured that if it came to the knowledge of the Virginia delegation that certain important Virginia claims had been condemned in this report, the allegiance of that delegation might be relied on. I am far from assailing the motives of the members from Virginia ; but I cannot help remarking that it is a little singular that they were found separated from their political friends on this question. It is doubtless all right and fair, but it never happened so before. If one, 3Y two, or three had gone over, my astonishment would not have been excited. But when they went in a body, I could not help inquiring into the cause of so important and significant a movement. I acquit the lelegation of all improper motives, but I still think these Virginia :3laims had something to do with their votes against postponing the con- 218 ALBERT G. BROWN. sideration of this report until such time as would afford every member an opportunity to examine into the facts. I have been surprised, Mr. Speaker, at the grounds taken by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vinton], against a further consideration of the grave and important matters set forth in the report of the majority of this committee. To my mind, it looks very much like special plead- ing, for the purpose of avoiding a fair trial on the merits of the case. The o-entleman was a member of the committee. He attended its sittings regularly. He saw the committee toiling from day to day, through the long months of summer, in collating the facts set forth in the report. He took a deep interest in the proceedings of the committee, and par- ticipated actively in all its labors. Yes, sir, he was here when the com- mittee was raised. He was here when the inquiries were directed by the House. He went on the committee, performed his due proportion of the work, saw the report prepared after four months and more of toil, and then for the first time he discovers that the House has no jurisdic- tion of the case — that the House was attempting to resolve itself into an appellate court for the revision of judicial decisions made by the executive officers of the government. Did the gentleman make this wonderful discovery himself, or was it the offspring of some other genius ? Possibly the younger Mr. Ewing, when copying the report, may have found it out. It may be, that some or all of the Virginia . delegation discovered it, or, what is just as likely, ex-Secretary Ewing ; himself may have first started the new idea. To whomsoever the paternity • of the grand conception may belong, I repudiate it as spurious. What, , sir! may an executive officer go on from year to year allowing spurious) and unjust, grossly unjust and illegal claims against the government,,; and paying them too, without law or semblance of law to sanction hisi' conduct? and must we, the representatives of the people, fold our armsi in quiet, and be silent because we have no power or right to inquire into : the official conduct of an executive officer ? If, sir, the conduct of the ex-Secretary had not been in the highest degree reprehensible, we should have heard nothing of this plea to the jurisdiction. Conscious innocence would not thus shrink from a fair investigation. It is precisely because these transactions will not bear the light of open day, that attempts are being made, and combinations formed, to bury them in this House under the hollow pretence that we have no jurisdiction. Why was not this discovery made five months back, when the investigation was ordered ? Why was it not made during th'e four months and a half that the com- mittee was sitting? Why was it never made until it was seen that an impartial investigation would result in a condemnation of these transac- tions ? — in a condemnation which would arrest such proceedings ini future, and thereby save millions to the treasury. I now tell the House that if the conduct of the late Secretary is not distinctly rebuked, and his decisions repudiated, millions of dollars will be taken from the national treasury without law and without the know- ledge or sanction of Congress. If we, the guardians of the treasury, are to stand by and witness these proceedings in silence, because the gen- tleman from Ohio says we have no jurisdiction, no power to arrest them, why, then, be it so; I take water and wash my hands of them. How long is it since the gentleman from Ohio found that Congres? could not inquire into the conduct of an executive officer ? During THE EWING INVESTIGATION. 219 these fifteen years or more that he has held a seat on this floor, has ho ever, in a single instance, voted against an inquiry into the conduct of any Democratic executive oflScer ? Never, sir, never. I challenge the gentleman to a trial by the record, and dare the assertion that he never, in all his life, voted against an inquiry into any alleged misfeasance or malversation in Democratic office-holders. But now, when a Whig secretary is arraigned — when the personal and political friend of the gentleman is charged with illegal and improper conduct, he stepsboldly forward, and says, " Stop ; touch not mine anointed." You may inquire into the conduct of Democrats, but Whigs are sacred against such im- pertinent and officious intermeddhng. The gentleman found power in this House to appoint the " Bundel- cund committee," and to send them around the world on a voyage of discovery. lie could delegate to that committee power to pry into the private and official conduct of every Democrat in and out of office. He could confer upon them the right to propound impertinent inquiries to the editor of the Uiiion, and to Mr. Sengstack, as to how they con- ducted their private affairs, as private citizens ; and he could even find the power to bring these gentlemen to the bar of the House and punish them for contempt, because they refused to disclose their private trans- actions to the " Bundelcund" inquisition. But he can find no power in Congress to inquire whether Mr. Ewing has or has not paid money from the treasury without the sanction of law. Mr. Vinton said he had not voted for the arrest of the editor of the Union and Mr. Sengstack. He did not vote at all. Mr. Brown. The gentleman did not vote at all. His party voted, and his judgment approved their votes. I ask him if it did not ? Again, sir, the gentleman voted last year to inquire into the conduct of the then Secretary of the Treasury, Robert J. Walker. Where did he get his authority for that ? Is the official immunity of a Democratic Secretary of the Treasury less than that of a Whig Secretary of the Interior? Mr. Vinton. That inquiry was sent to a standing committee of this House ; this to a select committee. Mr. Brown. That is rather too refined for my comprehension. I thought the plea was to the jurisdiction — to the power of the House to direct the inquiry. Now, it seems the House may direct the inquiry, if it only employs the proper committee to conduct it. And pray, sir, let me ask the gentleman what powers may this House confer on standing _ com- mittees, which it may not in a like degree confer on a select committee ? Neither has any power other than that which it derives from the House, and either may receive all the power which the House can confer — and one of them in as high a degree as the other. The gentleman will have to look about him for some better excuse than this to justify his vote to inquire into Secretary Walker's alleged misconduct, and his speech to- . day against inquiring into Mr. Ewing's official short-comings. But my hour is running out, and I must hurry on to a brief investi- gation of the facts set forth in the report itself. And first of the case of G. W. and W. G. Ewing: Large sums of money were paid these persons, Avho were traders among the Indian tribes in the west. The money thus paid was clearly due from the government to the Indians. In this I agree perfectly and entirely with 220 ALBERT G. BROWN. tlie gentleman [Mr. Vinton] ; but I cannot concur with him that it wa3 rightfully paid to the Messrs. Ewing. A critical investigation of the claims of these traders cannot fail to convince every one of certain im- portant facts : the first and most important is, that the demands were enormously lai'ge, springing up as by magic from a paltry sum of a few hundred dollars, to many thousands, and that without there having been any additional dealings between the parties. In many instances, the items composing the accounts were never given, but a demand rendered for a large sum in round numbers. In the second place,_ the transac- tions were all of an individual character; the sales, if any were made, were all made to individual Indians; whereas, the demands for payment were against the tribes or nations ; thus rendering a whole people responsible, without their consent, for the foolish and improvi- dent acts of a few individuals. Nay, more than this, it Avas placing the funds of a tribe of ignorant savages at the mercy of these specula- tors and traders. Every one knows that intelligent and shrewd white men can go among the Indians, and with a few red blankets, or with strands of beads and other trinkets, make accounts on a credit with them to any amount. And we all know, that if the United States will undertake to pay such accounts out of the trust funds belonging to the savage tribes, there will be found unprincipled men enough to present demands for millions. The third point to be considered in this matter is, that Secretary Ewing ordered the payment of these demands without sufficient proof of their justice, even against the individual Indians, and in total disregard of the rights of the savage tribes. It is true that large sums are now suspended to await the action of the House on this report. If the committee is sustained, justice will be done the Indians, and if not, their funds will be recklessly squandered in paying the de- mands of the E wings, and other traders and speculators. One of my colleagues on the committee proposes to address the House more particularly on this branch of the investigation, and to him I leave the further task of pursuing the facts and law of this case._ _ I will not dismiss it, however, without calling attention to the position of the gentleman from Ohio. If I correctly understood the gentleman's position, it was, that inas- much as the government owed the money, it could make no difference whether she paid it to the Indians or to the traders. _ If he means by this that it makes no difference so far as the money is concerned — no difference in a pecuniary point of view, I quite agree with him. _ But the gentleman very well understands that there are other and higher questions involved than the mere matter of discharging a pecuniary lia- bility. Viewed only as a question of dollars and cents, it is_ a little important, it is true, that the money when paid should pass into the proper hands. An error like this might be committed, and, with civil- ized and enlightened nations, it could be repaired by simply paying the money again. But how is it, sir, with the Indian tribes ? The govern- ment has obtained their confidence ; they have consented that we^ shall hold their funds in trust. By and by they will send up a deputation to see their great father, the President, and receive their money. They will be told that the money has been paid to white men, and they will feel cheated ; distrust will take the place of confidence. They will sigh for revenge. They will fly to arms ; and the next intelligence from the THE EWING INVESTIGATION. 221 west will be that the tomahawk and scalping knife have been taken up, and that our frontier settlers are flying from their homes and seek in"- safety. Tell me not, sir, that it makes no difference to whom the money is paid. Let the gentleman look into this matter, and he Avill find that the paltry question as to whether we shall pay this money once or twice sinks into insignificance in comparison with the other and greater questions of morality and safety. I hold that it is in the highest degree immoral to execute a sacred trust for an ignorant savage in a way to suffer him to be cheated by the white man. And I know, sir, it will bo found highly dangerous to our frontiers to lose the confidence of these Indians, and to drive them to acts of revencje for the wroncis of the irov- ernment m misapplying their money. I think, sir, that the Secretary did wrong in paying the claims of the Messrs. Ewing, and as the departments are only awaiting your action to determine M'hether they will pay other like demands, I hope they may be correctly advised by a vote of this House. The second in the series of resolutions referred to the select committee, directs them to inquire " whether the Secretary of the Interior reopened and paid interest, to the amount of thirty-one thousand dollars, on the pension granted to Commodore James Barron, for services rendered in the Virginia navy during the revolutionary war, after the principal had been fully paid and discharged ; and if said interest was paid, was it simple or compound ; who was the agent or attorney for said claim ; and the authority for such claim, if any." This inquiry has been prosecuted, and a conclusion arrived at which seems to me to be fully justified by the facts. It appears from the recorded evidence, that James Barron was a com- mander in the Virginia (state) navy, from 1775 to the close of the revo- lutionary war, and that he died in 1787. In May, 1779, the state of Virginia, by an act of her legislature, promised half pay for life to all officers in the state and continental (army) line, who should serve to the close of the war. In 1780, she extended the benefits of this act to the officers of the navy, who should serve during the war. It is clear, therefore, that Commodore Barron was entitled to half pay for life, or from the close of the war to his death in 1787. In 1790, long after the close of the war, and three years after the death of Commodore Barron, Virginia, by another act, gave to officers of the army, and they alone, five years full pay and interest, in commu- tation of half pay for life. The benefits of the act of 1790 being confined to officers of the army, and they alone, it is clear that Barron, who never Was in the army, was never entitled to commutation. And so indeed it seems to have been determined. For in 1823, his administrator, in pursuance of a judgment rendered by the superior court of Henrico county, demanded and received of the state of Virginia, $2008.52, that being the amount of Commodore Barron's half pay for life, under the act of 1780. To a plain man of common understanding, it would seem that here was a full settlement of the Barron claim. He was entitled to half pay, and that alone, and his administrator, thirty-six years after his death, 'applied for and received it in pursuance of the judgment of a court of 222 ALBERT G. BROWN. competent jurisdiction. It never was optional with naval officers to take either half pay for life, or in lieu thereof five years' full pay Avith inter- est. This was a benefit extended to officers of the army, and them alone. But suppose for a moment that officers of the navy had, by the act of 1790, been placed on the same footing with officers of the army, and that it had been left to their choice to take either half pay for life or full pay for five years and interest. Suppose, I say, that this had been the law : Did not the administrator of Commodore Barron, in 1823, make his election, and take the half pay for life ? Such sir, is the recorded fact. The truth is, that in 1823, there was no pretence set up by the rep- resentative of Commodore Barron that he was entitled to anything more than half pay for life. This was all that was claimed, and this was paid. The Commodore had been dead thirty-six years, and the state of Vir- ginia paid off and discharged to his administrator the only demand which his administrator pretended to render against the government of that state. The next point of inquiry is, how came the United States responsible for the debts of Virginia in this regard ? The acts of Virginia, passed in 1779 and 1780, were intended to pro- mote the cause of independence, and they no doubt had the effect of continuing in the service many valuable officers whose private fortunes had been greatly reduced, and who, but for the assurances thus held out, would have been compelled to look for the means of subsistence in their declining years, elsewhere than in the army and navy of an impoverished colony. The act of 1790 was passed after the close of the war, and it was not, therefore, intended to promote the cause of the war. It is perfectly clear, that the liabilities incurred by Virginia under her acts of 1779 and 1780, were war debts, and properly chargeable to the account of a national revolution. It is equally as clear, that her lia- bilities under the act of 1790, were not incurrred in promoting or assist- ing the cause of independence ; and however creditable to her generosity and magnanimity the act may have been, the liabilities could, in no proper sense, be charged to the war debt. It was not called for by exigencies of the public service. It was, in fact, an act of generosity — a gratuity. I by no means say that the United States ought not to perform acts of generosity — of gratuitous service. She has performed many such, and they stand to her credit. I trust she may perform many others. But did she in this instance undertake to relieve Virginia from the pay- ment of the gratuity or the bounty promised by her in her act of 1790 ? She did not. In the year 1832 — fifty-two years after the act of the Virginia legis- lature granting half pay for life, forty-five years after the death of Commodore Barron, and nine years after Virginia had paid to his ad- ministrator the half pay for life due him at his decease — the Congress of the United States passed an act, the third section of which is in these words : — "Sections. And he it further enacted. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, directed and required to adjust and settle those claims for half pay of the officers of the aforesaid regiments and corps, which have not been paid or pro- secuted to judgment against the state of Virginia, and for which said state would 1'P THE EWING INVESTIGATION. 223 « bound on the principles of the half-pay cases already decided in the Supreme Court of Appeals of said state ; which said sums of money herein directed to bo settled and paid, shall be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated by law." Now, sir, is tliere one word in this act which can be construed or tortured into a remote intimation that the United States meant to do anything more than to assume the ivar debt — the half-pay — as described by Virginia in the acts of 1779 and 1780 ? There was a manifest pro- priety in the United States assuming this liability. It was incurred in the prosecution of a common cause, and it was right and proper it should be paid from a common treasury. But I utterly deny that this govern- ment ever did undertake to pay commutation, or anything more than the half-pay for life to officers of the Virginia navy ; and if she did, I call upon the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Virginia to point out the act. I rest the case on these points : 1. Virginia undertook to pay her naval officers who served to the close of the war half-pay for life. She never did agree to give them commutation, or any other pay in lieu of this half-pay. 2. If Virginia had left it optional with naval officers, as she did with army officers, to choose between the commutation or five years' full pay and the half-pay for life, then Barron's administrator made his election in 1823, and took the half-pay. \ 3. The United States, for sufficient reasons, never did undertake to I assume Virginia's liabilities for commutation, but only for the half-pay due her army and naval officers. 4. Virginia paid Barron's administrator his half-pay in 1823. The United States assumed the debt ; and when she had returned to Virginia the $2008.52 paid by her to Barron's administrator, the transaction • was closed and the business settled. We are next to inquire when and how this matter came to be re- , opened, and how it was again closed. July 21, 1849, twenty-six years after the payment to Barron's admi- nistrator, and sixty-two years after the death of the commodore, James ' -Lyons, of Virginia, a distinguished law^yer, and leading political friend of the ex-Secretary of the Interior, preferred a claim against the United ■ States for commutation, or five years' full pay, with interest, in lieu of ^Ithe half-pay received by the administrator in 1823. This claim iv as promptly rejected by the Commissioner of Pensions. An appeal was taken by Mr. Lyons, and the case was reviewed by Mr. Secretary Ewing. He had doubts. Yes, sir, he had doubts, and he referred the case to Mr. Attorney-General Johnson for his legal i^ 'opinion. Mr. Johnson thought the money ought to be paid, and then f Mr. Ewing thought so, too ; but for what reason they, or either of them, ii: 'came to such a conclusion, we are left in profound ignorance. Neither ;5 ihas ever deigned to give the slightest intimation of the wonderful process s of reasoning by which they manage to mulct the United States for ^32,000, and to throw this large amount into the hands of their friend, Mr. Lyons. I have said the Commissioner of Pensions promptly refused to pay this money, and so he did. He continued so to refuse until he was peremp- torily ordered by Mr. Secretary E\Ying to pay it. The order was given 224 ALBERT G. BROWN. December 31, 1849, and seems to have been as novel in its character as it was peremptory in its tone. The Commissioner thus speaks of it in an official paper now before us : " I accordingly certify, under an order from the said Secretary, that commutation of five years' full pay is due, and interest thereon up to this date. The amount of com- mutation is $4258.31^ ; interest is to be calculated at sis per centum per annum on this sum from the 22d of April, 1783, to the 15th day of December, 1823 ; add the amount of the interest up to December 15, 1823, to the commutation, and deduct from the total of those sums the amount paid in December, 1823, viz : $2008.52 ; and upon the balance struck calculate the interest from that time up_ to the present date." In pursuance of" this order, the account was stated as follows : Commutation $4,258 31 Interest to December 15, 1823 10,385 83 Interest from December, 1823, to January 2, 1850 . . . 19,382 50 34,026 64 Paid by Virginia 2,008 52 Total $32,018 12 This large sum was accordingly paid to Mr. Lyons. If you will be at the trouble to examine the mode of calculation, you will be at no dif- ficulty in seeing that the interest has been compounded. The compounding of the interest is admitted. No one pretends to i deny this. Mr. Ewing says himself that it was compounded, and he ; informed the committee that he had called upon Mr. Lyons to refund, , and that the gentleman had refused. The decisions of this executro-judicial tribunal cannot be reviewed, we ' are told by the gentlemen from Ohio and Virginia [Messrs. Vinton and i Bayly]. I should like to know if it is the opinion of these learned gen- tlemen that a court, after rendering judgment, and enforcing it too, as ■' in this case, to a payment of the money, may then sit as a court for the correction of its own errors, and order the plaintiff to pay back the money which he has received in due course of law ? And if not, how long do they think it will be before Mr. Lyons will return to the trea-- sury the compound interest which his friend Ewing awarded him in this case ? There is but one remedy for outrages like this, and that is, to | hold the guilty judge up to public condemnation. I In deciding this Barron case, Messrs. Ewing and Johnson, without j justice, law, or reason, overturned the uniform current of decisions of all their predecessors, and of the Supreme Court of Virginia, for nearly twenty years ; and for the truth of this assertion I refer to the Virginia Reports in like cases, and to the decisions and opinions of the Secreta-rj ries and Attorneys-General since 1832. The end of this business is found here: The United States, in 1832,' undertook to pay to Virginia ^2008.42, that being the amount of Cora-' modore Barron's half-pay for life, and in 1850 she is compelled by Mr. Secretary Ewing to pay $32,018.12, for commutation and interest, simple and compound, a sum which neither she nor Virginia ever agreed to pay in whole or in part. If this decision is not rebuked by a vote of this House, not less than two to three millions of the public money will go in the same way. One other point in this connection, and I shall have done with this THE EWING INVESTIGATION. • * 2-^5 Barron claim. The inquiry naturally arises, where did Mr. Ewino- fret :he money to pay this claim ? It Avas taken, like tlie Galphin money, Tom appropriations intended for other purposes, and then Congress was isked to sanction it, by voting through a deficiency bill. No wonder ;his deficiency for the last year run up to four or five millions of dollars. Secretaries abstract $32,000 for one purpose, $56,000 for another, 1230,000 for another, and Heaven only knows how much besides. Such I awlcss profligacy would bankrupt the treasury, if there was a stream i »f liquid gold flowing into it from morning till night. 1 The only remaining subject of inquiry is embraced in the third resolu- . ion, and has reference to a large sum of money paid to Dr. William M. jwin, out of a trust fund belonging to the Chickasaw tribe of Indians. The Chickasaws inhabited the northern part of Mississippi, and in the rear 1834 ceded their lands to the United States ; and without entering ato any minute details of their several transactions, I may state simply hat the United States retained a certain part of the proceeds of the ession in trust for the benefit of the Indians, This fund was to be ex- tended in such manner and for such purposes as the Indians should irect. In 1837 the Commissioner of Indian Aff'airs, and as now ppears, without any suSicient authority from the Indians, despatched .; jieutenant Seawright, of the army, to Cincinnati, to purchase provisions nd provide transports for a party of emigrating Chickasaws, they .] laving signified their disposition to remove West. Seawright expended )r these purposes about $144,000. The Indians received benefits to , lie amount of $32,000, or about that sum, and, as the whole expendi- (iiire was without their authority, they refused to be charged with the emaining $112,000. The ofiicers of the treasury, however, charged le whole sum to the general Chickasaw account, and the Indians were otified accordingly. This is the foundation, briefly stated, of the claim about which the ommittee were charged to inquire. It seems that in the year 1844, Dr. Gwin, then a citizen of Mississippi nd now a Senator from California, went amoiig the Chickasaws in le West. He entered into a contract with these Indians, and was em- owered by a portion of them (who professed to act for the whole) to Dnduct certain fiscal operations of theirs with the United States. The ritten agreement with the Indians was exhibited by Dr. Gwin to the 3Counting ofiicers at Washington, and he entered upon and discharged )me of the duties devolved upon him as the agent or attorney of the ,1 [hickasaws. ' ! A misunderstanding sprung up concerning this agreement. It bore, aaong many others, the name of Ish-ta-ho-ta-pa, the King. This chief rote to the Secretary of War that he had never signed such a paper, id that if it bore his name it was without his authority. Dr. Gwin, on [aving his attention called to the subject, admitted that the King did JDt sign the paper, but that another person, who represented that he fad authority, had signed for him. A letter signed W. A., and understood to be from William Armstrong, ;.te General Indian Agent West, dated Choctaw Agency, 12th October, ,^46, and now on file among the official papers, thus speaks of this jansaction : e"I received at Nashville your letter informing me of Dr. G's movements. J waa- 15 226 ALBERT G. BROWN. not a little surprised to hear that he came so near succeeding In the Chickasaw claim, The fact is, the whole affair was wrong. I had no idea when Dr. G. first came over to the Chickasaws, what his business was." The matter was variously canvassed, and in the end the contract was rescinded. The paper or contract seems to have been given up or destroyed, and a new contract was entered into. It was under this ne\v contract that the claim of which I am about to speak was paid. I have spoken of the first contract only because it was the basis of Dr. Gwin's transactions with the Indians, and hence became intimately associated with the history of the case. I now dismiss it, and shall hereafter speak only of the second contract. This last paper is among the documents now on my desk ; but as it is -without date, I am unable to say when it was executed. It will become important in the course of this investiga- tion to fix its date, and I shall have recourse to other testimony for that purpose. Before entering into a further examination of this case, I must pause to settle a small account with the minority of the committee. In their report I fiml this remarkable and strong language : " There is no evidence whatever among the records of the department to sustair the finding of the committee that this claim was rejected by' the proper officer, and reopened and allowed by the Secretary of the Interior; indeed the finding is directlj contrary to the recorded fact." In this they make a direct issue with the majority, and I shall have recourse to the official papers to test the question as to who is right and who is wrong. The first trace that I find of this case in its progress through the departments, is in the Second Auditor's office. On the 8th of Septem ber, 1846, J. M. McCalla, Second Auditor of the Treasury, certified tha there was due W. M. Gwin, $56,021.49. This certificate was sent to th( Second Comptroller, and the next trace of it is found in the letter whicl: I now read : Treasury Department, ' Second Comptroller's Office, Sept. 9, 184G. Sir : The Second Auditor of the Treasury, on the 8th instant, reported to me a i hccount in favor of William M. Gwin for |56,021.49, chargeable upon the approprif tion for carrying into effect treaties with the Chickasaws, under the act of April 2( ' 1836. _ _ i As this claim is " connected with Indian affairs," and calls for an expenditure froi an appropriation under the charge of the AVar Department, it should have bee transmitted to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for administrative examinatioi under the 3d section of the act of July 9, 1832, and the fifth paragraph of " Revise Regulations No. 1, concerning the execution of the act of July 9, 1832, providing f< the appointment of a Commissioner of Indian Affairs." In order that the claim may receive the proper administrative examination .■ required by law, I herewith transmit all the papers received from the auditor co aected therewith. With entire respect, &c., Albion K. Parris, Comj^troller. Hon. W. Medill, Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Need I go further, to show that the Indian Bureau had been impr perly passed by in the presentation of this claim ? That faithful ai intelligent officer, of twenty-odd years' experience, A. K. Parris, sent back to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for that administrative ex mination which the case required, and without which it could not pi perly be paid. I shall not undertake to trace its historv from that day, September THE EWING INVESTIGATION. 227 1846, to March 12, 1850, ■when it was finally paid by order of Thomaa Ewing, Secretary of the Interior. Suflice it to say, it was a history of stern resistance and constant protests, on the part of the Indians and their attorneys, against its payment. Indeed, sir, their arguments, protests, and remonstrances are scattered through this inunense mass of papers on my desk, like the beacon-lights along a difficult and dangerous shore. The minority of the committee, with a boldness which seems to defy i contradiction, says : " There is no evidence that this claim was rejected hj the proper officer. Indeed the finding is directly to the contrary." Now, sir, if this be true, how came it that this claim was not paid ? IIow did it happen that it lay in the Indian office from the 0th of September, 1846, to the 12th March, 1850? How came it to lie there until the elose of Mr. Polk's administration, and until the reign of the " Gal- phins" had fairly begun ? We shall see. I beg to invite the attention of the House to certain papers, which being among those officially com- municated, could not have escaped the critical eye of the gentleman [Mr. Vinton] under whose auspices the minority report was prepared. The first paper in this large mass before me is a letter from William jMedilL late Commissioner of Indian Aftairs, to Thomas Ewing, Secre- tary of the Interior, detailing the history of this case. It bears date June 27, 1849. In one place the writer says : ^ "Of the $112,042 99-100 found due the Chickasaws, William II. Gwin, Esquire, claims the enormous sum of one-half for his services or instrumentality in recovering the amount, under an alleged contract with those Indians. Without dwelling upoh the extraordinary extravagance of this demand, which is sufficiently apparent by the jmere statement of it, I would remark, that notwithstanding the peculiar position of [the Chickasaws, they, like other Indians, are the wards of the government, and no such contract or agreements are valid or binding unless sanctioned by the depart- fment." And again, in speaking of the fund out of which it was proposed to pay this " enormous sum," he says: " I am of the opinion that it could not properlybe used towards repaying the Chicka- saws the amount found due to them by the accounting officers: and so tlie Secretary o{ War, as I understand, decided when the report of these officers of the result of their adjustment of the account, and the amount found due the Chickasaws, was presented to him in September, 184G, for a requisition for $58,124.14, to be taken from the removal and subsistence fund. He certainly peremptorily refused to ISSUE the requisition." And again : . ' "This being the case, it is not seen how any portion of it could legally or properly be used towards paying the Chickasaws the amount found due them.* In my judgment, this can only properly be effected through an appropriation therefor by Congress." Does all this look like there had been no rejection, no refusal to pay? ''■ [Does it look as if " the recorded fact was exactly the contrary ?" i. Now, let us turn over to page five of this great book of manuscript ^before me, and here we find an order from W. L. Marcy, Secretary of 'War. It is dated October 1, 1846, about twenty-two days after this lease had fallen into Medill's hands, and is addressed to W^illiam Medill, :Commissioner of Indian Aftairs. Mr. Medill, in handing over the papers lin this case to Secretary Ewing, says, referring to this order : * Let me remark here, that in speaking of the amount due than, the commissioner means the whole sura, $112,000, and includes, of course, the $50,000 claimed by Dr. Uwin. II 228 ALBERT G. BROAYX. " The rule of action which has governed the Executive in cases of contracts with Indians, as well as powers of attorney procured from them, you will find embodied in the accompanying order of the Secretary of War of October 1, 1849." Here is the order: " The practice which has heretofore prevailed, to a considerable extent, of paying money due to Indians on powers of attorney given by them, is wholly inconsistent with the duty of government to pay over to them, promptly and without abatement, whatever may be due to them under any treaty or law ; or for any claim whatever to which they may be justly entitled. Agents are appointed, and by the government, to attend to their business for them, and they should be the medium of all their commu- nications with the government, whether in relation to any claim they may have, or to their wants or wishes upon any other subject. " W. L. Marct, Secretary of War." How could the minority of the committee, with this record before them, deny that there had been any adverse decision, and even intimate that the decisions had been in favor of the claimant ? First, we have the admitted fact, that the claim was submitted to Mr. Medill in Sep- 1 tember, 1846 ; that for more than three years he did not pay it ; and that he went out of oflSce without paying it. Second, we have his letter before he left the office, assigning his reasons at length for not paying it ; and thirdly, we have Secretary Marcy's order, so pointed and positive that this claim could never have been paid without violating that order. And yet, gentlemen say there has been no decision. Nay, sir, they even assert that the decision has been in their favor. " They must have optics sharp I ween, To see what is not to be seen." I pass from the consideration of this point, and return to the second contract, which we have seen is without date, but which is found to have been in the Second Auditor's office as early as 8th September, 1846. It \ may have been there some days earlier. By the terras of this contract, which I have before me. Doctor Gwin was to have for his services, as attorney for the Indians, various large sums of money, and among others, one-half of all that should be recovered from the United States on account of provisions purchased at Cincinnati in 1837. The sum thus recovered, or which, I should rather say, was found to be due on a fair settlement of the Chicka- saw account, was ^112,042.99. One-half of this sum was, of course, §56,021.49, and this was the sum claimed by Doctor Gwin. The report and resolutions have no relation to any other payment to Doctor Gwin, and I shall, therefore, confine my remarks to this fifty-six thousand dol- lars — dismissing the others with the single remark that they were paid. We have already seen that the Second Auditor, McCalla, passed this claim and sent it down to Second Comptroller Parris on the 8th of Sep- tember, 1846. We have also seen that the comptroller sent it on the day following to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, where it properly belonged, for administrative examination. AVe have seen that it re- mained there to the close of Mr. Polk's administration, and we have seen the reasons why it was not paid. Let us now pursue the thread of its remarkable history during the three years and more that intervened between its falling into Commissioner Medill's hands and its final pay- ment by order of Thomas Ewing, Secretary of the Interior. Within a day or two after the claim was passed by Second Auditor McCalla, Doctor Gwin transferred it, for value received, to Messrs. Corcoran & Riggs, bankers in this city. THE EWING INVESTIGATION. 229 Various protests of the Indians and tlieir attorney, together witli other papers, are found on file. But no effort seems to have been made on the part of the chiimants to change the determination of Commis- sioner Medill and Secretary Marcy. Early in 1849, and after the new cabinet were fairly under way, the claimants seem to have renewed their labors. A long resting spell had imparted to them new energy, and they pursued the case with an earnestness and zeal worthy of a better cause. I pass over much that was said and done between the 4th of March, 1849, and the 30th of June of that year, and resume the history with the following letter : — Washington City, June 30, 1849. Sir: I have just been informed that an effort is being made to transfer an appro- priation now standing on the books of the treasury " fof the removal and subsistence of ludians," to the appropriation " for carrying into effect treaties with the Chicka- saws," with a view of asking the payment or contract made l)y certain Chickasaw Indians with Dr. Wm. M. Gwin. I most respectfully ask the suspension of your action in the matter until I can have time to tile a protest on behalf of the Chicka- saw nation, and state the reasons why the claim should not be paid without being transmitted to the Chickasaw Council for their approval. With great respect, your obedient servant. Joseph Bryan. Hon. T. Ewing, Secretary, cfr. • It will be remembered that Mr. Bryan was the attorney of the Indians, regularly employed to resist the payment of this claim. I On the 2d of July, 1849, Mr. Bryan filed the protest alluded to in the letter just read, and from that protest I read the following aextract : — " I deem it altogether needless at this time to go into a history of the transaction, fisthe protest of the agent, Colonel Upshaw, was filed by me in the Indian Office, iwhich purported to explain the whole matter, and which had the eflect of stopping iihe action of the War Department in the matter, and prevented the payment of the >laim under the decision of tue late Secretary of War, General Marcy. Since hat time no efibrt that I am aware of has been made to procure its payment until lOW.'' Nothing daunted, the claimants pressed their suit with increased mergy, and by way of showing the nature of the opposition and he character of the obstacles thrown in their way, I beg leave to •ead two or three short papers found among the files now before me. -t is impossible that these papers should have been overlooked by the nost careless searcher after truth in this case. On the 14th of July, :848, Colonel Pitman Colbert, a distinguished man among the Chicka- aws, wrote to Commissioner Medill the letter from which I read an ixtract : — " 1 present myself and respectfully request to be informed of the amount of money eceived by Dr. W. M, Gwin, by virtue of a power of attorney from the Chickasaw ummissioners ; also a copy of that power of attorney, as it is important for my bject to know the names of the persons who made and constituted Dr. Gwin the nancial agent of the Chickasaws ; and whether or not said Gwin has not attempted 1 draw other sums of money by virtue of said power, since it became notorious that is power was revoked by the universal condemnation of the Chickasaw people ; to- l:ether with any other information relating to this matter that may be in possession f your department." On the 28th of February, 1849, a delegation from the Chickasaw na- 'ion thus wrote to Secretary Marcy. After speaking at some length of heir claim for §112,042.99, they say : — 230 ALBERT G. BROWN. " But we found in connection, however, with this claim, that an agreement has been filed between William M. Gwin on the one part, and the chiefs, headmen, and "warriors on the other part, by which it appears that one-half of said claim was to be paid to said William M. Gwin, for his services in obtaining an adjustment of the claim by the government, and on this agreement the Second Auditor has allowed William M. Gwin $56,021.49, being the one-half of $112,042.99 as stated. This account is now suspended in your office, as we are informed, and we are bound to thank you for delaying the matter thus far, although it is important to our people that they should be iu annual receipt of the interest upon this sum which is justly due the Chickasaw nation." Such is the character of all the papers in this great mass, numbering more than five hundred pages. The Indians, from the beginning to the ending, sternly and steadily resisted the payment of this demand. It is among the most remarkable circumstances connected with the case, that there is not one particle of Indian testimony to sustain it — not a single Indian of the whole tribe has ever been found to endorse its justice, or to say it ought to be paid. Their testimony is uniformly and unitedly against it. Their sense of its injustice may be gathered from the paper which I now read : — A PROTEST. Be it enacted hy tJie General Council of the Chiefs and Captains of the Chickasaw tribe of Indians, That the following protest be adopted, and copies of it be trans- mitted to the Secretary of the Treasury and to the Secretary of the Home Depart- ment at Washington city : The chiefs, captains, headmen, and warriors of the Chickasaw tribe of Indians in i full council assembled, have learned that Dr. William Gwin has filed in the Treasury! Department of the United States, at Washington City, an account against the Chick- | asaw fund, for $66,021.49, which account we understand, is based upon an agree- | ment which, it is pretended, was made between the said Gwin and the Chickasaw tribe of Indians. This agreement, if any such exist, was made by some of our com- missioners or chiefs in a private manner, without the knowledge or consent of our nation in council, and has never been recognised, ratified, or confirmed by a general council of our tribe, and without this it cannot nor ought not to be binding upon our people. Our tribe cannot be bound by the acts of any individuals of the same, unless a special power for this purpose has been delegated to them by a genei-al council. The tribe of Chickasaws, in full council assembled, after deliberation, repudiate the action of the individuals who entered into that agreement, if any was made, and deny that they had any authority to bind our people. We therefore solemnly protest against the payment of that account out of the Chickasaw funds, as, in justice to our people, we are bound to do. Done in open council of our tribe, and attested by our signatures, at Boiling Springs, Chickasaw District, July 13, 1849. Joel Kemp, Jack Uttubby, his X mark. Captain Stross, pro wag, his X mark, Jon tu Chuck Attiea, his X mark, Captain Parker, his X mark, Vibbit un oyuh, his X mark. Captain Ned, his X mark, Eloss Amby, his X mark, HoTCHiE, his X mark, Billy, his X mark, Louis, his X mark. Pitman Colbert, Jerry, his X mark, Lemuel Colbert, Elbuu nu Turkey, his X mark, Jackson Frazier, William James, his X mark, Isaac Atberteaur, his X mark, Enau no ti ciiu, his X mark, President of the council. Approved July 10, 1849. Edmund Peckers, his X mark, Chief, Chickasaw District, C. N. Attest : Cyrus Harris, Clerk Chickasaw District. Now, sir, I humbly submit, that all this mass of testimony, togeth( |! THE EWING INVESTIGATION. 231 ■with a great deal more ■wliich I have neither time nor patience to read, should, at least, have put the Secretary on his guard. It should have heen sufficient to elicit the most searching investigation into all the facts. "We shall presently sec ^vhether it had that effect. I said, sometime since, that the contract was without date, and so it was ; other testimony was resorted to to fix its date. A Mr. Charles Johnson, in a long affidavit now before me, gives somewhat in detail a history of Dr. Gwin's contracts with the Indians. It seems, that a gen- eral council had been called to obtain a ratification of Dr. Gwin's last agreement with a part of the Indian commissioners. There was great dissatisfaction among the people. Johnson concludes his affidavit thus : — " On the day the council met, the commissioners, in a hody, resigned. I was not present, but understood there was much excitement. The power of attorney given to Dr. Gwin, in November, 1844, was said to be the main cause. Some two weeks after the commissionei's resigned, they came to Fort Washita, and then signed the new power of attorney. In consequence of iliere having been much said respecting the papers, I requested tliem to permit me to take both powers to Major Armstrong, and gave them my word that the old one should be destroyed. I returned them both into the hands of Major Armstrong, who. in my presence, destroyed the old one. Colonel Upshaw, Chickasaw agent, saw all the papers, and disapproved of both powers of attorney. At the time this aflair took place, I was a trader in the Chickasaw country. - Charles Johnson. " City of Philadelphia," ss. Sworn and subscribed before me this 29th day of January, A. D. 1850. "C. Brazier, - . Aid. and Ex-officio Justice of the Peace." No wonder this power of attorney is without date. Signed officially by the commissioners tivo iveeks after they had been compelled to resign., it would not have looked well to date it. No wonder the Indians in , I general council repudiated it, and said it had been executed without ,T 1 authority and in a private manner. Can it be, Mr. Speaker, that Messrs. !■■ ' Ewing and Johnson, in deciding to pay this money, could have over- looked papers like these? But, sir, the case does not stop here. This paper, thus executed, was ;. . lost ; yes, lost. A copy was presented by Mr. Corcoran, of the firm of ■ ! Corcoran & Riggs, to whom Dr. Gwin had transferred the claim, and on this copy, thus presented, the money was paid. , _ Mr. Corcoran swore, to the best of his belief, that it was a correct copy. But there were subscribing witnesses, some six or eight of them, white men and Indians. And I do not learn that an attempt was ever ^1 1 made to obtain their testimony that the copy was correct. The gentlemen from Ohio and Virginia [Messrs. Vinton and Bayly] have dilated at great length, and with much eloquence and learning, on this, as an adjudicated case. We have been exhorted not to lay our profane hands on the sanctity of a judicial decision. We must needs let this thing pass, because it is res adjudicata. Let me ask the learned gentleman if there is a court in the civilized world where the plaintiff" could introduce the bare copy of the most important paper, upon no other than his own affidavit as to its correctness, and that, too, when Lhere were a dozen or more subscribing witnesses ? This a judicial pro- ceeding, indeed ! This the sacred ermine we are exhorted not to pro- fane ! I have about the same respect for such "judicial proceedings" 232 ALBERT G. BROWN. that I have for a " Choctaw council," and about as much reverence for this sort of ermine as I have for an Indian blanket. Well, sir, the case had progressed to this point, when Mr. Ewing determined to pay it; but with that true cunning which is a part of himself, he determined to put the Attorney-General between him and danger ; so he called on him for his legal opinion. And here is the opinion of the learned gentleman, in all its length and breadth, height and depth. See it, sir, in all its vast proportions — its latitude and longitude, and be silent while I read, all ye ends of the earth ! Listen I Attorney-General's Office, Washington, January 3, 1850. Sir: In the cases of the claim of the Chickasaw nation against the United States, and of Messrs. Corcoran and Riggs, as assignees of William M. Gwin, submitted by you to this office, I have formed an opinion, after careful consideration, which my other engagements prevent my doing more at this time than barely stating. Should it be your wish, I will avail myself of the very first leisure to assign my reasons. 1st. I am of opinion that the account of the nation is to be considered now as having been properly opened and restated, and that the balance found due by the accounting officers of $112,842, is properly chargeable to the appropriation for the subsistence jind removal of Indians. 2d. That the last contract with William M. Gwin, assigned to Corcoran and Riggs, is valid, and that out of the fund payable to the Chickasaws under the first head, whatever balance is due under that contract, should be paid to Corcoran and Riggs. With regard, your obedient servant, Reverdy Johnson. Hon. T. EwiNG. Shades of our fathers defend us ! Was there ever such an opinion in such a case ? Here is a case involving an immediate payment of $112,842, and contingently a vastly larger sum. A case which has been decided against by some of the purest officers and ablest lawyers in the Union. Its history covers a period of some twelve or fourteen years, and is written on five hundred pages of foolscap, and the Attor- ney-General disposes of it in two short sentences : " I am of opinion that it ought to be paid." " I think Corcoran and Riggs ought to have half the money." There it is, well and nobly said. This learned i opinion convinced the distinguished Secretary, and he penned this im-- portant paper Veni, vidi, vici. See, sir, it is short, and exactly to the point. To use the poetic phrase of Mr. Winthrop, " it is as brief as the posy on a lady's ring." Harken ! all yea of little faith I Department of the Interior, January 4, 1850. The account will be stated, and the payment made in accordance with the Attor- ney-General's opinion within. T. Ewing, Secretary. This had well-nigh ended the whole matter ; but the Chickasaws were importunate. They interposed Johnson's affidavit and other like docu- ments. Ewing hesitated ; the thing looked barefaced. He may for once in his life have felt that there was such a thing as conscience. Again he called the learned Attorney-General to his aid, and that dis- tinguished functionary, with a promptitude and power which few men can master, responded in the following learned, powerful, and convincing argument : — Attorney-General's Office, Ith March, 1850. Sir: In compliance with your request of the 8th January last, I have reexamined COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850. 223 the cases of the Cliickasaw nation against the United States, and of Corcoran and Kiggs, assignees of William M. Cwiii, upon wliich I gave you an opinion on tlio tliinl iof that month, and have most carefully considered tlie additional evidence and the arguments of the counsel for the parties concerned, and see no reason to change the opinion referred to. Indeed the eifect of the recent evidence is to satisfy me more fully, that that opi- nion was right; and I therefore again advise you accordingly. The press of business upon me still continuing, I must Avait until the final adjourn- ment of the Supreme Court before I can give in detail the reasons which have led me to the conclusion to which I have come. Should you then desire it, they will be submitted with jjleasure. I have the honor to be, with great regard, your obedient servant, IIeverdy Johnson. • Hon. Thomas Ewing, Secretary of the Interior. This was conclusive; the Secretary was overcome; the attorneys stood aghast; the Indians were floored; the money was paid; Corcoran and Riggs felt comfortable ; Dr. Gwin Avas satisfied, and the scene closed. I drop the curtain over the transaction with this single remark : Before many years shall have passed by, we will be called on to refund this money to the Chickasaws. . THE OTHER SIDE OF "THE TRUE ISSUE ^ STATED." A PAMPHLET WRITTEN BY THE HON. ALBERT G. BROWN UPON THE SUB- JECT OF THE COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850, Two pamphlets, of thirty-two pages each, have recently made their appearance in great numbers among the people. These publications are entitled " The True Issue Stated, by a Union 3Ian," and they do me such gross injustice that I feel called upon to notice them. If the man m the mask, who styles himself "A Union Man," would throw off his jdisguise and appear in his real person, I should doubtless be spared the trouble of answering his gross perversions of truth. An exposure of his Qame and face would be the most conclusive proof that justice and fair dealing are not to be expected at his hands. The author of these pamphlets introduces my name in various places ind connections, and it shall be my purpose to show how grossly he has perverted, or attempted to pervert, my acts and words. 1st. Reference is made to the introduction of a bill by Mr. Preston )_f Virginia, to admit, as a state, into the Union, the whole of the ter- tt- :itory acquired from Mexico (to wit, California, Utah, and New Mexico), 01 md an attempt is made to produce the impression that I contemplated % noting for this proposition. The truth is that I spoke against it, and no is- )ne can read my speech without seeing at once that I never could have et/oted for JNIr. Preston's bill, without having it amended in its most B'bssential features. I spoke on the 10th of February, 1849 (see page 120, Appendix to Cong. Globe). In that speech I said: — " All our propositions were voted down as they were successively presented, and jjjpy that party which claims a right to undivided dominion over these territories. 1 234 ALBERT G. BROWN. never have, and never shall assent to (Tie justice of this claim, and hereafter I will vote to maintain the rights of the South in their broadest latitude, unless I shall plainly see that by an honorable and manly surrender of a portion of these rights, peace may be secured, and the Union rescued from its present perilous condition." It suited the purpose of " A Union Man" to leave this out. To have included it would have been to show the true temper of my speech — that I never would consent to give up the whole of the territories to the North, Then, as ever since, and before, I was ready to occupy the tervitovies jointli/ with the people of the North, and if this could not be done, to divide them fairly. The North claimed the whole. '■' I never have, and never tvill, assent to the Justice of this claim." With amendments to Mr. Preston's bill, such as would effectually have insured the South justice in the territories, I would have voted for it ; without these it never could have commanded my support. "A Union Man" entirely overlooks the important fact that Preston's bill proposed to confer on the people of California, b>j act of Congress^ the power to erect a state. I spoke against this at length, and yet the sin<7ular inference is drawn, that I ought to have voted for the admission of California, erected as she was into a state without the authority of Congress or of any other legislative body. It may be well seen how I could have voted to confer on the people of California the right to form a state government, and yet, how, without inconsistency, I should oppose her admission when she sought it on the authority alone of irresponsible and unauthorized persons. It did not suit the jaundiced eye of " A Union Man," to see the difference between the two propositions. Sup- pose I had even voted for Preston's proposition, to confer on the people of California the power to erect a state government, would it thence have involved me in an inconsistency to vote against the admission of a state, erected without authority, and by persons having no more right to do so than a nation of Hottentots ? But the truth is, I did not vote for the one or the other of these propositions, nor did I contemplate doing 80 at any time. I submit the following extracts from my speech on Preston's bill. Read them, and ask yourself what was "A Union Man's" intention in suppressing them : — " Here is a conquered people, possessing as yet, no political rights under our laws and Constitution, because not yet admitted to the rights of citizenship, and, what is worse, possessing no practical knowledge of the workings of our system of govern- ment, and knowing nothing of our institutions. The substantial question is, shall such a people give laws to our territories, and shape and mould their institutions for the present, and possibly for all time to come. * * * * The gentleman's bill gives to every white male inhabitant, over the age of twenty-one years, the right to vote, whether Spaniard, Mexican, Swede, Turk, or what not. * * * I submit to my honorable friend whether it would not be respectful, to say the least of it, towards his constituents and mine, to require these people, before they pass final judgment on our rights, to make an intimation in some form that they intend to become citi- zens, as well as inhabitants oi the United States." [See page 120, Appendix to Cong. Globe, 1849.) It will be seen from these extracts, and more clearly by reading the whole speech, what my opinion of Mr. Preston's bill was, and that with- out amendments, such as should have avoided my objections, and given the South a hope of justice, I never could have voted for it. I confess « to have felt then, as at all times, before and since, a strong anxiety to i COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850. 235 see tlie question settled upon terms fair and just to all parties, and in this spirit I said in my speech on Preston's bill : " / am prepared to go to that point ivhere conflicting interests and opinions mag meet, and adjust this dangerous issue upon terms honorable to both sides, and with- out ang undue sacrifice bg either partg.'' Preston's bill did not go to that point. I made my speech to show that it did not. If it had been so amended as to reach the point designated, then I should have voted for it. Without this, my speech shows that my vote would have been given against it. 2d. The second point made by " A Union Man," is based on what lie calls the memorial of the Senators and Representatives from California. I know nothing of this memorial, and care less. My statement was made on the authority of eye-witnesses in the country at the time the so-called California constitution was formed, and upon the better autho- rity of General Riley's published proclamation. Upon these I stated, what is true, that thousands of foreigners were authorized to vote, and that they did vote. I make no qualification to the general declaration that the constitution of California was made by unauthorized persons — that among them were foreigners not speaking our language, knowing nothing; of our laws, and carinc: nothing for our rig-hts. .3d. "A Union Man" next takes issue with me on my statement that "the fugitive slave bill," the same that is now the law of the land, is not, and never was, one of the " compromise bills." I repeat now, that it was not, and that it never was, a part of Mr. Clay's omnibus, or general compromise bill. " A Union Man" knows perfectly well, if he knows anything at all on the subject, that the fugitive slave bill, the one that passed, did not come from the hands of Mr. Clay, or the hands of any other compromise man. He knows that Mr. Mason of Virginia, a friend of southern rights, and a bitter opponent of the compromise, introduced this bill, and that it was supported and carried through the Senate and House of Representatives, by Southern votes, and that without the votes of Southern Rights Democrats, it never could have been passed through either House of Congress. He knows that the Fugi- tive Slave Bill got but thirty-three Northern votes, three in the Senate, and thirtg in the House. All the rest, one hundred and fortg-four in number, either voted against it, or fled from their seats to avoid the responsibility of voting. All these things "A Union Man" knows perfectly well. Why conceal the facts if he did not mean to deceive the people ? Tlie Fugitive Slave Bill is not a gift from the North, either as a part of the Compromise or otherwise. It w\as introduced by an Anti-com- promise Southern Rights Democrat, and it was carried through both Houses of Congress by Southern votes, and without the aid of the E2hE- MIES of the Compromise it never woidd have passed. 4th. The fourth point made against me is that I was a member of a committee in Congress that reported a bill to abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbia, in 1849. It is true that I was a member of the committee, made so by the Speaker, without my consent; but it is not true that I reported the bill, or even consented to its being reported. It is not true that I voted for it after it was reported, or ever consented or promised to vote for it. In this, as in other cases, a " A Union Man" publishes what he calls 236 ALBERT G. BROWN. extracts from my speeches, taking care to suppress every word that does not suit his purpose. Why were paragraphs like these left out : Mr. Brown said, " he had always believed that in his representative character, he was called upon to represent the expressed will and Avishes of the people of the Dis- trict of Columbia, having, at the same time, due regard to the rights of the people of the several slates, and to the restrictions of the Constitution of the United States." And again, " he did not believe that the strong party in Congress had a right to pass any law for the District without respect to the wishes of the people of the District, and without respect to the Constitution and the rights of the people outside of the Dis- trict, but that in all this branch of their public charge they should have an eye strictly to the Constitution and to the rights of the whole people." And then again : " In acting upon a petition from the people of this District, his first object was to inquire how fiir he might go and still remain within the limits of the Constitution, and then how far he might go without infringing upon the deed of cession from Marj^and and Virginia. These limits being ascertained, he should be prepared to go for any law desired by the people of the District, which did not require these fixed limits to be transcended." These passages have heen omitted by a "A Union Man." He couhi not show them, without disclosing the fact that then, as now, I insisted upon an observance of the constitutional rights of the whole ^jeople. Were these rights respected when Congress enacted that the master's slave "should become liberated and free," if he took him to the District, "for the purpose of selling him?" I extract again from the same speech : — Mr. Brown said : " If gentlemen desire it of him, he would now tell them that he felt the necessity, on the part of the South, of standing together upon every question involving the right of property in slaves, the slave trade, and Abolition in all its forms. He knew that they must stand together for defence: therefore, as the South vote so he should vote, till the pressure from without should be withdrawn. The South acted together upon the principle of self-protection and self-preservation. They stood for protection against destruction and annihilation. He knew not the motive which prompted this outward pressure ; he felt its existence, and he knew that the South acted purely on the defensive ; they merely warded off the blow directed against their peace — their lives. Such were his motives for voting with the South. And he now said to all who were opposed to him or his country. Withdraw your pressure ; cease to to agitate this question ; let us alone ; do whatsoever you think be right without endangering us, and you will find that we, too, are ready to do right." Mr. Brown trusted he had not been misunderstood ; for it was known that, to a Southern member, this was a delicate question. He had expressed his honest views — views which he desired to carry out in good faith. He did very well know, that if the South were let alone — if they were not positively ill-treated, the North might be assured they would come up and do what was right. They stood together now for their own preservation, and nothing less than unity in their councils could be ex- pected of them in the present crisis. If individual members did not always vote exactly according to their views of right upon these questions, it was because of this known, and now universally acknowledged, necessity of unity and concert among ourselves. When a sleepless and dangerous enemy stood at our doors, we felt the necessity of ar-ting together. Let that enemy withdraw — let us out into the open sunshine, where we could look upon the same sun that you look upon — where the air, the land, the water, everything could be seen in common, and enjoyed in com- mon — and we should be ready to meet you as brethren, and legislate with you as brethren. But so long as you keep up this pressure, these endless, ceaseless, ruth- less assaults upon us, we must stand together for defence. In this position we must regard you as our enemies, and we are yours. These, and other kindred expressions, were meanly suppressed, because it would not do to disclose the fact, that then, as now, I stood by the South, and with the South, in the defence of Southern interests, Southern rights, and Southern honor. COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850. 237 This bill of 1849, which I did not introduce, did not in any Avay uij)- ■port, and for which I never woukl liave voted, except (as stated at the time) in company witli the great body of southern members, and not then, unless certain constitutional impediments had been first removed — this bill only punished the overt act of selling or offering to sell, by the fine and imprisonment of the master or owner of the slave. The bill, as passed into a Jaw, by the Compromisers, punishes tlic "purpose" or intention to sell by setting the slave free. It is the act of setting the slave at liberty, because his master intends to sell him, that I complain of, as the special outrage inflicted by this Compromise. These are the material points made against me in pamphlet number OXE. The positions against me in the second number are : 1st. That I voted, on two occasions, with certain Abolitionists in Congress — first, on the Utah bill, and next on the Texas boundary bill. For both of these votes I had good and sufficient reasons, and I have so often given them to the public that I deem it useless to repeat them at [[length. Let a very brief statement suffice. And first, as regards the Texas boundary bill. This bill, and that to give a territorial govern- ment to New Mexico, were included in one proposition. I could not, therefore, vote for, or against the one, without voting for or against the other. The Abolitionists desired to take from Texas about 80,000 ([square miles of the territory south of 36° 30', and pay her nothing; I ;.:was not willing to give up one inch of territory south of that line, or pay ' [anything if it was taken; and hence, for very different reasons, we were ibrought together in voting against a proposition to take forty-four thousand square miles of territory, and pay ten millions of dollars. And |then, as regards Utah. This was the last of the territorial bills that came up for consideration, and for many reasons I did not think it a matter of much consequence. If justice had been done us in the other I [territories, I might have voted for this bill. Utah lies entirely above |86° 30', and if our rights had been respected south of that line, I should not have contended against giving np the territory north of it. But if our rights were not acknowledged south of the line, I would not volun- I Warily abandon our claim north of it. As many Free-Soilers as felt [Willing to risk the Mexican law abolishing slavery in the territories voted for this Utah bill. Those who insisted upon the Wilmot proviso, in terms, voted against it. But since the bill has passed they are all satisfied, ! iand they will remain so as long as the Mexican law has the effect of excluding slavery, and whenever it fails in that effect, if it ever does, they will fall back upon the Wilmot proviso. These territories, Utah and New Mexico, were organized with the distinct understanding among all northern men, and with many southern men, that slavery was : {already excluded by the law of Mexico. And without this understand- ing, it is well known that northern senators and representatives would aot have voted for these bills. I could not, and would not make myself -X party to such an understanding, and for this, as well as for other reasons, I voted against these territorial bills. Why was not this Mexican law repealed ? I will show the reason ; uid I will show, moreover, that "A Union Man" acts the hypocrite when fie charges it as a FAULT against me that I voted with the Abolitionists. [[s not "A Union Man" the friend of General Foote ? — and, if so, hov/ Ices he excuse such votes as the following I Colonel Davis introduced 238 ALBERT G. BROWN. an amendment, as follows, the design of "which was to repeal the law of Mexico — abolishing slavery in the territories acquired from Mexico. Here is Davis's amendment : — " And that all laws and usages existing in said territory, at the date of its acqui- sition by the United States, which deny or obstruct the right of any citizen of the United States to remove to and reside in said territory with any species of property legally held in any of the states of this Union, be and are hereby declared null and void." The following is the vote : — Yeas — Messrs. Atchison, Barnwell, Bell, Berrien, Butler, Clemens, Davis of Mis- sissippi, Dawson, Downs, Houston, Hunter, King, Mangum, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, Underwood, and Yulee — 22. Nays —Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Chase, Clarke, Clay, Cooper, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dickinson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Felch, Foote, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Jones, Miller, Norris, Pearce, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Upham, Wales, Walker, and Whit- comb — 33. It will be seen that twenty-two senators voted for this amendment — •■ all of them from the South, and that thirty-three voted against it — among them CiiAsE, Hale, Hamlin, Seward, and every other Free- Soiler and Abolitionist in the Senate, and it will be further seen that General Foote voted in the same list with these Free-Soilers and Abo- litionists. Nor is this all. On the 28th of August, 1850, Mr. Atchison moved to . lay the bill to abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbia on the, ; table. General Foote voted with Hale, Chase, Baldwin, and other r Abolitionists and Free-Soilers, against laying it on the table. And again, on the 10th of September, 1850, the question being on r striking out the first section of this same bill. General Foote again i, voted with Chase, Hamlin, Seward, and other Free-Soilers, against striking it out. Here is the first section of the bill : — " Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled. That from and after the first day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-one, it shall not be lawful to bring into the District of Columbia any slave , whatever for the purpose of being sold, or for the purpose of being placed in depot, to be subsequently transferred to any other state or place to be sold as merchandise. And if any slave shall be brought into said district by its owner, or by the authority <■ or consent of its owner, contrary to the provisions of this act, such slave shall, there- upon, become liberated and free." The following is the vote on the motion to strike out this section : — Yeas — Messrs. Atchison, Berrien, Butler, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Downs, Houston, Hunter, King, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, Un- derwood, Yulee — 18. Nays — Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Benton, Bright, Chase, Clay, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dickinson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Ewing, Felch, Foote, Greene, Hamlin, Jones, Mangum, Norris, Phelps, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Wales, Walker, Whitcomb, Winthrop — 30. It will be seen that all the ayes are from the South, and that "A Union Man's" favorite candidate for governor voted again with the Abolitionists. My object in presenting these votes of General Foote, is not to criticise them, but to show the hypocrisy of "A Union Man," who holds up my votes, and invokes the condemnation of my constituents upon them. COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850. 239 whilst he carefully avoids the like votes of his own favorite candidate. If it be a sin in me to have voted with Giddings and Tuck, is it any less a sin in Foote to have voted Avith Seward and Hale ? But to proceed to point No. 2. This pamphlet contains what purports ;to be extracts from my speeches, and in making them up to suit his ■purposes, "A Union Man" has been guilty of the grossest frauds. lie 'not only suppresses material parts of my speeches, without which, he well knows, the other parts will not be understood, but he divides para- graphs, sticks the divided parts together, drops sentences, and leaves out whatever does not suit his purposes, and all with the intention, as he well knows, of misleading the public. In all my life, I have never seen truth so grossly perverted, or falsehood and slander more impu- dently suggested. The intention of this writer is to show that I am a Disunionist. To this charcre I c;ive the lie direct, and leave this masked calumniator to his farther proof. On this point I select, at random, the following para- graphs from my speeches, and ask an indulgent public why these things have been suppressed, if the intention of "A Union Man" was not fraudulent ? If it was not his purpose to impose upon the public, why did he suppress the truth ? From my speech on Preston's bill, February 10th, 1850, page 120, Appendix Congressional Crlobe : — "Let it (the Union) fulfil the high purposes of its creation, and the people will preserve it at any and every sacrifice of blood and treasure, and nowhere will these sacrifices be more freely made than in the South." "The Union of these states rests on a foundation solid and sacred, the affections of the people of all the states. Be careful how you tamper with that foundation, lest you destroy it, and thus destroy the Union itself. Let the Union dispense equal and exact justice to all — special favors to none, and not one murmur of complaint will ever come up here from the patriotic sons of the ' sunny South.' We despise ' injustice of every kind. In the emphatic words of a distinguished chieftain, 'we ask ;no favors and shrink from no responsibility.' " Why did "A Union Man" pass over these and other like expressions I in that speech ? ' " A Union Man" commences one of his extracts with the words, " Have we any reason to fear a dissolution of the Union ?" and then has the meanness to suppress these words, which are next after them, in the same , paragraph, and in actual connection with them : " Look at the question •dispassionately, and answer to yourselves the important question, can anything be expected from the fears of the southern people?" Why were these words left out ? Simply, because to have shown them would have been to show that I had but warned the North not to calculate on ' the cowardice of the southern people. And again, in the same paragraph, these words are left out: "We I have not been slow in manifesting our devotion to the Union. In all :our national conflicts we have obeyed the dictates of duty, the behests of patriotism — our money has gone freely, the lives of our people have been freely given up, their blood has washed many a blot from the national escutcheon, we have loved the Union, and we love it yet, but not for this, nor a thousand such Unions, will we suffer dishonor at your hands." And again, these words are extracted, "/ tell you, sir, sooner than submit, we tvould dissolve a thousand such Unions as this," and with this "A Union Man" stops. Why did he not include the very next 240 ALBERT G. BROWN. words, " Sooner than allow our slaves to become our masters, we would lay waste our countiy with fire and sword, and with our broken spears dig for ourselves honorable graves." Why were the first words taken and the next left out? Because, if all had appeared, it would have been seen that it was bondage to our own slaves that I gave warn- ing we would not submit to. It did not suit "A Union Man" to tell the truth, and so he lied, by suppressing the truth. Again, "A Union Man" extracts a part of a paragraph as follows : — " Whether the people will submit to this high-handed proceeding (the admission of California), I do not know; but for myself, I am for re- sistance," &c. Here I charge that this writer not only garbles my speech, but by inserting the words (the admission of California), he sug- gests a positive falsehood. These words were not used by me, do not appear in the printed copy of my speech, and were interlined by this writer for no other purpose than to suggest a falsehood. The " high- handed proceeding" alluded to by me, had no reference to the admission of California, but referred directly to the conduct of the President of the United States, as was stated at the time, in attempting " to make a new state without the aid of Congress, and in defiance of the Constitu- tion." This was the " high-handed proceeding" which I pledged myself to "resist," and that pledge I have redeemed to the utmost of my ability. This whole speech will be found on page 258 to 261 Cong. Globe, 1850. In addition to the above, I beg leave to submit, from the same speech, the following extracts. Why did "A Union Man" omit them? — " Oh ! gentlemen, pause, I beseech you, in this mad career. The South cannot, will not, dare not submit to your demands. The consequences to her are terrible beyond description. To you forbearance would be a virtue — virtue adorned with love, truth, justice, patriotism. To some men I can make no appeal, * * * but to sound men, just men, patriotic men, I do make an earnest appeal, that they array themselves on the side of the Constitution, and save the Union. * * * Let those who desire to save the Constitution and the Union, come out from among the wicked, and array themselves on the side of justice — and here in this hall, erected by our fathers, and dedicated to liberty and law, we will make new vows, enter into new covenants to stand together and fight the demon of discord, until death shall summon us to another and a better world." ***** " Before the first fatal step is taken, remember that we have interests involved I which we cannot relinquish, rights which it were better to die with than live without,' The direct pecuniary interest involved is twenty hundred millions of dollars, and yet the loss of this is the least of the calamities you are entailing upon us. Our country is to be made desolate, we are to be driven from our homes — the homes hallowed by all the sacred associations of families and friends, we are to be sent like a people accursed of God to wander through the land, homeless, houseless and friendless, or what is ten thousand times worse than this, than these, than all, remain in a country now prosperous and happy, and see ourselves, our wives and our children, degraded to a social position with the black race. These, these are the frightful, terrible con- sequences you would entail upon us. I tell you, sir, sooner than submit, we WOULD dissolve A THOUSAND SUCH Unions AS THIS — sooucr than allow our slaves to become our masters, we would lay waste our country with fire and sword, and with our broken spears, dig for ourselves honorable graves." Is there a southern heart that does not throb a fervent response to these sentiments ? and is there an honest eye that does not detect the baseness which prompted "A Union Man," when he tore from this para- graph the single sentence : "I tell you, sir, sooner than submit, we would dissolve a thousand such Unions as this?" Did he not know that lie ^ was perpetrating a fraud ? On the same page from which this extract COMrROMISE MEASURES OF 1850. 241 is taken, the following may be found. Does any one suppose it escaped the eye of "A Union Man?" — |1 "I repeat, we deprecate disunion. Devoted to the Constitution — reverencing]; tlie ' Union — holding; in sacred remembrance the names, the deeds, and the t^lories of our common and ilhistrious ancestors, there is no ordinary ill to wiiich wc -n'ould not bow ?ooner than dissolve the political association of tliese states. If there Avas any point short of absolute ruin to ourselves, and desolation to our country, at Avhich these ijrgressive measures would certainly stop, Ave would say at once go to that point and ^ive us peace." And again — "I warn gentlemen if they persist in their present course of policy, that the sin of i disunion is on their heads, not ours. If a man assaults me, and I strike in self- iefence, I am no violator of the public peace. If one attacks me with such fury as () jeopardize my life, and I slay him in the conflict, I am no murderer. If you ittempt to force upon us sectional desolation, and — what to us is infinitely worse — jocial degradation, we will r-esist you, and if in the conflict of resistance the Union s dissolved, we are not responsible. If any man charges me with harboring senti- nents of disunion, he is greatly mistaken. If he says that I prefer disunion to sec- ;ional and social degradation, he does me no more than justice." * * * " Do not mistake me ; I do not say that our exclusion from the territories would if itself justify disunion. I do not say that the destruction of the slave trade in the district of Columbia, nor even its abolition here, nor yet the prohibition of the slave rade among the states, would justify it. It may be, that not one, or two, nor all of ' hese combined, would justify disunion. These are but initiatory steps, they lead ^ou on to the mastery over us, and you shall not take these steps." - I might show many other extracts from this same speech, but surely hese may suffice. To those who would know m.ore about it, I would ' ^!ay, "Look to the Co7igressional Globe, of January 30th, 1850, page 257, and read the whole speech. The book may be found in the office )f the Probate Clerk, where I caused it to be placed for your nspection." If more shall be desired in refutation of the slander, that I sought a . lissolution of the Union, allow me to present an extract from my speech 2!i l)f August 8, 1850, page 1550 Cong. Globe. And here let me remark hat when these speeches were made, no murmur of complaint was heard , igainst them. Then they were patriotic enough ; now they are rank • reason, according to my enemies. " There is one other matter to which I must advert. It is become quite too ommon of late, for certain political censors, in and out of Congress, to speak of rathern men who demand justice for the South, as ultras ; and if we persist in our (■mands, and can neither be bribed or brow-beaten into acquiescence with northern wrongs, the next step is to whistle us down the wind, as traitors and disunionists. It ^ not because I fear the effects of charges like these on the minds of my constituents, '.rat I now speak. They have known me for many long years. I have served thera j'l-c and elsewhere, and if there is any earthly power to persuade them that I am a Isunionist, or a traitor to my country, I would scorn to receive ofBce at their hands. allude to charges like this, that I may hold them up to public scorn and reproba- iou. The miserable reptiles who sting the South, while they nestle in her bosom, re the authors of these base calumnies. Sooner or later they will be spurned as the eriest spaniels who ever crouched at the footstool of power." So I spoke on the 8th of August, 1850, and so I say now. It is by uch reptiles as this "Union Man," that the South is stung; and when he South learns to plant her foot upon them and crush them, she may ook for justice, and not till then. , A speech made by me at "Ellwood Springs," in November, 1850, has leen the subject of extensive misrepresentation and slander. "A Union vlan" could not of course speak the truth in regard to it. He leaves riJ f 16 ?42 ALBERT G. BROWN. out sentences, and puts others together to suit his own false purposes. Tor instance, he makes me say " this justice was denied us in the adjust- ment bills that passed Congress." " I am for resistance ; I am for that sort of resistance which shall be effective and final." These two sen- tences are more than two entire pages apart in the speech as delivered by me, and have no relation to each other. The words " this justice was denied us in the adjustment bills which passed Congress," are im- mediately followed by the words, " But we are not to infer that the fault was either in the Union or the Constitution. The Union is strength, and if not wickedly diverted from its purposes, will secure us that domestic tranquillity which is our birthright. The Constitution is our shield and our buckler, and needs only to be fairly administered to dispense equal and exact justice to all parts of this great confederacy." Why were not the words extracted as they were spoken ? Why put two sentences together taken from different pages, having no relation to one another, and leave out all that was said in connection with the one and with the other ? Was there ever a more imjDudent attempt at fraud and imposition ? This writer says, I demanded justice for every state and for all sec- tions, and that I added, " If the Union cannot yield to the demand, I am against the Union. If the Constitution does not secure it, I am against the Constitution." And he would, from his manner of stating what I said, leave the inference that I was against the Union and the Constitution, because they had not secured us justice. I said, in this precise connection, "We are not to infer that the fault is in the Union, or the Constitution. The Union is strength, and the Constitution is our shield and our buckler." But it did not suit the purposes of "A Union Man" to quote these words. He could not have seen the words that he did quote without seeing these also ; they were, therefore, intentionally omitted. It is asserted that I made certain demands of the federal government, and took the ground if these demands were not complied with, "all con- nection with the Northern States ought to be dissolved." The demands are not set forth, and the reader is left to infer that there was some- thing monstrous and unreasonable in these demands. The truth is, that I have demanded nothing, have proposed nothing, but what the southern friends of the compromise say we now have. All I ask is that they will join us in procuring from their northern friends, an acknowledg- ment that their interpretation of the compromise is right. Here are the demands ; is there anything unreasonable or unjust in them? — " We should demand a restoration of the laws of Texas, in Ticec verba, over th( country Avliich has been taken from her and added to New Mexico. In other Avords we should demand the clear and undisputed right to carry our slave property t( that country, and have it protected and secured to us after we get it there ; and wi should demand a continuation of this right and of this security and protection. " Wc should demand the same right to go into all the territories with our slave pro pert)', that citizens of the free states have to go with any species of property, and w( should demand for our property the same protection that is given to the property oi our northern brethren. No more, nor less. " AVe should demand that Congress abstain from all interference with slavery i' territories, in the District of Columbia, in the states, on the high seas, or anywiier else, except to give it protection, and this pi'otection should be the same that is givei to otlier property. " We bhould demand a continuation of the present fugitive slave law, or some othe COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850. 243 law which should be effective in carrying out the mandate of the Constitution for the delivery of fugitive slaves. " We should demand that no state be denied admission into the Union, because her constitution tolerated slavery." Is there anything asked for in all this ■which the friends of the com- promise are not constantly insisting we now have ? And yet the writer of this pamphlet falsely asserts that I have demanded a repeal of the compromise, and the substitution of other legislation in its place. No ^such thing is true. I have only asked that the friends of the compro- mise at the North should execute it as its southern friends sai/ they Understand it ; and why shall southern men shrink from this demand if • they are sincere in their declarations ? T/ieij knoiv perfectli/ well that their interpretation is repudiated hy their northern allies, and therefore it is that they shrink from the test of snaking the demand. ^ Mississippi has declined making any demands, and of course my pro- ;position falls to the ground. No one could suspect me of the extreme 'folly of urging these or any other demands, after the state had decided that she would do nothing. I I present these extracts from the Ellwood Springs speech : — " I have great confidence that the government may be brought back to its original pui-ity. I have great confidence that the government will again bo administered in subordination to the Constitution ; that we shall be restored to our equal position in .the confederacy, and that our rights will again be respected as they were from 1787 to 1819. This being done, I shall be satisfied — nothing short of this will satisfy 'me. I can never consent to take a subordinate position. By no act or word of mine shall the South ever be reduced to a state of dependence on the North. I Avill loling to the Union, and utter its praise with my last breath, but it must be a Union of equals ; it must be a Union in which my state and my section is equal in rights ,to any other section or state. I will not consent that the South shall become the 'Ireland of this country. Better, far, that we dissolve our political connection with the North than live connected with her as her slaves or vassals. The fixthers of the Irepublic counselled us to live together in peace and concord, but those venerable ■wages and patriots never counselled us to surrender our equal position in the Union. I " Let me say to you, in all sincerity, fellow-citizens, that I am no disunionist. If I know my own heart, I am more concerned about the means of preserving the Union, than I am about the means of destroying it. The danger is not that we shall dissolve he Lnion, by a bold and manly vindication of our rights ; but rather that we shall, n abandoning our rights, abandon the Union also. So help me God, I believe the •mbmissionists are the very worst enemies of the Union." - Why was all this passed over in silence? ' ■ I might show how, in many other instances, I have been treated with the same gross injustice which has marked those that I have now ipointed out; but to pursue the subject farther would be tedious and lunprofitable. " There are my speeches, and there my votes, I stand hy and defend them. You say for these my country will repudiate me. I demand a trial of the issue." This was my language in the first speech made by ' ;me after my return from Washington. I repeat it now. I said then, as I say now, that the charge laid against me that I Avas, or ever had been, for disunion or secession, was and is false and slanderous. ■ I stand by my votes as they were given, and by my speeches as they ''were made. I am not responsible for speeches made for me by others ; ,nor will I consent to be tried on the motives wliich my enemies charge ito have influenced my votes. It is eas^y to publish garbled extracts 244 ALBERT G. BROAVN. from any man's speeches, and it is quite as easy to attribute to any man bad motives for his votes. I am not to be tried, thanks to a free government, in a Star Chamber, before perjured judges, but at the ballot box, by a free people. I am not surprised to find myself assailed with malignity, and least of all does it surprise me that these assaults come from Natchez. I was •> never a favorite with certain men in that city, and if it should ever fall out that they speak well of me, I shall indeed wonder what great sin I i, have committed against republican institutions. When I heard that a large sum of money had been subscribed by my enemies, and that my defeat was one of the great ends to be obtained by it, I conjectured that the old Federalists were on their walk, and that a plentiful shower of slander and defamation might be expected. I have not been disappointed. These attacks will, no doubt, be kept up until after the election, and many of them will, necessarily, go unanswered; .j I cannot be everywhere in person, and I have not the means of publish- ing and circulating documents against this regular combination, con- • trolling, as it does, its thousands and its tens of thousands of dollars. It ought to be borne in mind how easy it is to misconstrue and mis- represent the acts and speeches of a public man. Taking into account the length of time that I have been in the public service, it is rather a matter of surprise with me that my enemies have found so little to carp at. The circumstances under which I have spoken or acted are, of : course, very conveniently forgotten, and nothing is remembered but such words or acts as may be turned to my disadvantage. These are eagerly ; seized upon by my enemies, and held up to public gaze; and if the; public indignation fails to rise, they then torture my words, and give; them forced constructions, so as to make me say what, indeed, I never i thought of saying. No man ever yet spoke so explicitly as to escape- the misconceptions of the weak, or the misconstructions of the corrupt and designing. Not even the inspired writers have escaped this com- mon fate. The Atheist proves, to his own satisfaction at least, that there is no God, and, taking the Bible for his text, he undertakes to prove that the Bible is a fiction. Volney, Voltaire, and Tom Paine, have each made his assault upon the divinity of the Saviour ; each has had his proselytes ; and each based his argument upon the words of inspired writers. These things being true, what folly it is for an ordi- nary man to hope for escape from false interpretations, misconstructions and misrepresentations ! I know my own meaning better than any other man, and after sixteen years of public service, during all of which time I never practised a fraud or deception upon the public, I confront my enemies, and tell them they slander me, when they charge that I am now, or ever have been, the secret or open advocate of disunion or secession. I am no more a secessionist, because I think a state has a right to secede, than are my enemies revolutionists, because they maintain the right of revolution. In days gone by, I denounced the United States Bank, the protective tariff, and other acts of the general government, without incurring the charge of being a disunionist. I opposed and denounced the compro- mise, but I did not thereby make myself a disunionist. I thought, in the beginning, that it inflicted a positive injury upon the South, and I COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850. 045 tthink SO now. This opinion is well settled, and is not likely to undertro any material change. I gave my advice freely, but never obtrusively, ;as to the course which I thought our state should pursue. That advice has not been taken. Mississippi has decided that submission to, or lacquiescence in, the compromise measures, is her true policy. As a citizen, I bow to the judgment of my state. I wish her judgment had been otherwise ; but from her decision I ask no appeal. Neither as a citizen nor as a representative, would I disturb or agitate this or any Dther question after it had been settled by the deliberate judgment of the people. I I never have, and I never will introduce the subject of slavery into Congress. When it has been introduced by others, I have defended the rights of my constituents, and, if re-elected, I will do so again. I In the approaching election, I ask the judgment of my constituents on my past course. I claim no exemption from the frailties common to ill mankind. That I have erred is possible, but that the interests of ■uy constituents have suffered from my neglect, or that I have inten- :ionally done any act or said anything to dishonor them in the eyes of ^ f,he world, or to bring discredit upon our common country, is not true. : In all that I have said or done, my aim has been for the honor, the • aappiness, and the true glory of my state. I opposed the compromise with all the power I possessed. I opposed i! ihe admission of California, the division of Texas, the abolition of the :t! |;lave trade in the District of Columbia, and I voted against the Utah r: pill. I need scarcely say that I voted for the Fugitive Slave bill, and It kided, as far as I could, in its passage. I opposed the compromise. I thought, with Mr. Clay, that "it gave almost everything to the "s'orth, and to the South nothing but her honor." I thought, with Mr. Webster, that the " South got what the North n lost — and that was nothing at all." • I thought, with Mr. Brooks, that the " North carried everything be- a (ore her." I thought, with j\Ir. Clemens, that " there was no equity to redeem he outrage." I thought, with Mr. Downs, that "it was no compromise at all." I thought, with Mr. Ereeman, that " the North got the oyster and we ;ot the shell." I thought, at the last, what General Foote thought, at the first, that •it contained none of the features of a genuine compromise." And finally, and lastly, I voted against it, and spoke against it, . jECAUSE it unsettled the balance of power between the two sections of £ he_ Union, inflicted an injury upon the South, and struck a blow at that ,. jolitical equality of the states and of the people, on which the Union is )unded, and without a maintenance of which the Union cannot be pre- orved. I spoke against it, and voted against it, in all its forms. I was Igainst it as an Omnibus, and I was against it in its details. I fought through from Alpha to Omega, and I would do so again. I denounced ; . before the people, and down to the last hour I continued to oppose it. ■J [he people have decided that the state shall acquiesce, and with me _i jlat decision is final. I struggled for what I thought was the true I Interest and honor of my constituents, and if for this they think me 246 ALBERT G. BROWN. worthy of condemnation, I am roadj for the sacrifice. For opposing the compromise, I have no apologies or excuses to offer ; I did that which mj conscience told me was right, and the only regret I feel is that my opposition was not more availing. A. G. Brown. Gallatin, September 15, 1851. Note. — As the district will, no doubt, be flooded with all manner of publications, and traversed by all sorts of speakers, I must again remind my friends that the Con- gressional Globe, containing a perfect record of all my votes, speeches, motions and resolutions, may be found in the clerk's offices of each county. It was placed there by me for inspection, and by it, as the official record, 1 am willing to be tried. When my enemies are found peddling newspapers and pamphlets, without names, giving accounts of ni}' actings and sayings, 1 hope my friends will appeal to this record, and insist that I shall be tried by that, and not by the statements of my enemies. A. G. B. SPEECH DELIVERED AT ELLAVOOD SPRINGS, NEAR PORT GIBSON, MISS., NOVEMBER 2, 1850. Mr. Brown said : — Fellow-Citizens : I shall speak to you to-day, not as Whigs, not as Democrats, but as citizens of a common country having a common interest and a common destiny. The events of the last ten months have precipitated a crisis in our public affairs which many of the wisest and sagest among us have fondly hoped was yet distant many long years. It is not my purpose to enter upon a critical review of the late most extraordinary conduct of the President and of Congress. I am not at liberty to suppose, that a people whose dearest rights have been the object of attack for ten months and more, have failed to keep themselves informed of the more prominent events as they have transpired. We ought, to-day, to inquire what is to be done in the future, rather than what has been done in the past. I confess my inability to counsel a great people as to the best mode of proceeding in an emergency like the present. Instead of imparting advice to others, I feel myself greatly in need of instruction. But, I will not on this account refuse to contribute an expression of my own best reflections, when, as in this instance, I am called upon to do so. To the end that you may clearly understand my conclusions, it will be necessary for me to present a brief summary of the events whicli' have brought us to our present perilous condition. To go no furthei back than the last year, we shall find that in Mississippi, at least, th( great body of the people were aroused to a sense of the impending danger At a meeting assembled in the town of Jackson early in the last year both Whigs and Democrats united in an address to the country, givin' assurance that the time had come for action. Gentlemen of high character, of great popularity, and merited influ ence, headed this meeting ; a convention of the state was recommended and every indication was given to the country that, in the judgment oi SPEECH AT ELLWOOD SPRINGS. 247 :these gentlemen, the time had actually come for bold and decisive action. This movement was seconded in almost every county in tlie ■state ; and ^yherever the people assembled, delegates were appointed to a general state convention ; and in every instance, so far as I am informed, these delegates were chosen from the two great political parties, one-half Whigs and the other half Democrats. The contem- plated convention assembled at Jackson, in October, and recommended a convention of the Southern States, to assemble at Nashville, at some ifuture day, to be agreed upon among the states. The Mississippi movc- iment was responded to with great unanimity in several of our sister states — in Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. There seemed to be for a time, a very general and united sentiment in favor of the proposed convention at Nashville. The scheme was not with- out warm and influential friends in North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas, The other slaveholding states, to wit, Maryland. Kentucky, and Missouri, gave little or no indication of a disposition to favor it. Early in the autumn of 1849 some of the first friends of the southern movement began to falter ; and, as time advanced, they con- j I tinned to recede from their bold stand in defence of the South. The secret influences which were at work to produce these unhappy results, : will be found, I apprehend, elsewhere than in the places now pointed out. We are now told by some, that they discovered a better state of feeling at the North toward the South. Others pretend to have been convinced that the movement was premature, and calculated to embarrass the ac- tion of Congress ; whilst a much more numerous, and a much more dis- honest class, pretend to have discovered that this convention was to be inothing less than an assemblage of conspirators, treasonably bent on the 'destruction of the Union. Whilst all this was going on, the sagacious politician and the man of thought did not fail to see the true reasons for all this infidelity to a once cherished and favorite measure. The truth was, that ambitious and as- piring politicians had discovered that the southern movement was dis- . tasteful to General Taylor, General Cass, and other distinguished gen- tlemen, then high in the confidence of their respective party friends. The movements in California began to develope the true policy of Gen- leral Taylor, and the "Nicholson Letter" had received a new reading Ifrom General Cass. It became apparent that the South must be sacri- ficed, or party leaders repudiated, and party ties obliterated, and poli- ticians had begun to take sides accordingly, when Congress assembled •in December. Up to this time, however, there remained enough of southern influence to keep a powerful phalanx of southern men closely i allied for common defence. The eftort to organize the House of Repre- sentatives, made it manifest, that the South meant something more than )an idle bravado in the course she had taken. For almost an entire j month, the first successful step in the election of a Speaker had not 5 been taken ; and at last, when Mr. Cobb was chosen, it was by a i plurality, and not, as usual, by a majority of the votes given. At this itime, there was manifested the most determined spirit in defence of the [rights of the South. Still, the close observer could not fail to see that I the insidious spirit of party was busy at work. President Taylor transmitted his annual message to Congress, and General Cass treated us to another reading of the "Nicholson Letter." 248 ALBERT G. BROWN. The President's message did not lift the curtain high enough to exhibit all that had been done in California. He gave us a bird's eye view, and told us to go it blind for the balance. He intimated that he had very little to do with the proceedings in California ; yet he presented a paper which he denominated the constitution of California ; and in two several communications, he pressed the consideration of that paper upon Con- gress, and he earnestly recommended the admission of the state of Cali- fornia into the Union at an early day. These proceedings, and these earnest recommendations, could not fail to elicit a searching investigation on the part of southern members. It became a matter of interesting inquiry, as to who made the pretended constitution; how the people came to be assembled for that purpose; who appointed the time for holding the elections ; who decided on the qualification of voters ; who decided that California had the requisite population to entitle her to one or more representatives in Congress, without which she could not be a state. It was known that Congress had never so much as taken legal possession of the country, and it became a subject of anxious inquiry to know who it was that had kindly per- formed all the functions usually devolved on Congress ; who it was that, in aid of the legislative power of the country, had taken the census to ascertain the population; had passed upon the qualification of voters ; had appointed the time, place, and manner of holding elections ; who it was, in short, that had done all that had usually been required prepara- tory to the admission of a new state into the Union. It was seen at once that no census had been taken ; and although the Constitution required that the representatives should be apportioned among the states according to population, no steps had been taken to ascertain Avhether California had the requisite population to entitle her to one member, whereas she was claiming two. It was seen that the time, place, and manner of holding the elections, had all been arranged by a military commander, notwithstanding the Constitution required that this should be done by law. It was seen, and admitted on all hands, that California was asking admission on terms wholly and entirely different from those on which other states had made similar applications. Gen- tlemen favoring her admission, were wont to answer our objections with a shrug of the shoulders, and a lamb-like declaration that " there had been some irregularity." Irregularities, fellow-citizens ! Shall con- duct like this, pass Avith that simple and mild expression that it was "irregular?" Was it nothing more than irregular to dispense entirely with taking a census? Was it only a little irregular to permit every- body to vote — white, black, and red ; citizens, strangers, and foreigners? Was it simply irregular for General Riley, by a military proclamation, to decide the time, place, and manner of holding the elections ? Was it, I ask you, fellow-citizens, nothing more than an irregular proceeding, for a military commander to dispense entirely with the authority of Con- gress, the law-making power, and of his own will to set up a government hostile to the interests and rights of the Southern States of this Union? If the rights and interests of all the states had been respected, and all had concurred in the opinion that the proceeding had only been a little irregular, it might have been passed over with a mental protest against a recurrence of its like in future. But when it is seen that these " irregularities' amount to a positive SPEECH AT ELLWOOD SPRINGS. 249 outrage upon fourteen states of the Union, an outrage against whicli these states earnestly protested, it becomes us to inquire more seriously into .the causes -which led to their perpetration, and to take such decisive imeasures as shall protect us against like " irregularities" in future. Does any man doubt that slavery prohibition lay at the bottom of all the "irregularities" in California? Does not every one know, that but for the question of slavery, these unprecedented outrages would never have been perpetrated ? Is there a gentleman outside of a lunatic asylum who does not know that if Cali- :fornia had framed a pro-slavery instead of an anti-slavery constitution, her application for admission into the Union would have been instanta- neously rejected ? And yet, in view of all these and a thousand other pregnant facts, we are expected to content ourselves with a simple de- claration that " the proceeding was a little irregular, but it Avas the best that could be done." What, fellow-citizens, does this whole matter amount to, as it now presents itself? The southern people joined heart and hand in the acquisition of territory — shed their blood — laid down their lives — expended their treasure in making the acquisition, and forthwith the federal authority was employed to exclude them from all participation in the common gain. The threat Avas uttered, and kept constantly hanging over them, that if they dared enter those territories with their slave property, it would be taken from them. Thus were they intimidated and kept out of the country ; no slave-owner would start to California Avith his slave property, when Congress was day by day threatening to emancipate his negroes, if he dared to introduce them into that country. Not content Avith thus intimidating southern property, the federal power was employed in instigating an unauthorized people to do that Avhich the Congress of the United States had not the poAver to do, to Avit, to pass the " Wilmot proviso." It is well known that the California constitution contains the " Wilmot proviso" in terms. It is equally well know that this proviso has been sanctioned by Congress, and that the sanction of Congress imparts to it its only vitality. Without that sanction, it is a nullity, a dead letter, an absolute nought. Who, then, is responsible for it but Congress — the Congress which gave to it its sanction, and thereby imparted to it vitality, and moved it into action ? Congress, we are told, could not, and dared not pass the proviso ; but the people of California could pro- pose it, and Congress could sanction it, and thereby give it existence. The people of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Ncav York, and other states, might ask Congress to pass the " Wilmot proviso," but Congress dare not do it, because there Avas no poAver under the Constitution to authorize it ; but if the people of California asked it, then it Avas a very difierent ques- tion — then Congress had all the constitutional power which the case required. Let the truth be told. The Wilmot proviso Avas an old ques- tion ; it had been discussed — its enormity had been exposed, and the mind of the South Avas firmly and fixedly made up not to submit to its passage. It Avas necessary, therefore, to take this ncAV track, and before the South could recover from her surprise, pass the odious proviso, and then present the naked issue of a humiliating submission on the one side, or disunion on the other. Who, felloAV-citizens, were these people of California, whose voice has been so potential in the Avork of your exclusion, your humiliation, and 250 ALBERT G. BROWN. your disgrace? — were they American citizens? No, sir, no! they were adventurers from all parts of the world. In this blood-bought country may have been found the Sandwich Islander, the Chinese, the European of every kingdom and country. That there were many American citi- zens in the country, is most true ; but the whole were mixed up together, and all voted in the work of your exclusion. IIow humiliating to a Southron, to see his own government thus taking sides against him, and standing guard, while foreign adventurers vote to take from him his rights, and then to see that government seizing hold of such a vote and hold- ing it up as a justification of the final act of his ignominious exclusion. Can any true son of the once proud and noble South witness these things without a blush ? Does patriotism require us to hug these outrages to our bosom ? Must we forget our natural interests, and kiss the hand that inflicts these cruel blows ? Have we sunk so low that we dare not complain of wrongs like these, lest the cry of disunion shall be rung in our ears ? , It would have been some consolation to know that the framers of this California constitution meant to live under it themselves. Even this little boon is denied us. We all know that the men who have gone to California are mere sojourners there ; they mean to stay a little while, .and then return to their homes in other parts of the world. Hundreds and thousands have already left the country, and others will follow their example. Not one-half of the persons who aided in the formation of the so-called constitution of California are there now; and in a year or two more the population will have undergone an entire revolution. We have heard that there were many hundred thousand people in California. The number in the country at the time the constitution was framed has been estimated at two hundred thousand or more, and this has been constantly urged in excuse for their assumption of the right to make a constitution and set up an independent state government. When asked by what authority a few interlopers from abroad under- took to snatch from the rightful owners the rich gold mines on the Pacific, and to appropriate to free soil all that vast territory lying between the thirty-second and forty-second degrees of north latitude — embracing an area larger than the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Alabama — we have been told they were a great and growing people ; that there were a quarter of a million of inhabitants in the country, and hundreds of thousands on their way there. Let us examine the truth of these bold assertions. If there is any country on earth where there are no women and children, where the whole population consists of full- grown men, that country is California. We all know that the emigration has been confined to the adult male population, who have gone on a visit of observation, leaving their families and friends behind, and intending to return. We all know that in the matter of voting there w\as no restric- tion ; every male inhabitant over the age of twenty-one years was allowed to vote, and on the important question of adopting a state constitution, the poll-books showed less than thirteen thousand voters. If there was a quarter of a million of people in the country, how shall we account for this meagre vote? The fact is, this is but another link in the great chain of deception and fraud by which we have been denied our rights in the country — by which we and our posterity have been cheated out of the most valuable property on earth — by which we have been reduced SPEECH AT ELLWOOD SPRINGS. 251 to the sad altenicative of submitting to tho most humiliating deprivation of our rights, or driven to a severance of the bonds Avhich unite us to the North. If the gross injustice, the deep injury and wrong -whicli wc are called upon to suflfer, had ceased with the consummation of this California fraud, we might have bent our heads in humiliation and in sorrow, and, without daring to complain of the tyranny of our oppressors, have borne it in silence. But it did not stop here. The cup of our degradation was not quite full to overflowing; and it was determined to wrest from the slaveholding state of Texas, one-third of her rightful territory. In the perpetration of this fraud the North had two powerful allies, and both, I am pained to say, furnished by the South. One was the ten millions of dollars taken from a common treasury, and the other the vote of one-half the southern delegation in Congress. I hold in my hand a map of Texas. It speaks more eloquently in defence of Texas than the ablest orator has ever yet spoken. Here on this map is the boundary of Texas, as marked first by her sword, and then made legible by the act of her Legislature in December, 1836. See, it extends from the mouth of the Rio Grande to the source of that river, and it reaches to the forty-second degree of north latitude. Here, too, is marked on this map the " Clay compromise line," and the "line of adjustment," as laid down in the final act of dismemberment, commonly known as Pearce's bill. Keep these lines in your memory, fellow- citizens, while we recur for one moment to the history of the reannexa- tion of Texas to the United States. What is that history ? I need not relate the whole of it. I need not say how like an ardent lover we wooed and won this fair daughter of the Saxon blood. Texas was young, blooming, and independent; we wooed her as the lover wooes his mistress. She fell into our arms, and with rapturous hearts we took her for better or for worse. Fathers Clay and Van Buren forbade the bans ; but the people cried, with a loud voice, "Let the marriage go on." It did go on; Texas merged her separate independence into that of the United States, and here in my hands is the marriage contract. Here is the treaty, here the resolution of annexa- tion. It will be seen that we took her just as she was — just as she pre- sented herself. We took that Texas which lay east of the Rio Grande, and all along that river from its mouth to its source, and south of the 42d parallel of latitude north. We took the Texas which was defined by the act of December, 1836 ; we took the Texas marked on this map. I hold it up before you. It is a portrait of the fair damsel as she was, before her limbs were amputated by the northern doctors, aided by sur- geons Clay, Pearce, Foote, and others from the South. Turn to the resolutions of annexation. I hold them here; without pausing to read them, I will state what no man can deny. They ex- pressly stipulate, that all that part of Texas lying south of the parallel of 36 degrees and 30 minutes north latitude, shall remain slave territory; and all north shall be free territory after its admission into the Union as states. With this written agreement between the high contracting parties, how can any man come forward and say that Texas never extended to the parallel of 36| degrees ? How dare any man pretend that Texas did not extend north of that line and up to 42 degrees ? I will not insult your understanding by debating so palpable a proposition 252 ALBERT G. BROWN. before you. It is as tilear as the sun in yonder heavens, that at the period of annexation, the whole country supposed we were acquiring all the territory east of the Rio Grande, and up to 42 degrees. The only party on earth who expressed a doubt on this point was Mexico, and for actino- on her expressed doubts, we went to war with her, all parties in this coimtry at least uniting in the war ; and when we had whipped her, and obtained not only her recognition of the Texas boundary, but a cession of New Mexico and California, into the bargain, what do we hear ? Why, that Texas never owned one foot of territory north of 36i deo-rees. Though we agreed that all of Texas south of 36| should be sla^^e territory, and all north of that line free territory, we are told that, in truth and in fact, Texas only extended to some undetermined point between 32 and 34 degrees of latitude north. Why do men thus stultify themselves ? Why do men speak and attempt to reason for the purpose of throwing a cloud over the title of Texas to this territory ? Need I tell you, fellow-citizens, that slavery ! slavery ! ! slavery ! ! ! and nothing but slavery, is at the bottom of all this business. Take the question of domestic slavery out of the way, and this whole dispute about the true boundary of Texas could and would have been settled in nine hours, and in a manner most satisfactory to all parties. It was precisely because Texas was a slaveholding state, and her soil slave soil, beyond all cavil or dispute, that it Avas found important by the North to cut these ninety-three thousand sections off and attach them to New Mexico. As a part of Texas it was secure to the South ; as a part of New Mexico, the North had the power and the will to make it free soil. If Texas and New Mexico had both been free, or both slave states, there would have been little or no dispute about the true bound- ary between them. Texas is, and must ever remain, a slaveholding state ; New Mexico, if not already free soil, is under the dominion of northern power, and will be made so in due season. In these facts will be found the only reason for the nine months' struggle in Congress on the question of boundary. The northern mind is fully made up that no more slave states shall be added to the Union. This is more distinctly announced than any other article in their political creed. We all know this. And let me ask you, fellow-citizens, if there is one man among you all, who supposes that northern politicians, resolved as they all are to limit the slave states to their present number, w^ould be so ridiculously silly as to cut off ninety-three thousand square miles of slaveholding Texas for the purpose of making of it one or two additional slave states ? The North has the power to do as she pleases, and no man in this country doubts that she will please to make free territory of these ninety-three thousand square miles which she has wrested from Texas, with the aid of ten millions of dollars and a large number of southern votes. I shall never forget the hour when this measure of gross iniquity to the South passed the House of Representatives. On Wednesday we defeated it by forty-four majority ; on Thursday we defeated it again by eight majority; on Friday they carried it over us by ten votes; and w'hen the result was announced, there went up from the lobbies, from the galleries, and from the floor of the Hall of Representatives, one long, loud, wild, maniac yell of unbridled rejoicing — the South was prostrate, and Free Soil rejoiced. The South was degraded, fallen, and her ene- mies rioted. Ten millions of dollars had been flung to the hungry pack SPEECH AT ELLWOOD SrillNGS. 253 ^vllO hang like wolves around the treasury, and there was frantic joy in all their hearts and upon all their tongues. They assembled on tlie banks of the Potomac, and in utter defiance of every decent regard for the father of his country — they assembled under tlie very shade of the "Washington monument — and there fired a hundred guns. Thus did they, in manifestation of their wild rejoicing over the prostrate South, and their own clutching of the ten millions of dollars. Nor did they pause here, but with drums beating, fifes blowing, and banners stream- ing, they paraded the streets of Washington. They called out Mr. Clay, and he spoke to them ; they called out Mr. Cobb, Mr. Douglas, ]Mr. Foote, and I know not who else, and they all spoke to them. It was a night of riot and revelry. The foul deed had been done, and when there should have been sorrow and mourning, there was ecstasy and the wild notes of untamed rejoicing. I left the street, filled as it was with this motley crew of free neoroes and half-clad boys, bankers, brokers, barbers and beggars, northern Free Soilers and southern patriots — ay, southern patriots — patriots whose affections had out-grown their country, and who had taken " all the world and the rest of mankind" into their tender keeping — I left it and them, and retired to my private chamber, there to brood over the sorrows of my stricken and fallen country. But I was not long left to myself and the sorrows of my country. We were summoned to yet .another sacrifice. The South no longer had the power of resistance, land a generous foe would not have stricken her again. But the northern I wolf had tasted blood. The southern shepherd was unfaithful to his flock, and another lamb was taken. The slave trade in the District of Columbia was abolished. It was by this name they called the deed. It was more than this. It was an act to punish the intentions of masters and to emancipate their slaves. The bill leclares that if slaves are brought to the District of Columbia for the -purpose of being sold in said district, or anywhere else, they shall be free. The law does not punish the act of selling or offering to sell, but t punishes the intention to sell; and how, pray ? Xot by fining the naster, or by ^sending him to prison, but by emancipating his slave. i How this law is to operate in practice, I need not say. It is to all ntents and purposes an act of abolition. Under it, men's intentions will je judged of by swift juries, by abolition juries, and their slaves set at . liberty. Does any man doubt that abolition juries will be found in the District of Columbia, and in the city of Washington ? There are in the listrict sixteen thousand free negroes, and twenty-three hundred slaves, slavery is wearing out there, and to-day, fellow-citizens, I would as soon ■isk a New York or Philadelphia jury on a question involving slavery, IS a Washington City jury. The people there are growing more and nore hostile to this species of property every day, and I pity the master vho has his intentions tried before a jury taken from among them. - These, fellow-citizens, are the healing measures — the measures of >eace. This the vaunted adjustment of which so much has been said, nd for the passage of which the cannon has been fired, the drums beat, ifes blown, banners displayed, and all the evidences of national rejoic- ng exhibited. I cannot believe in the sincerity of these singular demonstrations. 1 •annot think that our ignominious exclusion from California affords £54 ALBERT G. BROWN. cause for joy. I cannot believe that the bill to punish a master's inten- tion, by emancipating his slave, has sent joy to southern hearts. I do not believe that the dismemberment of Texas has filled the South with rejoicing. Men make up their minds to submit to wrong, and pride in- duces them to put the best possible face upon it. Men whose hearts are wrung with agony, will smile, because they are too proud to weep. Men, like boys, may whistle to keep their courage up. But when causes like these exist for mourning, it is useless to tell me that men with southern hearts rejoice — the thing is impossible. I am told that Texas has not been dismembered. That in the kindest spirit, the United States has proposed to pay her ten millions of dollars, to relinquish her claim to the territory which has been annexed to New Mexico. Let us examine the sincerity of this statement. The United States, speaking through the Executive, and through Congress, says to Texas : " We want this country, and we mean to have it ; you are weak, and we are strong. Give up the country quietly, and we will pay you ten millions of dollars ; refuse, and here is the army, the navy, and the militia." Look at the power of the L'nited States ; look at the threat of the President to reduce Texas to submission. Look at the conduct of southern senators and representatives. Look at all this, and then turn your eyes towards Texas ; see her feeble and weak, without money, without arms ; in debt, and without credit; and tell me if it is left to her free choice to determine whether she will accept or reject this pro- position ? The overgrown bully approaches a weak and feeble man, without friends and without the means of defence, and says, " I want your land ; give it up quietly, and I will pay you for it, and if you refuse,' bear in mind, I am stronger than you, and here are my guns, here my daggers, and there my armed servants to do my bidding. Choose* what you will do." Will not every man's sense of justice revolt at con- duct like this ? Is the man thus treated, a free agent ? In thus taking his property, has not an outrageous wrong, a positive robbery, been per- petrated ? I leave it to the good sense of this audience to give the answer. But we are told that Texas is to be liberally paid, and therefore, if she accepts the proposition and gives up the land, we have no just cause of complaint. I do not know what sum of money would be liberal com- pensation to a sovereign state for being despoiled of one-third of her territory. For myself, I would not consent to sell the poorest county in Mississippi to the Free-Soil party for all the gold on this side of the Atlantic. But when I hear of the liberality of this proposition, it leads me to inquire who pays the money. We can all afford to be liberal at the expense of other people. Do the Free-Soilers pay this ten millions of dollars? Not at all; they get the land, that's clear, and that Ave pay the greater part of the money is equally clear. The money is toi be paid from the national treasury. I am not about to launch into anyr discussion of the finances, but I want to show who it is that must pay this ten millions of dollars to Texas. We derive our national revenue chiefly from a duty levied on goods imported into the country. Now, it will not be denied that these imports are nothing else than the proceeds of the exports. It is perfectly clear that if we cut off the exports, w( suspend the imports. If we have nothing to sell, we shall have nothin^i to buy with, and consequently imports must cease ; and if imports cease SPEECH AT ELLWOOD SPRINGS. 255 revenue will cease. Wo shall export this year, in cotton alone, near one hundred millions of dollars in value ; this will form the basis of one hundred millions of dollars in goods imported. If the government levies a duty of thirty-five per cent, on these, her revenue from this source alone will be thirty-five millions of dollars. Now, suppose we abstract this cotton from the exports, do we not see that we cut off the imports to a like extent, and in cutting off the imports that we likewise cut off the revenue ? But seeing all this, says one, I do not yet perceive that you have shown how it is that the cotton 'grower pays the revenue. Go with me, if you please, a little further. ' Suppose my friend who sits before me, and who raises five hundred bales of cotton, shall ship that cotton, and himself dispose of it in Liverpool for twenty-five thousand dollars. Suppose he invests the money in mer- 'chandisc and lands it in New Orleans. The government charemocratic party, without reference to new state issues, and without •ference to past disputes, to assemble in convention for the purpose of ppointing delegates to attend the Baltimore National Democratic Con- ■'' '3ntion. This was in November, 1851. Almost immediately afterwards, - le Union party called a Union convention, which assembled on the first [onday in January last. It was represented by about thirty-six dele- ites, from twelve or fourteen counties. On the 8th of the same mouth, 'le Democratic Convention proper, assembled, represented by some two Lindred or more delegates, from fifty-five counties. Our convention as called as a Democratic convention. It assembled as a Democratic )nvention. It deliberated as a Democratic convention. It appointed 270 ALBERT G. BROWN. delegates to the Baltimore Convention as a Democratic convention. It appointed Democratic electors. It represented emphatically the Demo- cracy of Mississippi. Having been beaten on the issues of state policy, I repeat, we gave them up. We so publicly announced ; and when we met in convention on the 8th of January, it was as Democrats on the old issues. How was it with the Union Convention ? Was that a Democratic convention ? Was there any such pretence ? No, sir ; it assembled as a Union convention — a Union meeting to appoint delegates to attend a Democratic National Convention. Why, what an idea ! What right had such a meeting to appoint delegates to a Democratic National Con- vention ? If the Union party, calling themselves Democrats, may appoint delegates to the National Democratic Convention, why may not the Free Democracy of Ohio, typified in the person of the gentleman across the way [Mr. Giddings], do the same thing? They claim to be Democrats, and have organized the Free Democracy ; and why may not they send their representation to the Democratic convention ? Suppose the Free- Soil Democrats get up an organization, why may not they send delegates too ? and why may not every other faction and political organization have its representatives there ? No, sir ; if there is to be a Union party, let there be a Union Convention. If certain gentlemen have become so etherealized that the Democratic organization does not suit them, let them stay out of the Democratic Convention. When they put on the proper badge — when they take down the Union flag, and run up the old Democratic banner, I am for hailing them as brothers — for forgetting the past, and looking only to the future. They need not sneak back. We will open the door, and let them in. " To err, is human ; to forgive, divine." Mr. Chastain (interrupting). I wish to ask the gentleman from' Mississippi if the platform of the Nashville Convention did not repudiate the idea of having anything to do with either of the national conventions — the Whig or the Democratic ? Mr. Brown. For that convention, the Whig party and the Democratic party, as I said before, were alike responsible. The Union party, com- posed, as it is, of Whigs and Democrats, must take their part of the responsibility for it. Was not Judge Sharkey, a Whig and your Presi- dent's appointee to Havana, responsible ? Was he not president of the convention, and is he not a Union leader ? Did not Governor Foote have a hand in it? Did not Mr. Clemens take his share of responsibility? Did not almost all the prominent, leading Union Democrats of the South have a part in that convention ? I want to know if these gentlemen may slip out and leave us to hold the sack ? The State-Rights Democrats of Mississippi, as such, never endorsed the recommendation to which the gentleman alludes ; and, therefore, we no more than others are responsi- ble for it. If the Union Whigs and Union Democrats will stand by the recommendation, they may fairly expect us to do so too ; but it is a very pretty business for us to make a joint promise, and then allow them to break it, and require us to hold on to it. No, sir. "A contract broken: on one side, is a contract broken on all sides." Mr. Moore of Louisiana (interrupting). The gentleman from Missis- 1 sippi mentioned the state of Louisiana in connection with the Nashville Convention. I wish merely to state this fact, that a law was introduced THE SOUTHERN MOVEMENT. 271 linto the legislature of Louisiana authorizing the people to send delegates ito that convention, but it failed. I do not believe a single man ^vcnt from the state of Louisiana to that convention who was authorized by the people to go there. Mr. Brown. I cannot stop for these interruptions, as I find that my time is fast running out. Now, what did the Democratic party of Mis- sissippi mean when they assembled in convention and appointed delegates to the Baltimore National Convention ? They meant, sir, to go into that bonvention in good faith, and to act in good faith. We do not believe the Democratic party is going to come up to our standard of State- Rights, but we know they will come nearer up to it than the Whig party ; land we therefore intend to go into the Democratic Convention, with an honest purpose to support its nominees. We trust you to make us fair and just nominations ; and if you do, we intend to support them. If I im asked who the State-Rights Democrats of Mississippi would sustain for the presidency, I will answer, they will sustain any good, honest, ong-tried, and faithful member of the Democratic party, who has never oractised a fraud upon them. I I can tell you this, that in going into that convention, the Democracy )f Mississippi will not ask from it an endorsement of their peculiar no- tions — if, indeed, they be peculiar — on the subject of State-Rights. I Mr. Chastain (interrupting). Let me ask the gentleman if he would TOte for Mr, Cass ? ' Mr. Brown. If I were to answer that question, I might be asked by ;)ther gentlemen whether I would vote for this man or that man. I do aot choose to engage in any controversy about men. Sir, I was saying that we shall not ask at the hands of the Baltimore ])onvention an endorsement of our peculiar views on the subject of State- Rights — if, indeed, these views be peculiar. We shall ask in the name ^f the State-Rights party no place upon the national ticket — neither at Its head nor at its tail. And when we have aided you on to victory, as we ^xpect to do, we shall ask no part of the spoils, for we are not of the ipoil-loving school. What we ask is this : that when we have planted a great principle, vhich we intend to nourish, and, as far as we have the power, protect, you \hal\ not put the heel of the National Democracy upon it to crush it. We iisk that you shall not insult us in your convention, either by ofiering us Its the nominee a man who has denounced us as traitors to our country, or by passing any resolutions which shall thus denounce us in words or by implication. Leave us free from taunt and insult ; give us a fair Democratic nomination, and we will march up to it like men, and we pll be, where we have always been in our Democratic struggles, not in Ihe rear, but in the advance column. We will bear you on to victory ; md when victory has been achieved, you may take the spoils and divide ihem among yourselves. We want no office. Will the Union party give his pledge ? Of course they will not, for they are committed against 'Our nominees in advance, unless certain demands of theirs shall be complied with — and among them is the ostracism of the State-Rights aen. They propose to read out the great body of the Southern Demo- [irats, and then I suppose make up the deficiency with Whigs. When pie National Democracy relies on Whig votes to elect its President, it lad better "hang its harp upon the willow." 272 ALBERT G. BROWN. The State-Rights Democrats will never be found sneaking into any party. We ask nothing of our national brethren. If we support the nominees, as we expect to do, it will be done, not for pay, but as a labor of love — love for old party associations ; love of principles, which we hope are not yet quite extinct, and which, we are slow to believe, will be extinguished at Baltimore. If we fail to support the nominees, it will be because they are such as ought not to have been made. We make no professions of love for the Union. Let our acts speak. We have stood by the Constitution and by the rights of the states, as defined by our fathers. If this be enmity to the Union, then have we been its enemies. We have not made constant proclamation of our devotion to the Union, because we have seen no attempt to destroy it, and have therefore seen no necessity for defending it. The danger is not that the states will secede from the Union, but rather that the Union will absorb the reserved rights of the states, and consolidate them as one state. Afrainst this danger we have raised our warnino; voice. It has not been heeded ; and if disaster befall us from this quarter, we at least are not to blame. Laudation of the Union is a cheap commodity. It is found on the tongue of every demagogue in the country. I by no means say that all who laud the Union are demagogues ; but I do say that there is not a: demagowue in the Union who does not laud it. It is the bone and sinew,. the soul and body of all their speeches. With them, empty shouts for the Union, the glorious Union, are a passport to favor ; and beyond thei point of carrying a popular election, they have no ideas of patriotism,! and care not a fig for the ultimate triumph of our federative system. jMr. Chairman, there are many other things to which I should have been very glad to make allusion, but I am admonished that my time isi so nearly out, that I can have no opportunity to take up another point. I shall be happy, however, in the few moments that remain of my time, to answer any questions that gentlemen may desire to submit. I sup- posed, from the disposition manifested by gentlemen a few moments ago to interrogate me, that I should necessarily be compelled to answer some questions, or seem to shrink from the responsibility of doing so. I therefore hurried on to the conclusion of what I deemed it absolutely necessary to say, for the purpose of answering those questions. I am now ready. After a moment's pause, Mr. B. continued : Gentlemen seem not dis- posed to press their inquiries, and my time being almost out, I resiuHP my seat. Mississirn roLiiics. MISSISSIPPI POLITICS. SPEECH IN REPLY TO HIS COLLEAGUE, HOX. JOHN D. FREEMAN, ON TIIP, STATE OF PARTIES IN MISSISSIPPI. DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE ; OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 30, 1852. I : Averse as I am to the continuance of a controversy "with my col- eagues on the subject of Mississippi politics, I am not the less con- strained to reply to a speech of my colleague, from the third district, .Thich I find printed in the Globe of the 19th of this month. I am .vholly at a loss to account for the ill temper which the speech exhibits. Surely there -was nothing said by me to call forth such a reply. One pf my colleagues [Mr, ^Yilcox], when the " homestead bill" was under debate, made a party speech, in which he represented, among other things, that my friends in Mississippi were attempting to " sneak back" nto the Democratic party. It became my imperative duty to reply, ^nd I did so. My colleague rejoined, and here I supposed the matter might very well have rested. But the gentleman [Mr. Freeman] returned from an excursion to New York, and without the least provo- cation from me, took up the cudgel, and proceeds to deliver himself of I speech full of acrimony ; so full, indeed, that one as familiar as I am vith the productions of his usually cool head, could hardly repress the jonviction that a " torpid liver" must have influenced the calmer im- bulses of his mind. I If he entered the lists because he fancied that his friend had not suc- pessfully met my positions, I not only forgive him, but confess myself Mattered by his consideration. " Thrice armed is he who hath his j^uarrel just;" and though my three colleagues should all assail me, krmed, trebly armed as I am in the justice of my cause, I shall not pespair of success against them all. i The gentleman tells us, in the opening paragraphs of his speech, that the pious pJiilanthrojnsts at the North have '''decoyed, caught, and har- bored some TWENTY-FIVE or THIRTY THOUSAND of OUT SLAVES, and that i\e never expect to see them again." Precious confession I If the Compromise, fugitive slave bill and iill, is going to be executed in good faith, as my colleague and his Union friends assured the people of Mis- lissippi it would be, why should he thus abandon all hope of recovering hese " twenty-five or thirty thousand" slaves ? The truth is, that all my colleagues are very ready to lecture me for a want of faith, but neitheV )f them has the least confidence in the efiicacy of the compromise. The bne [Mr. Freeman] has no expectation that we are to recover our •twenty-five or thirty thousand slaves," and the other [Mr. "Wilcox], CSS desponding, and yet evidently in doubt, concludes his speech with in earnest invocation to the North to do us justice. If the compromise vere executed in good faith, we should get back our slaves. But, like uy colleague, I "never expect to see them again." If the North has ;iven us justice in the compromise, why this invocation to their sense »f justice now ? The honest truth is, that in our secret hearts we all 18 274 ALBERT G. BROWN. know that justice has not been done us, and we have little hope that it will be in future. We have submitted to one wrong ; will we submit to another? "We never expect to see our slaves again." All that we now do, is to invoke justice for the future. My colleague, though he ^^ never expects to see the slaves'' that have been '■'■decoyed, caught, and harbored" by the '■'■pious philanthropists,'' is yet full of hope, in the conclusion of his speech, that we are to have peace in future. I do not care to be impertinent, but I should like to know on what he bases the hope that " decoying, catching, and harboring" slaves is going to cease, and why it is that, despairing as he does of recovering the slaves already taken from our possession, he is yet confident that we shall recover those that are " decoyed, caught, and harbored" hereafter ? At his leisure, I shall be gratified to hear his answer. To my mind, we are as likely to recover those already "decoyed," as we are to recover those that are taken hereafter. 1 never expect to see the one or the other. The fugitive slave bill has not been executed ; and if by its execution is meant an honest and faithful surrender of the slaves — such a surrender as is made of every other species of estrayed or stolen property — it never will be. My colleague commenced his reply to me with an expression of his regret that he did not licar my speech. It certainly Avould have gratified me had he given me his audience ; but as he did not, I should have been satisfied had he done me the honor to read a printed copy of my speech, i This I am sure he never could have done. I know my colleague is a sensible man, and I hope he is just, and I am well satisfied that no sen- sible and just man who had read my speech could ever have published such a reply as that which I find printed by order of my colleague. If my colleague's speech had been delivered in the House, I should have tlirown myself upon his indulgence, and asked a portion of his allotted hour to correct his errors, as one after another he fell into them. But as it suited him better to print his speech without delivering it, I am left to no other alternative than that of asking the indulgence of the committee whilst I make such responses to his several allegations as in my judgment they merit. It Avas an ungenerous fling from my colleague to criticise my remarks as he did in the opening paragraph of his speech. He thinks that upon such a question as that of appropriating money to continue the work on the capitol, I might have said something of the pressing necessities of the mechanics and laborers on th^e works — of the character of the work, &c. Now, the plain English of this is, that I made a speech out of order, and that an act so unusual called for his special animadversion. I am sorry the gentleman did not see at an earlier day the necessity of sticking to the subject under debate. Three days before I spoke, our colleague from the second district [Mr. Wilcox] made a speech, to which the gentleman listened with infinite delight. The subject was " the HOMESTEAD BILL" of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Johnson]. " Upon such a topic Ave may have supposed that our colleague Avould have said something of the pressing necessities" of the landless, the houseless, and the homeless. " But, much to our surprise, he wandered off two thousand miles," to bring up and discuss before us the state of parties in Mississippi. The gentleman [Mr. Freeman] heard this speech. He enjoyed it. " He rolled it under his tongue as a sweet morsel." It MISSISSIPPI POLITICS. 275 ■was foreign to the subject under debate. It was out of order. It was in advance of any single remark from me on the subject of Mississippi politics. But it was from the political twin brother of my colleague, and therefore he had no word of rebuke to utter. But no sooner do I rise to "vindicate the truth of history" than my colleague rolls up his eyes in well-dissembled horror, and begins a pious lecture on the " press- me it may he so. But I am incredulous ; I would not cease to watch on such an assurance ; I would hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst. " I would pray to God, but keep my powder dry." MISSISSIPPI POLITICS. 277 The gentleman takes up the message and general policy of Governor Quitman, and attempts to hold the Democracy of Mississippi responsi- ble for all he ever said and did. I will make this bargain with my col- league : If he will undertake to be responsible for all that Governor Foote has said and written, I will respond for the writings and sayings of Governor Quitman. Secession, disunion, revolution, southern rights, and similar terms, are as common along the path that General Foote ,made in the congressional record as mile-posts on a turnpike ; and yet the gentleman passes over all these, and attacks Quitman's message. I leave others to decide whose " platter is clean on the outside," and whose is "filled with rottenness and dead men's bones." If my colleague's platter is clean without or within, it has, to my mind, a marvellous strange way of showing it. The gentleman says that on the day the message of Governor Quit- man appeared, "the Union Democrats then at the seat of government denounced it as treasonable to the nation, and they so denounce it now." The day that Governor Quitman's message was delivered, there was as- sembled at the seat of government (Jackson) a convention. It was not a Democratic convention ; it was not a Union Democratic convention ; it was a convention in which the Democrats stood to the \Yhigs as about one to five. This convention denounced the governor's message, it is true. But I never heard before that the voice of denunciation was that of the Union Democrats. I heard it at the time as the voice of the Union party, and then, as now, I recognised it as the growl of Whiggery. But how came there to be a convention at the seat of government ? "Was it called to deliberate on the governor's message ? Not at all. This could not be ; for the convention was composed of persons (chiefly Whigs) from all parts of the state, and it had actually assembled and was in session at the very moment when the governor's message was de- livered. For what purpose did it assemble ? Not, certainly, to con- sider a message yet not made public, and the contents of which were as little known to the members of that body before they assembled as to the people of China. I judge of the purpose of its assemblage by what it did. It formed, created, and brought into being the Union parti/. Mark you, it was not the Union Deniocratic party. There was no "Democratic" about it. It was the Union party ; and it was formed outside of, above, and beyond the Democratic party. It was an attempt to form a third party. It failed; and then the ringleaders threw an anchor to the windward. Then it was that, finding the National Whigs and National Democrats were laughing at them, my colleague and his Union friends hung out the " Democratic" banner. At first it was all Union ; and when they found the Union would not save them, they called themselves Union Democrats. One of my colleagues [Mr. Nabers] the other day asked, in the 30urse of his speech, " What it was that constituted party ? Was it aumbers or principles?" lie said it was numbers, and as there were mwibers in Mississippi who avowed themselves secessionists, he con- cluded there was a secession party there. My colleague's premises are Dadly laid, and his conclusions do not follow his premises. Numbers io not constitute p*rty. It takes principles and numbers both to con- stitute party; and it takes something else — it takes the organization of 278 ALBERT G. BROWN. numbers on principle to constitute party. Whenever the gentleman shows that the secession numheis in Mississippi were organized on the principle of seceding from the Union, he will have shoAvn that there was a secession party in Mississippi. And then I will show that neither I nor my friends belonged to or constituted a part of these yiumbers. There are two, and only two, political organizations in our state — the "Union party" and the "Democratic State-Rights organization." I never heard of the Union Democratic party until after the elections i were over, and a convention was about to be called to send delegates to Baltimore. The candidates in the state elections were announced as Union candidates and Democratic State-Rights candidates. The tickets were printed " Union tickets" and " Democratic State-Rights tickets." It is strange how a sensible man hates to confess he has done a silly thing. I know my colleague [Mr. Freeman] feels bad. He feels that he has been playing truant to the party of which he professes to be a member. The best way to get out of it is to confess his folly, quit all this tom-foolery about the Union, and settle down again into a quiet, orderly citizen, and betake himself to the study of true Democracy. I commend to him the consolation held out in the two lines : — " While the lamp holds out to burn The vilest sinner may return." The gentleman expresses some strange ideas about the anxiety of ray friends and myself to get into the Baltimore Convention. 1 must con- fess this part of his speech is all jargon to me. " We have on the wed- ding garment," — "our lamps are trimmed," and I know of no reason for any anxiety on our part. We are Democrats, and have always been. We appointed our delegates in the usual way, and upon my word, I can see no reason to doubt that we shall take our seats like other members of the family. So far as my colleague's remarks apply to me personally, I can only say that I am not an appointed delegate ; and in this he and I are alike. He has been appointed by a Unioyi convention, it is true. But I take it, a Union convention has no more right to appoint dele- gates to a Democratic convention, than the Pope of Rome would have to appoint the pastor of a Methodist church. One of the strangest features in the gentleman's speech is, that the whole Democratic party of Mississippi are secessionists, because certain county meetings and certain newspapers promulgated secession doctrines and sentiments. Is my colleague serious in this ? If he is, I will show in ten seconds, by the same rule of evidence, that he is a Whig. lie proves that I am a secessionist, because the Mississippian, Free-Trader, Sentinel, and other Democratic papers, used expressions supposed to indicate, more or less, a disposition to secede. Suppose I take up the Vicksburg Whig, Natchez Courier, Holly Springs Gazette, and other Whig papers now in the service of the gentleman, and show that they are for the Whig cause and Whig principles throughout — does not the i gentleman, by his own rule, thereby become a Whig ? He does. And yet, sir, I do not pretend to say that he is a Whig. Parties are to be judged by what they say and do in their organic capacity, and not by the acts and speeches of individual members of the party. Before a party can be justly held responsible for the acts and speeches of any one or more of its members, it must be shown that such members had MISSISSirPI POLITICS. 279 authority to speak for the party. This can never be clone wlion tlie party in convention has spoken for itself. In such cases individual members become responsible for their own expressions, and the party, as a whole, and each member of it, is responsible for what the organic body,, the convention, has said. By tliis rule I am ready to see my party tried, and by it I mean to try the gentleman and his party. He introduces a series of resolutions, which he says were passed by the convention which nominated Governor Quitman. Numbers 5 and 6, as I find them in his speech, were resolutions originally passed by a joint convention of both parties — Whigs and Democrats — in our state. They were copied by our convention simply because they had received the sanction of all parties, and were, therefore, not liable to objection, as we supposed, from any quarter. The same resolutions had been reaffirmed by the Union Convention, and now stand as a part of their platform. Such at least is my recollection. The resolution number 12, as printed by my colleague, declares the admission of California into the Union to be the " Wilmot proviso in another form." This resolution, as my colleague knows very well, em- bodies the substance of a letter written by the Mississippi delegation m the last Congress (including Governor Foote) to Governor Quitman. I hope Governor Foote, and my colleague as his supporter, will each take his share of the responsibility. I am tvillingto take 7nine. Next come a series of resolutions passed by the Nashville Convention in June, 1850, and incorporated into our platform in June, 1851. These resolutions were passed at Nashville, when Judge Sharkey w^as presid- ing — when the convention was full of what is now called Union men — and they received the deliberate sanction of them all. They were approved at the time by Governor Foote and by my colleague, and if they afterwards denounced them, the most they can say of us who sus- tained them is, that we stuck to what we said a little longer than they did. But my colleague thus speaks of this very Nashville Convention and its acts, in the speech to which I am now replying. He says : " For the first session of the Nashville Convention, all parties were and are responsible. I take my own share of it." Why, sir, these resolutions were passed by the first sessio7i of this convention. And again : To this convention the gentleman attributes the success of the compromise, and the defeat ,of the Wilmot proviso. He takes his share of the responsibility, and yet he quarrels with us because we incorporate a part of its wonderful works into our platform. If these works had done the mighty things he attributes to them, he might at least havVi spared them the bitter denunciation he has heaped upon them. This disposes of our resolutions so far as I find them copied in my colleague's speech, with but a single exception, and that is an immate- rial one. Here it is : — ' IG. " Resolved, That it is a source of heartfelt congratulation that the true friends of the Constitution and of the rights and honor of the South, of ivhuiever partg n-ame, .are now united in a common cause, and can act together with cordiality and sincerity." And here is my colleague's commentary on it : — "What a beautiful specimen of 'old line Democracy/ 'Black spirits and white, blue spirits and gray.' " 280 ALBERT G. BROWN. When before was it doubted that the "obi line Democracy" "were the true friends of the Constitution?" When before were the true friends of the South sneered at as " black spirits and white, blue spirits and gray?" When before was it considered a matter of reproach that the friends of the Constitution and of the South acted together with cordiality ? I leave my colleague to answer. The gentleman is at great pains to leave the impression on the minds of those who shall read his speech, that the Democratic party of Mis- sissippi approved of and made a part of its creed the address, or resolu- tions, or some other of the proceedings of the second session of the Nashville Convention. Now, sir, I say emphatically, that he is mistaken. We never did, as a party, in any manner, shape, or form, by resolution or otherwise, endorse, approve, or sanction the proceedings of the second session of that body. He admits his own and his party's responsibility for the first session, but attacks the second session of the Nashville Con- vention. The second was but a continuation of the first. The gentle- man's party never endorsed the acts of this second session, nor did I: mine. For the proceeding of the June Nashville Convention, my friends and myself made ourselves responsible. But if my colleague shall show that we made ourselves responsible for the acts of the November session of that body, he will show what I have not yet seen. My colleague argues that the Union movement grew out of the H doctrines contained in the Quitman message, and the acts and resolutions ■ of the second session of the Nashville Convention ; so, at least, I under- • stand him. The Union movement in Mississippi could not have grown i out of that message, nor could it in any way have been influenced by the second session of the convention at Nashville. The Union party ; was organized at a mass Union meeting in Jackson, on the 18th Novem- •' ber, 1850. On that day the goveimor's message was delivered to the ' legislature, and on that day the convention assembled at Nashville, Ten- nessee — four hundred miles off. The Union mass meeting was not, there- fore, assembled to deliberate upon the one or the other of these things. Of both, the members of that body were profoundly ignorant at the time of their assemblage. The Union party was organized by this mass meeting. It held a convention in April, 1851, and under the style of " Union men," put its candidates in the field. The " Democratic State- Rights party" met in June, 1851, and made its nominations, calling them " Democratic State-Rights men." Our position in the canvass was, that a state had the abstract right to secede from the Union, and to do it peaceably. For taking this posi- tion, we have been denounced as secessionists and disunionists, although we declared, in the same sentence in which we asserted the right, that it was " the last resort, the final alternative, and that we opposed its present exercise." What was the position of my colleague and his party ? They desig- nated six distinct acts, the doing of any one of which Avould justify resistance, and among these was the repeal of the fugitive slave law, or its material modification. My colleague, I believe, endorsed, and per- haps yet endorses, the Georgia platform. It declares that " Georgia will resist, even to a disruption of every tie that binds her to the Union, the repeal of the fugitive slave bill;" and further, that, in her judgment. MISSISSIPPI POLITICS. 28] f" the perpetuity of onr mucli-lovcd Union depends upon the faithful Execution of that hiw." When I say I am for resistance, my colleague says I mean secession, :or disunion. And pray, sir, when he says that he is for resistance, iwhat docs he mean ? He will not secede, but he will resist if the furative slave law is repealed. Yes, sir, he will resist, even to a disruption of tvery tie that hinds him to the Union; but he will not secede. lie will •perpetrate no such " abominable heresy" as peaceable secession. lie will resist, he will sever the ties that bind him to the Union ; but he will not do it peaceably — that is a heresy too abominable to be thought of. Well, sir, there is no disputing about tastes ; but, I must confess, if it shall ever become necessary to "sever the ties," as I trust it never may, I shall prefer to see it done peaceably. ' If language means anything, the gentleman's party in Mississippi Avas ibout as far committed to secession, by their resolutions, as was my oarty. I shall hold myself responsible for the resolutions of my party In general convention, and I ask the gentleman to assume no hi<^'-hcr jlegree of responsibility himself. ' My colleague complains that a Democratic senate in Mississippi ,'lected a Whig (Judge Guion) to preside over it. This was not the first (,ime that such an event had happened, and therefore it was not even singular. In the palmiest days of Jacksonism, Colonel Bingaman, an j)ld-fashioned John Quincy Adams Whig, was elected both Speaker of me House and President of the Senate ; and I heard nothing said against It. It caused no political convulsion in the state. Men and parties 'noved on just as they did before. It was a tribute to his high character und exalted worth as a gentleman and a native Mississippian. A Demo- ,!ratic Senate did the same thing for Guion, than whom Mississippi boasts '10 more noble, generous, and talented son. If Democratic senators .vere willing to waive their claims to the president's chair, and the Demo- bratic party made no objection to Guion's election, pray, sir, who else Ud a right to complain ? But, says the gentleman, " When the Whig president was elected, the secession governor (Quitman) resigned, and j)laced that Whig president of the senate in the office of governor." I j:an appreciate my colleague's "aflliction of soul" at the accession of a 1/Vhig to the gubernatorial chair ; but I hope he may find consolation in ihe fact, that the Whigs have done him some service in their day and generation. t My colleague cannot, I am sure, mean to convey the idea that Quit- pan resigned with a view of conferring the office of governor on Judo-c [Tuion. My colleague is very familiar with the facts attending Governor l^uitman's resignation. He knows how he was charged with participat- ing in the first Lopez expedition to Cuba. He knows that whilst others, i/ho confessed to have been at Cardenas, were permitted to visit this ity, and to travel everywhere, without molestation, Quitman was hunted ike a common felon, and finally forced to resign the office of governor. jle knows, too, that when he presented himself in New Orleans, and ..emanded a trial, the prosecution was instantly abandoned. All this ly colleague knows. There is abasement enough in it for our state, irod knows, without making the resignation of the governor the pretext pr further charo-es. ' The gentleman speaks of a "standing army," projected by Governor 282 ALBERT G. BROWN. Quitman, and recommended by him to the legislature. And this, he says, was a part of the "secession scheme." I have heard of thi^ "standing army" before, and I will exhibit the monster in all its pre portions. Some years back, when the gentleman was attorney-generalJ and I was governor of Mississippi, the subject of reorganizing the militia was discussed. It may have escaped the recollection of my colleague, but it has not mine, that we concurred in the opinion, that the militia system of the state was a nuisance. Accordingly, in preparing the executive message, I brought the subject to the attention of the legisla- ture ; but nothing was done. My successor, Governor Matthews, took up the subject, and pressed it on the attention of the legislature ; but with no better success. When Governor Quitman came into power, he took it up where Governor Matthews and myself had left it, and, like ourselves, he failed in getting the favorable action of the legislature. I always regarded this " standing army" as one of the humbugs of the campaign. I had the fullest confidence in the wisdom and patriotism of Governor Quitman, and I confess, therefore, never to have examined critically his scheme for reoi-ganizing the militia. But if I am not mis--: taken, it will be seen by reference to the record, that he was following out substantially the positions taken by me, and which I had no reason to suppose met the disapprobation of my present colleague and the late attorney-general of Mississippi. If there was not much more in this "standing army" than I have supposed, it is mine ; I claim it by right of invention. It was my squadron ; I first put it in the field. But as the relations of Mississippi with the Federal government were at the time of a most pacific chavac- ter, not extending beyond a dispute about a very small fraction of the two per cent, fund, and as the Compromise had not been heard of, I hope to escape the imputation of harboring hostile designs against oun venerable relative, " Uncle Sam." The whole extent, body and breeches, of the "standing army," as I understand it, is this: It was an attempt to substitute an organized corps of volunteers for the ridiculous and troublesome militia trainings that are now required by law. In what precise terms it was presented by Governor Quitman, I say again, I do not know. But this is the monster as I have seen him in all his huge proportions. The gentleman next charges that Colonel Tarpley, a Democrat, was ruled off, and Governor Guion, a Whig, recommended for chancellor of Mississippi. It so happens that there was no ruling off" in the case. Both gentlemen agreed to submit their pretensions to an informal meeting of mutual friends. Those friends advised Colonel Tarpley to withdraw, and, like a true man and a Democrat, he did it. One would naturally conclude that my colleague, from his manner of speaking about this transaction, would have voted for Colonel Tarpley, the Democrat, if he had continued in the canvass. But I tell you he would have done no such thing. He had already made up his mind to vote for Charles Scott, another Whig. His party had him in the field, and they all voted for him, and, what is more, with a little help from our side they elected him. When my colleague votes for a Whig himself, he takes no account of it. It is all very natural that he should do so. But if I, or my friends, do the same thing, then it is all wrong. My colleague, in all this, seems to MISSISSIPPI POLITICS. 283 * idmit that we are the old liners, " the salt of the party," and it grieves !* fiim to see us going astray. I thank him for the admonition. True men - hould be always circumspect. More latitude may be allowed those to vhom no one looks for examples of fidelity to the party. In extenuation of this atrocious charge, so vehemently laid against * ny party and myself, of having voted for a Whig chancellor, 1 may ■ J 'jiention a few facts. For twenty years, the people of Mississippi have •^ ^lected their own judges, and in no single instance within my knowledge »i lias ajudge ever been chosen on party grounds until it was done by the « Vnioii party. It stands to the everlasting credit of our people that r.l ibey did, with Roman firmness, withstand for twenty years all the " ippeals of the politicians to mix up politics with the administration of justice. Judge Sharkey was again and again elected from a Democratic ilistrict, though he was always a Whig. Judge Posey, though a Demo- crat, has presided with dignity and ability for a long time in a Whig listrict. Judge Miller, a Whig, was elected and re-elected in the trongest Democratic district in the state. It is not to the credit of the n Jnion men that they departed from this time-honored usage. And I 13 ihink the example they have set us will be " more honored in the breach ban in the observance." The gentleman intimates, that after the September election of 1851 ad resulted adversely to my party I changed my policy, and by a _imely retreat saved myself from defeat. No one knows better than my polleague that such an insinuation is grossly unjust. After the result 1,1 i)f the September election was known, and when the Union party was I uller of exultation than it ever was before or since, and in the midst of i fheir rejoicings, I published an address to the people of my district. A few short extracts from this address will show how much I quailed lefore the frowns of a party flushed with victory. This publication was nade to vindicate myself against the slanders of my enemies. I J Said : — . i . ■ " ' There are my spccclies and there my votes; I sta)id by and defend them.. Yon say - ifor these my country icill repudiate me. I demand a trial of the issue.' This was my ' 'anguage in the first speech made by me after my return irom "Washington. I repeat t now. I said then, as I say now, that the charge laid against me that I was, or ever , pad been, for disunion or secession, was and is false and slanderous." If I Stood by my votes and speeches, and defended them to the last, n what is the evidence of my faltering to be found ? I submit the con- cluding paragraphs of this address : — i " In the approaching election, I asked the judgment of my constituents on my past, course. I chiim no exemption from the frailties common to all mankind. That I .lave erred is possible, but that the interests of my constituents have suSered from ny neglect, or that I have intentionally done any act or said anything to dishonor hem in the eyes of the world, or to bring discredit upon our common country, is not 'rue. In all that I have said or done, my aim has been for the honor, the happiness, ind the true gk)ry of my state. " I opposed the Compromise with all the power I possessed. I opposed the admis- ■iion of California, the division of Texas, the abolition of the slave trade in the District )f Columbia, and I voted against the Utah bill. I need scarcely say that I voted for 'he Fugitive Slave bill, and aided, as far as I could, in its passage. I opposed the Compromise. "I thought, with Mr. Clay, that ' it gave almost everything to the North, and to the South nothing but her honor.' 284 ALBERT G. BROWN. " I thought, with Mr. Webster, that the * South got what the North lost — and that was nothing at all.' " I thought, with Mr. Brooks, that the ' North carried everything before her.' "I thought with Mr. Clemens, that 'there was no equity to redeem the outrage.' " I thought, with Mr. Downs, that ' it was no compromise at all.' " I thought, with Mr. Freeman, ' that the North got the oyster and we got the shell.' " I thought, at the last, what General Foote thought at the first, that ' it contained none of the features of a genuine Compromise.'* " And finally, and last, 1 voted against it, and spoke against it, because it unset- tled the balance of power between the two sections of the Union, inflicted an injury upon the South, and struck a blow at that political equality of the states and of the people, on which the Union is founded, and without a maintenance of which the Union cannot be preserved. " I spoke against it, and voted against it, in all its forms. I was against it as an omnibus, and I was against it in its details. I fought it through from Alpha to Omega, and I would do so again. I denounced it before the people, and down to the last hour I continued to oppose it. The people have decided that the state shall acquiesce, and with me that decision is final. I struggled for what I thought was the true interest and honor of my constituents, and if for this they think me worthy of con- demnation, I am ready for the sacrifi-ce. For opposing the Compromise, I have no apologies or excuses to ofier ; I did that which my conscience told me was right, and the only regret I feel is that my opposition was not more availing." This is what the gentleman calls meek and loivhj submission. These were my positions on the day of my election ; they were the positions of my entire party; they are our positions now ; we submitted to nothing but the voice of our state. Then, as now, when Mississippi speaks we i are ready to obey ; the state had a right to decide for herself what, if anything, was necessary in vindication of her honor. She made that decision, and of it I thus spoke in the address from which I have been reading. " I opposed and denounced the Compromise, but I did not thereby make myself a disunionist. I thought i)i the hegitining that it injlicted a positive injury upon the South, and I think so now. This opinion is toell settled, and is not likely to undergo any material change. I gave my advice freely, but never obtrusively, as to the course which I thought the state ought to pursue. That advice has not been taken. Missis- sippi has decided that submission to or acquiescence in the compromise measures is her true policy. As a citizen, I bow to the judgment of my state. I wish her JUDGMENT HAU BEEN OTHERWISE — but from her dccisiou I ask no appeal." After this publication was made, my colleague and General Foote both visited my district Avith special reference to my defeat. Others traversed it. The newspapers became more reckless than ever. Slander upon slander was " piled up like Pelion upon Ossa, until the very heavens cried for quarters." But all to no eftect. And now we have the sickly excuse rendered, that I turned " submissionist." The charge is entitled to my pity and contempt, and I give them both w^ithout stint and with- out grudging. The gentleman speaks of my willingness to beg my way into the Bal- timore Convention. In this he is about as accurate as in his other statements. So far from begging my way into the Baltimore Convention, I have expressly declined going in at alL I wrote to my party friends at home requesting not to be named as a delegate. I did so because our party had, years ago, from proper motives, determined to exclude members of Congress from presidential conventions, and I wanted no * General Foote, in speaking of Mr. Clay's cowpromise resolutions, said : " I shall always be unable to see in his resolutions, any of the features of a genuine compro- mise." The allusion is to this expression. MlSSISSim POLITICS. * 285 leparturc from the rule in my case. If the gentleman means that I am •egging for tlic admission of my friends, ho is again mistaken. I know le strength of the true Democracy of Mississippi. Wo poHod Avitliin thousand of a majority at the hist election, and -vve can poll numy more It another trial. And I suppose the nominees at Baltimore and their •lends "vvill he quite as anxious to receive our votes as Ave will he to give hem. This, however, was one of the gentleman's ill-tempered ilings, to jhich a reply is hardly necessary. No man of sound judgment, not ftrried away by passion, can suppose that there will be any more qnes- on about the admission of the delegates from Mississippi than iVom 'iy other state. I have not canvassed the question, because I never ipposed that it admitted of a doubt in any man's mind, except that of lie gentleman himself, and his friend Governor Foote. ^ The gentleman thinks it singular that I should expect to enter the ■altimore Convention with opinions not altogether in harmony with the nitiments of Democrats elsewhere. Let us see how much thci-e is in ,1 this. Let us see in what my views " differ from the great body of le National Democracy." And let us inquire whether these differences opinion have not been tolerated on former occasions. There are tree classes of Democrats : Federal Democrats, Union Democrats, and tate-llights Democrats. And the question on which we differ is this : ! jjWhat redress has a state, suffering intolerable oppression from the .lederal government?" or, "What remedy has a state for a violation of }e compact between herself and the Federal government?" It will be bserved that the question is one Avhich each state must, of necessity, igcide for itself. And every individual will decide it for himself accord- jg to his federal or republican proclivities. A Federal Democrat would .. ' |y that a state should submit, under any and all circumstances. A Union kmocrat would advise revolution, an^l he would, I suppose, lead a rebel i'my ; but where to, and against whom, God only knows. A State- ' Hg^its Democrat would advocate peaceable secession. But Ave all agree l'at each state must be left free to shape its own policy. No one would . Iiink of consulting the Federal government, or the National Executive, ? to what a state should do in such a case. National parties and iitional conventions have nothing to do with state policy, and have no in;ht to instruct a state as to "the mode and measure of redress" in ("jscs of " infractions of the compact." It follows, therefore, that the Jiltimore Convention can have nothing to do with the policy of Missis- .; ^pi; and if it shall assume to tell her what are her rights as a member ( the Confederacy, it will transcend its authority, and its act, in this i^ard, will be null and void. The Baltimore Convention will commit iT such folly. It is a question of state policy, with which national ,' |Tties, national Executives, and national conventions, have no concern. Ibw let us see whether, in days gone by, the Democracy of Mississippi I' Is been required to submit its local or state policy to the supervision - c a national convention. I Three times the Democracy of Mississippi has shaped the policy of "■ t^t state without consulting the Democracy of other states. Twenty '' >ars ago, the Democracy of Mississippi determined to elect judges by ' ie people. It was a bold innovation. New York, Pennsylvania, and i^ ({her states, laughed at our temerity. But New York, Pennsylvania, f Sd other states, have followed our example. 286 ALBERT G. BROWN. Fifteen years ago, Mississippi Democracy set its face against banks and banking. Under the lead of McNutt every bank in the state was swept away. We took the lead. The Democracy of other states hesi- tated, and finally refused to follow. Twelve years ago, the Democracy of our state declared against paying certain bonds, issued in the name of the state, and bearing its seal. The Democracy of other states was horror-stricken; but we had our own way. In no one of these cases had we the support or countenance of the National Democracy ; and in all of them there were bolters from the party, who denounced it, as my colleague now denounces us. When we resolved to elect judges by the people, they called us anarchists and levellers. When we made war upon the banks, we were Jacobins and Red Republicans. When we were opposing the bonds, they denounced us as repudiators and public plunderers. The true Democracy of Missis-, sippi survived the gibes and taunts of its enemies in those days ; and it will survive the denunciations of the gentleman and his associates now. We settled all these cases without losing our identity with the NationaL Democracy, and without consulting its w'ishcs. And we never failed to meet them on national questions, in national conventions ; and we shall;, not fail now. We shall not dictate what others are to do in vindicationr of their rights, nor will we tolerate dictation from others as to how wev shall defend our own. The gentleman, strangely enough, misunderstands what I said respects ing General Foote's being at one time a Whig. lie speaks of Colonel Fall, Colonel Miller, and other Democrats, having represented the Whiy., county of Hinds. In this he misses the point. These gentlemen wert- all elected as Democrats. It was a high tribute to their worth, to be elected from a strong Whig county ; yet it caused great labor and extra-) ordinary diligence on the part of their friends. General Foote had ar easier time of it. lie run as a Whig. He was elected as a Whig. E( served as a Whig. As a member from Hinds county he voted, as th( journals show, for a Whig United States senator. I hope I am dot more clearly understood. I should never have introduced the name of General Foote into thi debate, if it had not become necessary in vindication of Governor Quit man. I commend to my colleague a homely adage, " that those whi live in glass houses should not throw stones." My colleague " thanks God" that his party had in its ranks "man^^ gallant and patriotic Whigs." It may be all a matter of taste, but i seems to me it would have been more appropriate if he had returned hi thanks to another quarter. I can hardly think it was a celestial influenc that made the " gallant and patriotic Whigs of Mississippi " the follower of my colleague. But I discern in this part of the gentleman's speed two things worthy of commendation — gratitude and common sense. . I is right that he should, in this or in some other way, manifest his gra.ti tude to those who elected him. And it indicates good common sense t retain, as far as he can, the good opinion of his Whig friends. It i very certain that they will be needed in another election, if my colleagu should be a candidate. It may be that my colleague has captured a large number of Whig' and means to march them into the Democratic camp. I have hear. MISSISSIPPI POLITICS. t 287 ;uch an intimation. If it turns out to be true, I hope lie will post his )aptives in the rear, and not in the front of our line. And I would par- :icularly caution him against giving them commissions and high rank, antil he is certain they will be faithful to our flag. It is not safe to nake commanders of those too recently taken from the ranks of the 3nemy. They may betray us in the hour of trial; or, from the force of 'labit, turn their arras against us. Besides, the old veterans in our ranks nay object to following these cajjtive commanders. Senator Brooke, for example, is an excellent Whig, and, for aught I know, he is a very good Union Democrat; but I know many an " old liner" who would not like ;o follow his lead in a presidential campaign. My colleague is sensitive when allusion is made to an existing con- nection between the Whigs and Union Democrats. lie has reason to je. The success of the Union party in Mississippi has given the Whigs more offices and more patronage than they have enjoyed for many years, [f the gentleman means well towards the Democratic party, he cannot but regret that, through the instrumentality of his party friends, the most influential and important places in the state have been given to the Whigs. It is due to the Whigs for me to say, they have selected men of high character, and such as will be likely to make their present official positions felt in future elections. I honor them for their sagacity. My colleague introduces a silly story about my settling in the Demo- cratic county of Copiah, and being soon after sent to the legislature, and about m.y meeting a former Whig friend, who inquired how it was that 'the Democrats of Copiah sent a Wliig to the legislature; and some other twaddle of the same sort. The story, if it had any purpose, was intended 'to leave the impression that I had at one time been a Wliig. I am sorry that my position in Mississippi has been so humble that it has failed to attract the attention of the gentleman. He is entirely ignorant of my personal history, else he never could have retailed second-hand, and much less have coined, such a story. Instead of my settling in Copiah, and being soon after sent to the legislature, I went there with my father when I was eight years old, and have resided there ever since, except when absent in the public service. At the early age of twenty-one, I was sent to the legislature as a Democrat, and at each succeeding elec- tion, from then until now, I have been a candidate. I have invariably run as a Democrat, and have never sufi"ered defeat. There is not an old Democrat in my congressional district, and scarcely one in the state, that could not contradict the implied declaration of the gentleman, that I had 1)een a Whig. If the story was meant for wat, it was flat; if intended for effect, it was simply ridiculous. INIy colleague need not concern himself about my position, nor his own. I have been in the party all 'the time. He has the right to return, and, like a truant boy who had been a day from school, take his place at the foot of the class. I hope he will do it without grumbling. The gentleman speaks of the " so-called Democratic State-lliglits Convention," to send delegates to the Baltimore Convention. As usual, he mistakes the facts. There was no call of a " Democratic State-Bights 'Convention" in Mississippi to send delegates to the Baltimore Conven- tion. The call was for a "Democratic Conventiox." It was made as such calls have usually been made, through the central organ of the party — the Mississippian. The gentleman errs again in saying, " it 258 ALBERT G. BROWN. was simply an editorial article." It was a call made in the usual way and through the usual channel, and upon consultation with the oldest, lont'est tried, and most substantial members of the party residing at ancf near the seat of government. The call embraced the whole party, without reference to past differences ; and it was responded to by the partv generally in Mississippi. Soon after the appearance of this call, severaf members of the " Compromise Convention," then at Jackson, issued a call for a " Union Democratic Convention ;" thus marking, in distinct terms, their resolution not to unite with the great body of the party. It is worthy of remark in this connection, that the gentlemen calling this convention used the term " Union Democratic Convention." And i° was the first time within my recollection that this term ever was used in Mississippi to designate an organized party. I had heard of " Union AVhigs" and " Union Democrats," but it applied to individuals onli/. AVhen°the party, the organization, was spoken of, it was called the " Union party." That is my recollection. I repeat, sir, the Democratic convention in our state which appointed deleirates to the Baltimore Convention, was called as a Democratic con- veyitwn, and not as a " so-called Democratic State-Bights convention.''^ But why should my colleague have such a horror of "State-Rights?" Is he not a State-Rights man ? He may think that an oppressed state has no rif^ht but the right of submission, or revolution, and that if she judges fo^r herself of '-infractions of the compact," and of the "mode and'^measure of redress," the federal government may reduce her and hold her as a conquered province. This may be his notion of state right*. But I recollect that in 1841 (and I appeal to the public newspapers in i Mississippi for the correctness of my recollection) the gentleman ran on i the " Democratic State-Rights tickeV' for attorney-general in our state. • He had no horror of state rights then. In that year the term " Demo- cratic" meant the right of the people to rule, and " State Rights" meant the right of the state to reject the payment of an unjust demand for raoney^ Our opponents said, I know, that Democratic State Rights meant repudiation. My colleague won his first laurels in this celebrated campaign. In 1851, ten years after, he hoisted the " Democratic State- Rights banner" again. Democratic meant, as in 1841, the right of the people to rule, and state rights meant the right of a state, in the language of the Kentucky resolutions, " to judge of infractions of the federal compact, and of the mode and measure of redress." But the o-entleman refused to fight under this banner, and he now denounces it as emblematic of treason, civil war, bloodshed, strife, and all the horrors known to man. I hope he will not get out of temper if we tell him that some of us think differently, and that we mean to enjoy our opinions. .... The gentleman says the Union Democratic Convention of Mississippi appointed "seven delegates to the Baltimore Convention." That "the Union men of the South hold the presidential election in the palms of their hands." They demand thus and so, and if the convention does not comply with these demands, "it had better never assemble.' Wahe snakes and come to judgment — the times are big with the fate of nations. " The Union party of the South holds the presidency in its hands," even as the Almighty holds the universe. It stamps its foot, and the earth trembles. It speaks, and the sun stands still, as at the rUBLIC TRINTING. 289 idding of Joshua. Seriously, I hope " the seven men in bucl^ram" •om Mississippi do not contempLato upsetting the universe, even if the ■altimore Conventi'on shoukl refuse some of their demands. I have treated these domestic squabbles at greater length than their nportance may seem to justify. I have treated them fairly, I think, nd I hope in good temper. I set out 'U'ith a determination not to bo revoked by the ungenerous assaults of my colleague, and I have kept lat resolve steadily in view. I am now done. ; The controversy between my colleagues and myself has not been of ly seeking. Our constituents did not send us here to fight again the impaign battles of Mississippi. And if I had been loft alone to pursue ae inclinations of my own mind, I never should have introduced the dbject of Mississippi politics on this floor. The subject is foreign to 46 business of legislation on which we have been sent, and ought never ) have been introduced here. But when ray colleagues combined, as I nought, to make up a record prejudicial to my party-friends, prejudicial to the truth of history," and calculated to fix on the mind of the ountry and of after ages, a wrong impression as to the principles, bjects, ends, and aims of my friends, I should have been false to those •'iends, false to the truth of history, false to the reader of these debates 1 after times, if I had njt interposed. They have made their showing — I have made mine ; and I submit the )Sue to the impartial arbitrament of the country and of posterity, with- ut one shadow of doubt that justice will be awarded to us all. I ask ,othing more, and will be content with nothing less. This discussion is not suited to my taste. It obstructs the legitimate .usiness of lea-islation, and encumbers the Con2:ressional record with latter that has no business there. Its present eftcct must be, if it has ny effect, to weaken the Democracy and give strength to the Whigs. ('or all these reasons, and for many others, I am most anxious to get dear of it. If the future depends on my action, there will be no recur- ence to the subject, here or elsewhere. PUBLIC PllINTING. i iPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 13 AND 14, 1852, ON ' THE SUBJECT OF THE PUBLIC PRINTING, AND AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE IN TAKING IT FROM THE CON- i TRACTOR AND DIVIDING IT BETWEEN THE "UNION" AND THE "REPUBLIC" NEW^SPAPERS. Mr. Brown said : I do not intend to detain the House by anything ike an elaborate speech upon the subject of the public printing. In he few remarks which I propose to submit, I shall endeavor to confine nyself as nearly as possible to the subjects directly before us ; nor -hould I have asked the indulgence of the House to say a word but for he agency which I have taken heretofore in this matter. When 1 leard that the Committee on Public Printing had done more than, by die explanation of the honorable chairman, I am now induced to think lU 290 ALBERT G. BROWN. they intended to do, I thought they had exceeded the authority given them by law, and that they had done that which this House ought not to sanction by its silence, much less by its express assent. With the explanation which the honorable chairman has given, I am satisfied the committee have intended to confine themselves to the letter of the law; but I am just as well satisfied that their action will lead to an abuse of the law. The Committee on Public Printing have a right, according to one construction of the statute of 184G, to take so much of the pubhc printing from the present employee as he fails or refuses to execute, i Under this authority we now learn from the chairman, that they propose to take from the public printer — what ? The work which he has refused or failed to execute, and this alone ? No, sir ; for in the progress of his remarks the honorable chairman tells you that they have in their possession now a considerable quantity of work, which has_ never yet been submitted to the public printer. What brought the minds of the committee to the conclusion, that the printer would either fail or refuse to execute the work, when it had never been in his hands ? Was it not straining a conclusion to determine that he had failed to execute, and would not execute, work which they had never intrusted to his care, and never asked him to execute ? The honorable chairman of the committee says that the public printer has failed to execute some of the work here- tofore intrusted to his care. But does the conclusion necessarily follow,, that he will continue to fail; or that, having failed in one kind of print-l; ing, he would fail in all others ? Was it ever expected that the public printer could execute the print-t ing of this House instantly upon its delivery to him ? Has there been any extraordinary delay in the delivery of this work ? According to my recollection, the public printing is about as forward, about as near; to completion, as it usually is at this season of the year. We have the first part of the President's message, bound and laid upon our tables,! one copy for each member; and what matters it whether the extra' copies shall be printed this month, the next month, or three months i hence ? When was the last part of the President's message and accom- panying documents printed during the long session of the last Congress? According to my recollection, we were getting along towards the dog-;, days before it was laid upon our tables. Was the then venerable and highly-respected public printer [Mr. Ritchie] hauled over the coals for a failure to perform his duty ? Was Mr. Ritchie — against whom I have no word of complaint to utter here — held up to the country as a defaulter in the discharge of his duties ? Ah ! some gentleman answers, in a low tone. Yes. It is well the tone is low. No gentleman ought to answer yes, in a loud voice. The House knows what was the action taken upon that subject two years ago. At the close of the session of 1850, there was found to be, in one House of Congress, a large majority not only indisposed to call Mr. Ritchie to an account for any failure to comply Avith his contract, but actually disposed and determined to give him some sixty or seventy thousand dollars of the public money as extra compen- sation. Mr, Ritchie was paid every dollar that he claimed under his contract, and his friends were anxious to give him a great deal more. I never understood that he did the work any better, or any more rapidly than the contract called for ; and yet there was a large party in this House ready to vote him sixty thousand dollars, or more, over and above rUBLIC PRINTING. 201 :"; ^fliat the contract called for ; and it was only, accordinj^ to my rccolloc- 'ion, by parliamentary mana'uvring that the thing was prevented. You lad two or three committees of conference upon the subject, and the abject was pressed upon our attention as no other subject was ever n-essed upon us. And let me remind certain gentlemen, who are cn- brcing a very rigid observance of the law against INFr. Ifamilton, tliat !he journals show them to have been more than liberal towards Mr. kitchie. Now, sir, I desire to know why it is, in this land of laws, in 'his land of equality, and before this Democratic House of Kepresenta- ives, this kind of distinction is made between one em])loyee and another? I know nothing of Mr. Boyd Hamilton; I have never seen him. If I vere to meet him to-day, I should not know him from any other man in Jhristendom. I care not one single solitary farthing about him, but I lo care for justice. I will not willingly make myself a party to a :ransaction so unjust as this. I will not say to one man, who wields a Powerful party press, We will pay you the full amount of the bond, wink 'it your short-comings, and pay you sixty thousand doHars extra; and Jien to another, who has no press, no power, no influence, We will crush 70U, because you have not lived up to the very letter of the law. Mr. Gorman. I want the gentleman distinctly to avow whether he charges that as a motive operating upon the committee ? ' Mr. Brown. Not at alL Mr. Gorman. Your words do, > Mr. Brown. I disavow any personal application ; but this I will say : ^■' tf the House of Representatives shall perpetrate such an act of gross injustice, it will merit, and will assuredly receive, the reprobation of every just man in the nation. We hear continually that the contract system has proved a failure. I do not think so. The contract system ' • iias had no fair trial. There has been, what seemed to me, a determi- '' Ration from the beginning to bring this system into disrepute— never to ^ ^ive it fair play. Powerful parties, holding the most influential positions, - Iiave engagcd*^ in this work. The system has operated against _ their • Uterest, and they have labored to break it down. Its triumph is not «; Complete, but it has not failed. Let us see how the system has worked ' |so far. Your first contractors were Wendell and Van Benthuysen. I. [Did they execute their contract ? I understand they did. I am forced ! 'to that conclusion because there has been no suit entered upon their 'bond for a failure to execute their contract. Thus far the system worked well— at least it did not fail. Y'ou received the work and paid_ for it ; and if it was not well done, it was because you did not require it to be well done. During the last Congress, the then venerable editor of the Union (Mr. Ritchie) had the contract. Did he execute it? I under- stand he did. It is my understanding that he executed it to the satis- faction of the Committee on Printing, and the satisfaction of Congress. I so understand, because no suit has been instituted upon his bond for a failure to execute the contract. You again received the work and paid 'for it, and we shall presently see that certain gentlemen proposed to do a great deal more. Surely there could have been no failure, when you not only received the work and paid for it, but wanted to give large extra compensation. Then Mr. A. Boyd Hamilton has the contract for this session. The only specifications, according to my present recollec- tion, which the honorable chairman makes against him is, that a portion 292 ALBERT G. BROWN. of the paper is some twelve pounds in the ream lighter than the contract requires. This I find Mr. Hamilton accounts for in the printed paper lying upon our tahles. He says, that for a brief season during the past ■winter, on account of the closing of navigation, he was unable to get a better article of paper. The cold Aveather having suspended steamboat and railroad operations, he could not procure transportation. Mr. Stanton, of Kentucky. I wish to make a statement, and it is this : I understand from the chairman of the Senate committee, or rather the late chairman of the Senate committee, that he has rejected nearly all the work sent to the Senate by the printer, and rejected it not solely for the reason that the paper was of an inferior article, but because the whole committee concurred in the idea that a great fraud had been prac- tised upon the government if this paper should be received as the quality of paper which he has now furnished, it being one-fifth less in value, than what he was required to furnish. But there is another defect in the paper, to which the chairman of the House committee, and of the Senate committee, I understand, objected; and it is this : that the sheets of paper upon which the printing is done, are too small ; that they have too little margin ; that when the pages are folded together, and the edges clipped or cut, it leaves too little margin, and that in the books in which plates are to be placed, the plates are frequently disfigured and destroyed in consequence of the smallness of the sheets. Nor is this all. The printing which has been sent to us, is so imper- fect in consequence of defects in the manner in which the presswork is done, and defects in the quality of the ink that is used, that there are not half a dozen sheets in any one book that we have examined, that are perfect. They are full from the top line to the bottom of the page, with "what printers call technically "monks" and "friars," that is, here a white place, and here a black blotch. So that the work, in every view in which it can be regarded, is inferior to what was agreed for under the contract. Mr. Florence. Did the gentleman submit any of this work to the House ? I understood the chairman of the Committee on Printing [Mr. Gorman] to say that there had been no documents except the President's message and accompanying documents, given to the public printer. His complaint was, that there had been no work done ; but now the gentle- man from Kentucky, a member of the Committee on Printing, rises in his place, and says that these have been condemned. Where are they ? Mr. Polk. I will ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania, if there are not thirty or forty executive documents that have been furnished to the printer during the last three months, and that have not been printed yet? Mr. Florence. I do not know anything at all about that, for I am not a member of the Committee on Printing. I attend to the business of the committee to which I b.elong, and cannot answer the gentleman's question. Mr. Polk. Then I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that he ought not to talk about thino;s he knows nothing about. Mr. Florence. I rose for the purpose of being informed; and if the gentleman had had his ears open, he would have heard my question, and "would not have made the remark he did. ruBLic rraNTiNG. 293 1 Mr. Polk. I am sorry I did not hoar tlie gentleman ; but it is my iisfortuno, if my oars are not as long as his. [Laughter.] : Mr. Gorman. The gentleman from Pennsylvania misunderstood mo, r he understood me as saying that no document but the President's lessage had gone into the hands of the printer. A great many docu- lents have gone into his hands, but avc have never seen anything of iiem since ; when they get there, it is the last of them. A part of the resident's message has, however, come to us, and it is to that that the gen- eman from Kentucky alludes. If you look over the pages, you will find 10 "monks" and "friars," or, as I should call them, blotclies of wliite id then blotches of black. They are really so insuilerably bad that e could not receive them. I hope the gentleman from Pennsylvania is itisfied. I will produce a copy, and hand it to him. Mr. Brown (resuming). I was proceeding to iiupiiro, when I was terrupted, whether it was true that the contract system had been fairly lied, and had proved a failure ? I had shown that there was no evi- •'Bnce of its failure up to the commencement of this session of Congress, ad I had stated that I believed there had been combinations to break / down. If it has failed, or shall hereafter fail, in the hands of Mr. ..amilton, is that conclusive that the system is wrong, and ought to be ::);uidoned? That it must fail in his hands, under the policy that the Muimittee propose to pursue towards him, is to my mind the most evi- I'iit proposition on earth. If the committee suspends a job when it is .ilf completed, takes other jobs from him entirely, and makes large (eductions from time to time on the work which he has executed, who aney withont |;>;i,yrn(;nt, under my HiihHtitnte, in iinlirnited, it heinj^ the oxclnHivo privile^r!, hut never tli(! duty, of the oeeup.'irit to huy the hind. The perfjetuation oC th(! ex- iHtin;^; l;i,w of [ir<:i!ni[)tion is hetter th;i,n the (;n;i,e,trnent of new lawH, I^'irHt, h(!(;auHr; th(! old hi,ws luivc; heon adjudi(;ated \>y th(! c(>urtH ; Heeond, l.»(!(;auHe they liav(! hee-n eonstrued hy tlio executive def)arttn(;ntH; and thirdly, hficauHO tiuj people ^Minerally underHtand them, and will need only to he told, if the Huhntitute |>asHeH, that the hiw (ixi.HtH Junt ;i,;-( it diil hefort!, with the ain;^le ex(;e[)tiori th:i,t they will not he comjtelled to (jay until it HuitH tln^iri. I h;i,ve already [ointcil out Hoine <>\' the [luhlie a,nd [»rivate ii(lv;i,nt;i^(;3 wliieh will re.Hult from the [»aHHa;^e of the ori;^inal hill. All thene will result in !i,fi (!(jual rhi^reo from tin; adofjtion of tin; Huhstitute. I have pointed out Home of tin; !i,d vantii^'eH which are peculiiir to my proposi- tion ; hut therti are others to which I niunt !i,dvert. Th(! i)ropoHition haH hecn asHailed on the ground of itH Hfjuanderin^ the [Mihlic hinds !i,nd cuttin;/ oH' the revenu(! r(^sultin;^ frotri their H;ile. I. nliall show that there is nothin;^ in tlies(! ohjections. VVliiU, is it that you give und(!r my suhstitute? Nothing hut th*; ri;i;ht of oecufjancy — the ri^ht to occupy ;i hit o(" l.ind in the wilderness, and tlK^relore unpro- diietivf! -;i,nd tin; ri;.dit to ini|)rov(! iiiid cultiv;it(! tliMt huid, iitid ni;ike it useful to the oeeu|»;uit and heneliei-'il to the ;^ener;il w(!allJi. In thin tlwire is not only a private, hut puhlie «,dvanta^(;. You nnike tli;i,t pro- duetiv(! wliieh was hefoiv; UHelcHH, ;uid ol" no puhlie or (irivatc luaiedt. Jiiityou answer, th;i.t I fiut an oceup;iiit on the land who m;i.y Ix; adr(jno — one who will not eultiviitf; or huy it himself, ;i,nd yet, hy his occu- pancy, keepH olf all oth(!rs; ii,n-o prices for their homes, is hardly respectful to the human understanding. If we have the power to give, it exists as an indepen- dent substantive proposition ; and if we have not the power it is not acquired by any argument however plausible, or any legislative expedi- ent however cunningly devised. The President regards the bill as appropriating ten millions of acres of land to an eleemosynary purpose, within the limits of the states, and he questions the warrant of the Congress to make such an appropriation ; not because it is made for an eleemosynary purpose, as I understand him, but because it is made for such a purpose within the limits of the •! INDIGENT INSANE BILL— PRESIDENT TIERCE'S VETO. 3G5 states. This is evident, as I have before said, from the fact tliat in the very next sentence he admits that, within the District of Columbia we may make appropriations for eleemosynary purposes. The argument, then, is not that you cannot make an appropriation for the benefit of insane asylums because they are asylums, but because they are state institutions. Now, let us test the soundness of this logic, by what appears in the message elsewhere. The President says, on page six of the printed paper, that the profitable management of land may sometimes require us, as prudent proprietors, to appropriate a part of it to local objects in the states where it lies. That the mind of the Presi- dent in penning this sentence was directed to the land grants heretofore made for railroad, college, school, and swamp purposes in the states, there can be no question. Has Congress any more right to patronize, by a gift or grant, a railroad, a school, or college, or to drain a swamp, in a state, than it has to patronize, by a gift or grant, a lunatic asylum in a • state ? What is the difference between patronizing an eleemosynary institution in a state, and a common school or college in a state ? One is purely local, and so is the other, and one is no more specified or pro- vided for in the Constitution than the other. If Congress may patronize by a gift an eleemosynary institution in this district, as the President admits, it may do the same thing in a state, unless there is something in the relations between the states and the Federal Government that forbids it. And I submit, with diffidence and respect, that if there be anything in that relation which forbids us to patronize an eleemosynary institution in the states, there must be that, also, which forbids our patronizing a college in a state. If it be said that the college is exclu- sively under the control of the state, I reply that the eleemosynary institution is also exclusively under the control of the state. If Congress may give lands to railroads, schools, colleges, and other purely state institutions, there can be nothing in the argument that lands cannot be given to asylums or other institutions, simply because they . are within the limits of the states. The President lays great stress on the assumed fact that we are only authorized to dispose of the lands as a prudent proprietor would dispose of his own estate. Very well ; let us examine the soundness of this position. I have never asserted, myself, that the United States was the proprietor of the land; I have only maintained that she was the trustee of the states. If she is the proprietor, it needs no argument, it seems to me, to prove that she may give, or sell, or lease, or abandon, as she pleases. But if she be a trustee, then I grant that she must administer the estate as a prudent proprietor would administer his own property. We have seen in the past that lands have been given to various pur- poses, and the President gives us plainly to understand, that as a pru- dent proprietor he would approve of the gifts, and say that Congress had the power to make them. Now, suppose that the President was the prudent proprietor of a million of acres of land in Wisconsin, and that he had appointed my friend, the senator from that state [Mr, Walker], his trustee, Avith power to dispose of the lands as a prudent proprietor would dispose of his own estate. The senator sells a part at auction and 5ome at private sale, and the President approves his acts, saying, " that rt'as prudent; you had the power to do that." He gives some to a rail- •oad, and the President approves that ; he gives some to a college, some 366 ALBERT G. BROWN. to common schools, some to build a court house, and some to drain swamps; the President looks over the whole, and says: "this is as a prudent proprietor would have done with his own estate. You had the power to do all this, and I approve it." Then the senator gives a little to an insane asylum ; the President says : " I must resist the deep sym- pathies of my heart in behalf of the humane purposes of this gift. But it is not as a prudent proprietor would have managed his own estate ; I DISAPPROVE IT." Now the question is, could he consistently say that? When he conferred the power to make the first grants, he conferred the power to make the last, and when he approved of its exercise in the first cases, he necessarily commits himself to an approval in the last. He may disapprove if he chooses, but not on the ground of power. Suppose that the Constitution, instead of giving Congress the power simply to dispose of the territory, had said that Congress may dispose of the territory as a prudent proprietor would dispose of his own estate, who in that case would be the judge of what was a prudent disposition ? Congress, unquestionably. I do not mean to say that the President could not, in such a case, exercise the veto ; but I do say that he could not put it on a question of power. He would be compelled to put it on a question of expediency. He could not say that Congress had no right to give away the lands, for it often happens that a prudent proprietor does give away his own lands. He might say that giving it to the indi- gent insane is not a prudent disposition of it, and veto for that reason. But this, I apprehend, would raise a question of expediency, and not a question of constitutional authority. Congress has power to levy taxes. It may levy excessive taxes. But there is not a court in Christendom that would declare the act unconstitutional on that account; and why? because the abuse of power does not affect the question of its existence. I fancy, therefore, that the President, to say the least, has placed the veto on the wrong ground. Instead of denying to Congress the consti- tutional right to pass this bill, he ought to have assumed that its passage was an abuse of power. How far the President would be justified in interposing his judgment against the judgment of Congress on a mere point of expediency, is altogether another question. He has the power to do it if he chooses. The President, in speaking of certain grants heretofore made, says : " All such grants of land are in fact a disposal of it for value received, but they aftbrd no precedent or constitutional reason for giving away the public lands." I admit that giving to a school does not oblige us to give to an asylum. But I must insist that the same constitutional reason that would justify us in giving to one, would justify us in giving to the j other. And I think, moreover, that the President is mistaken in assum ing that a giving to one affords no precedent for giving to the other. If ' we have the same right to give to one that we have to the other, then giving to the one does afford a precedent for giving to the other. The President assumes that, in disposing of the lands by grants to various objects, Ave have heretofore enhanced the value of the remaining land. I have already shown that this enhancing the value of one parcel of land cannot amplify our constitutional powers over another parcel. But suppose it could, is it true in point of fact that these grants have always enhanced the value of the remaining lands? When Congress gave two townships of land to Mississippi, and many others to the other I INDIGENT INSANE BILL— PRESIDENT PIERCE'S VETO. 867 new states, to endow colleges or universities, what lands were increased in value thereby ? — none within my knowledge. It may be that the existence of colleges and universities in the states encourages settlements, and that thereby a chance is held out that the lands will sell at a better price. And if this be the argument, I reply that the existence of an asylum for the insane is just as likely to induce settlements, and thus increase the value of the lands, as is the existence of a college to do the same thing. I have thus far omitted to speak of the bounty land grants to soldiers in connection with this subject. Regarding that act as depending for its constitutionality on the same clause of the Constitution that justifies this, and as being in all respects more like this than any other, I have chosen to consider it separately. The bounties to soldiers were, and are, in every legal sense, gratuities, naked gifts. The soldiers entered the army on a contract to perform certain specified services for a specific sum of money. They have performed the services and received their pay, and most of them have been forty years out of the army. They had been paid off and discharged, thirty, forty, and fifty years ago. The government owed them nothing; and yet Congress gave them each a tract of land, forty, eighty, or one hundred and sixty acres. Was this done to increase the value of other lands? Was this justified on the ground of prudent proprietorship ? Was this for the use and benefit of all the states ? No, sir, no. It was done as an act of gratitude to the brave men who fought our battles. It was justified on the ground that we could dispose of the public lands as we pleased, and it was for the use and benefit of the old soldiers, and for no one else. If we could give fifty millions of acres on the score of gratitude, why may we not give ten millions on the score of charity? The grant to the soldiers met my warm approval, and had my cordial support. It was an act o^ justice, not of legal obligation. The act before us had my approval and support also. It, too, is one of justice, not to individuals, but, to states. I defend its constitutionality on the same ground that I defended the first act, and its justice on the further ground, that it divides the land equally among the parties having a common interest, and for the praiseworthy purpose of protecting those who are unable to protect themselves. I here leave the message, and recur for a moment to the history of this bill in its passage through the two houses of Congress. It has twice passed the House, and twice the Senate. It first passed the Senate, February 12, 1851, by a vote of 36 yeas to 16 nays, and was sent to the House, where it was defeated by the rigid enforcement of the rules. Once the rules were suspended, yeas 105, nays 50, more than two-thirds; but the House proceeded to other business, and again, on a motion to suspend that rule, so as to allow the bill to pass, the yeas were 108, and the nays 70. It will thus be seen that in 1851 there was not only a majority of more than two to one in the Senate in favor of the bill, but a majority of about two to one in the House also. In 1852 the bill was again before the House, and passed by a vote of 98 yeas to 51 nays, almost two to one. This session it passed the Senate again, yeas 25, nays 12, and was sent to the House and there passed, yeas 81, nays 53. 'It will thus be seen that, before the Senate and before the House, both being Democratic by large majorities, this bill has uniformly commanded 3G8 ALBERT G. BROWN. two- thirds of the votes in one house, and nearly two-thirds in the other. It so happened that the bill has not passed both Houses at the same session, or during the same Congress, until now, and, therefore, it was never before sent to the President for his approval. Amone; the Democrats who have voted on this bill at one time, or at another, I find the names of Borland, of Arkansas ; Downs, of Louisi- ana ; Norris, of New Hampshire; Rusk, of Texas ; Shields, of Illinois; Sould, of Louisiana ; Sturgeon, of Pennsylvania, and others of the Senate; and in the House, Bissell, of Illinois; Cobb, of Alabama; Gil- more, of Pennsylvania ; Ingersoll, of Connecticut ; Peaslee, of New Hampshire ; Polk, of Tennessee ; Churchwell, of Tennessee ; Dawson, of Pennsylvania; Florence, of Pennsylvania ; Seymour, of Connecticut; Smith, of Alabama; Harris, of Alabama; Beale, of Virginia; and many others. I mention these things to show that if there was error in passing this bill, it was an error very common among Democrats. Nor can it be said that the constitutional question was not raised. It was raised in both Houses, and as fully discussed as senators and repre- sentatives chose to discuss it. I speak on this subject after a careful inspection of the record. Mr. Borland defended the constitutionality of the bill in the Senate, and he has been sent abroad. Messrs. Soule, Peaslee, and others of its friends, have received the highest marks of the President's consideration and confidence. The President refers to two acts heretofore passed by Congress, which he admits furnish precedents for the passage of this bill. One of these is an act passed March 3, 1819, granting a township of land to the deaf and dumb, in Connecticut ; and the other is an act passed April 5, 1826, making a like grant to the Kentucky asylum for the education of the same unfortunate class. It is worthy of remark that the lands thus granted were necessarily located outside of the states of Kentucky and Connecticut. And were in this, as in all other respects, granted, just as we propose to grant these lands, and for an object very similar to this, not, I think, so praiseworthy. The President admits that these are precedents, but adds, they should " serve rather as a warning than as an inducement to tread in the same path." I entertain the highest respect for the opinions of President Pierce ; but he will excuse me if I say that precedents set by such men as James Monroe, John C. Calhoun, Wm. H. Crawford, James K. Polk, James Buchanan, Wra. R. King, EdAvard Livingston, Levi Woodbury, Geo. McDuffie, and others, do not serve as warnings to me, unless it be the warning that the beacon gives to the mariner. Those great men were bright and shining lights ; their example has illumined the path we are now treading. Mr. Monroe was president, and approved the act of 1819. Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Crawford were members of his cabinet, and all the others, as senators or representatives, voted for one or the other of the bills spoken of by the President. If, in following the lead of Democratic presidents. Democratic secreta- ries, ambassadors, and senators, who have attained to the highest honors in the republic, and enjoyed the highest places in the confidence of the people, I have been led into error, I hope my error will find an easy pardon at the hands of my constituents. I have now, Mr. President, performe'd an unpleasant duty. It would ALIEN SUFFRAGE. 309 have given me great pleasure to have found my vote sustained by tlie President; but I could neither abandon the vote I had given, nor the convictions which justified me in giving it, because the President refused to sustain what I had done. I have felt called upon to defend my course. This I have done; how perfectly, is left to time and the public judgment to decide. It has been my studied purpose to avoid everything that by possibility could be construed into an attack upon the conduct of the President. If he is right, the Constitution has been happily saved from violation. If he is wrong, time will correct his error. But whether right or wrong, I have not a word to say against the purity of his mo- tives. He had his convictions, and he has acted on them, and I am not the man to insinuate that he has been moved thereto by any other than the highest considerations of duty to the country, and devotion to the Constitution. ALIEN SUFFRAGE. SPEECH IN" THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY 25, 1854, ON THE QUESTION OF ALIEN SUFFRAGE, IN CONNECTION WITH THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA BILL. Intending to vote for the amendment of the senator from Maryland, I wish to assign very briefly the reasons why I shall do so, advertising the Senate, however, that I have no speech to make on this bill. The fifth section of the bill provides : — "That every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, who shall be an actual resident of said territory, and shall possess the qualifications herein- after prescribed, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any ofBce within the said territory, but the qualifications of voters, and of holding office, at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be prescribed by the Legis- lative Assembly: Frovidcd, That the right of suffrage and of holding office shallbe exercised only by citizens of the United States" — Now comes the part proposed to be stricken out : — >» " and those ivlio sliall liave declared, on oalli iheir inteniion to Ijecome sncli, and sliall hare taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United. States and the provisions of this act : And provided further, That no officer, soldier, seaman, or marine, or other person in the army or navy of the United States, or attached to troops in the service of the United States, shall be allowed to vote or hold office in said territory by reason of being on service therein." o If the section passes as it stands, it is, beyond all question, that foreign- ers in the territory, and not being in the service of the United States, may vote, no difi'erence what may have been their character abroad, or what their inducement to come here — however discreditable to the coun- try from which they came, they have nothing to do but to make a bare declaration of their intention to become a citizen, and take an oath to support the Constitution, to entitle them to vote; while American citi- zens, who have been so from their birth, and whose characters are above reproach, if they are in the military service of their country in these territories, will, by the same act, be denied the right to vote. I ask 24 370 ALBERT G. BROWN. senators to pause before they legislate to give foreigners rights which are denied to our own citizens upon American soil. How will this act operate practically, if you pass it in the words in which it now stands ? The officers commanding your army, the soldiers who are serving under your banner, and who are placed upon your frontiers to defend your women and children from the tomahawk of the savage, will be denied the elective franchise, while the thousands and tens of thousands who are pouring upon our shores from every part of God's habitable globe, will be entitled to that sacred privilege. Why, sir, if Santa Anna should be expelled from Mexico to-morrow, as he may be, and should take up his residence in one of these territories, he may vote the day after he gets there, if this bill passes ; and Winfield Scott, whose name is em- blazoned on every page of his country's history, and whose impress is on every battle-field from the St. Lawrence to the city of Mexico, if he was there stationed at the order of the President, would not be allowed the same privilege. I ask honorable senators if it is not so, that by the proposed legislation we are about to say to the General-in-chief of the American army, you shall not vote in a territory conquered by your arms ; and to the deserter from the enemy's camp, you may vote ! Shall we do this ? Shall we say to the venerable soldier who has served his country for forty years, Avho has fought more battles, and fought them better than any living man, shall we say to Winfield Scott, who, whatever may be his faults as a politician, deserves his country's grati- tude, you shall not vote in Kansas or Nebraska : and then shall we say to the outcasts of the Old World, to the wanderers and vagabonds, to the prison-birds and spawn of infamy, you may vote ? I hope not. Let no man charge that I am hostile to foreigners. We invite them to our shores, and I would receive them kindly and treat them generously ; but when I am asked to stand up in the American Senate and give to foreigners the right of suftrage, and in the same breath deny it to Ame- rican citizens, I say plainly I cannot do it. I have heard before of putting foreigners on equal footing with Ame- ricans, but this is the first time when I have been called upon to give them an advantage. And what is the reason assigned ? Look at the bill. No officer or soldier of the army shall be allowed to vote in the territory by reason of his being on service there. It is sufficient for his exclusion from the polls that he bears his country's arms, that he en- counters the dangers of the camp, and the perils of the battle-field. But a foreigner — what of him ? He may spurn your arms, insult your flag, spit upon your laws ; and then say he means to become a citizen, and swear to support your Constitution, and you let him vote. A thousand I soldiers, with Scott or Wool at their head, may be ordered to Nebraska the day after this bill passes, and not one of them can vote. By reason of being on service in the territory they are excluded ; while a thousand foreigners, just landed, may vote, and the next day abandon the terri- tory for ever. For, mark you, they are to declare their intention to become citizens of the United States — not of Nebraska. Just think of Scott or Wool, at the head of a thousand Americans, guarding a thousand Irish or Dutch against Indian assaults while they vote, and then guard- ing them on their march out of the country, and hear Pat or Haunce blessing this land of liberty, where foreigners vote and Americans look on in silence ! ALIEN SUFFRAGE. 371 I am told, sir, by way of alarm on this subject, that if the bill is sent back to the House it will be lost. I have had no evidence of that ; and if I had, I would not be so alarmed as to do that which my judgment does not sanction. I am here as an American senator, to vote upon my responsibility ; and I must do it with the aid of such lights as are before me. Mr. President, we are to-day making up a record which will be looked to by coming generations. What do we every day? Why, sir, we go back to the records of the past, and inquire what those have done who went before us ? Do we always examine into the reasons which influenced the votes ? No, sir. Senators get up and say, on a question which they claim as a precedent, so many voted in the affirmative, and so many in the negative. When the present passes away, this vote will be recorded against you ; and you will be told, that here, on the 25th day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fiftj/^-four, the American Senate, deliberately, upon a motion to strike out this provision, refused to do it by so many yeas to so many nays, thereby declaring to all the world, that foreigners may vote on a bare declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States and an oath to support the Constitution ; while a citizen soldier may not, by reason of his being in his country's service, do the same thing. This is the precedent you are^ making to-day. The Chinese have a proverb, That curses, like chickens, come home to roost. I pray that this pre- cedent may not come home to us, in after time, v.'ith the double power of a political curse. Sir, the interests, the rights, the honor of my constituents are to be put at hazard on this vote. I have already said our own citizens, if they are soldiers, will be denied the right to participate in the proceed- ings in these territories in any manner, shape, or form. If we have a thousand American citizens there, and they happen to be soldiers, they are to stand off and see their rights and interests committed to foreign- ers. These foreigners may have no interest in your country, may not have read its Constitution, and may be wholly incapable of feeling any attachment for our institutions. I call upon senators to reflect before they proceed further in this business. I tell you this record will be brought up in future time, just as the records of our ancestors are brought up now ; and our descendants will be told that, because we did this to- day, they may do it in all time to come. I am not unbalanced by this appeal to our fears. The House of Representatives may not do its duty ; but that does not prove that we must fail to do ours. I intend to do my duty, and if others fail to do theirs, let each member be responsible to his conscience, to his constituents, and to his God. Again, I have been told that a certain class of senators will now vote to strike out this provision, though they sustained it before, with the view of embarrassing the bill. I do not know what these gentlemen mean to do. I am not in their company or confidence, I have had no consultation with them ; but they will show that on this, or on a former occasion, they failed of acting from conscientious convictions, if they give the vote suggested. When the motion was formerly made by the senator from Delaware [Mr. Clayton], they all voted against it ; and if they go for it now, merely that they may embarrass the bill, their mo- tives Avill be subjected to severe criticism. I do not believe they will ; I know nothing about it ; but, whatever they may do, I mean, as I said 372 ALBERT G. BROWN. before, to discharge my duty as an American senator. I want these abolition gentlemen to understand distinctly that I am not to be chased about from one side of the bill to the other, just as they think proper to shape their course. If I vote for a proposition and they against it, when they come in favor of it I am not bound to be against it — there is no consistency in that. While I arraign the motives of no man, call no man's motives in question, I think there is precious little judgment in acting on a policy of that kind. Let us all act upon our honest, con- scientious convictions of what is right. I said, in the beginning, that I had no speech to make on this subject, and I have none ; but I cannot reconcile it to my sense of right to vote for a proposition which gives to a foreigner, I care not who he may be, or under what circumstances he may come to our shore, the right to vote in these territories, and then deny the same right to any American citi- zen who may happen to be in the territory in the service of the country as a soldier or officer in the army. I will not, I cannot do that. I do not say that if the amendment fails I shall vote against the bill. Ever since I came into Congress I have been the firm and steadfast opponent of this Missouri restriction. Nay, sir, ever since I raised my voice as a politician, from my earliest service as a public man, I have warred against the measure as a great and monstrous outrage upon the Con- stitution of the United States, and upon the rights and honor of the southern people. I am prepared to make many and very great sacrifices to get clear of this odious restriction ; to vote for many things of which I cannot approve, by way of getting clear of it. But I am here asked to retain this alien provision ; and the vote is to be taken on this propo- sition separately and distinctly. It stands by itself, and is to be valid, to the exclusion of everything else. Now, our votes are to stand in all after-time as an indication of our sentiments on this particular section of the bill, separately and distinctly. Is it right in itself, and by itself? That is the question ; and honorable senators will see at once that it is a very important question. I know very well that frequently a bill like this, covering, as this does, thirty-seven pages of printed matter, and making in one of our daily newspapers some seven or eight columns, may pass without every member being able to scrutinize and examine every provision in it ; but when a matter of this sort is brought up in bold relief before you, with a clear and distinct proposition to strike out a particular section, and the mind of every senator is drawn distinctly to the language of it, it must be some great, powerful, overruling influence which would justify any senator in refusing to give his vote to strike it out, if, in his heart, he thinks it wrong. I have seen no such influence. I apprehend that, if the bill goes back to the House of Representatives, they will either agree or disagree to our amendment. If they disagree to it, a committee of conference is the necessary consequence; and if, in the end, we must yield sooner than lose the bill, that will be another proposition. With- out a single member of the House being committed on this question in any shape or form, so far as the voting shows, am I to be told that I must swallow this bitter pill, gulp it down, and not say a word against it, for fear of endangering the success of the bill ? I feel none of that sort of apprehension ; for you have the balance of this year before you in the Senate. There is no press of time. The session is not going to THE KANSAS BILL. • 373 close in two or three davs, and thus cut us off in the midst of our dclib- erations on this or other questions. I have heard no reason assigned yet why this bill may not as well pass with this provision stricken out as with it in. All these things whispered around the chamber, which we hear outside of the debate, will be lost to posterity, and nothing will remain of this transaction but the votes which we put upon the record. I put my vote there. I want it to be a vote I can stand by to-morrow, next year, and the year after, and which my children can stand by when I shall be in my grave. It is said the bill will certainly be lost if it goes back to the House. I do not believe it. There is not one particle of evidence to sustain it. Its friends are in a majority there ; and if they are not, the bill ought not to pass. If the bill were ten thousand times better than it is, I would not have it become a law against the will of a majority. I shall, for the reasons stated, and without detaining the Senate longer, vote for the amendment, but with no purpose to destroy the bill. I have given as much evidence as most senators that I am its friend. Things have been put into it which are objectionable to me. I have never denied, every one knows, that the proviso moved by the senator from North Carolina [Mr. Badger] was distasteful to me. The amendment proposed by the author of the bill was not exactly to my notion. I took it all, however, and went for the bill. But when I am asked, by a separate and distinct vote, to sanction the kind of legislation embodied in this particular section now proposed to be stricken out, I must have stronger reasons than any I have yet heard, or I will refuse to do it. To vote for this section by itself is one thing ; to vote for it along with the repeal of the Missouri restriction is another, and very different thing. THE KANSAS BILL. CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE KANSAS BILL, IN THE SENATE, MAY 25, 1854. It now lacks only ten minutes of eleven o'clock. Of course I do not intend, at this late hour, to detain the Senate with any further remarks on this bill ; nor do I design to offer any amendments. But I do not mean that the bill shall pass without my saying to the Senate and to the country that there are two amendments which I intended to have proposed if the Senate had not already indicated, in distinct terms, that it is resolved to pass the bill in its present form. I am not going to run counter to the sentiment of the Senate ; but when I have a clear and distinct opinion upon any subject, I am willing to express that opinion before the Senate and before the world ; and having a clear conviction upon my mind that there are at least two defects in this bill, I wish, be- fore the vote is taken, to point them out. I am willing that it may stand upon record, for me or against me, through all time, that I thought these were defects. The first is in the fourteenth section of the bill. After speaking of the Missouri compromise, it says : — 374 ALBERT G. BROWN. "Which, bein^ inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in tiie states and territories, as recognised by the legislation of 1850, connnonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void." I intended to move to strike out the words which relate to the compro- mise measures of 1850 from the word " with," in line twenty-three, to the word " is," in line twenty-six, and insert " the Constitution of the United States," so as to make it read: "which, being inconsistent with tlie Constitution of the United States, is hereby declared inoperative and void." I would much rather stand by the Constitution than by the compromise. I have much more respect for the Constitution than for the compromise. I need not say that I never have been for that com- promise, am not for it now, and never expect to be for it. I have been for the Constitution, am for it now, and ever expect to be for it. I acquiesce in the compromise of 1850, just as we all did in the compro- mise of 1820, without approving it. The next amendment which I intended to propose, was an addition to the proviso moved originally by the senator from North Carolina [Mr. Badger]. I will read that proviso : — " Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of 6th March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery." I intended to move to add these words : — "And that no law of Congress, or law or decree of any foreign government in force on the 1st day of August, 1850, shall be so cf)nstrued as io protect, establish, prohibit, or abolish slavery in any of the organized territories of the United States." It will be seen at once that my object would be to extend the terms of the proviso moved by the senator from North Carolina to all the organized territories of the United States. I have not seen, I do not now see, any reason why we should make a distinction between Kansas or Nebraska and Utah or New Mexico, between Kansas or Nebraska and Washington or Oregon. Slavery is prohibited in Washington and Oregon by the direct action of Congress. It is as positive legislation on the part of Congress as was the act of 1820. It was approved by a Democratic president ; but it never received the sanction of my vote. Then, sir, if the laws of France or Spain, in force in Kansas and Ne- braska at one time, clearly and distinctly protecting slavery, are to be repealed, I know of no reason, founded in sound judgment, why we should not apply the same rule to Utah and New Mexico, and repeal the Mexican law abolishing slavery in those territories. If it be true that the act of 1820, prohibiting slavery north of 36° 30', and in the country now called Nebraska, has become inoperative and void, I know of no reason why the same thing has not occurred in the country north of the same line, and known as Oregon and Washing- ton. If Congress had no power to pass the prohibitory act of 1820, excluding slavery from Kansas and Nebraska, it had none to pass the more recent act of 1849, excluding it from Oregon. If we are called upon to repeal the first, we are equally called upon to repeal the last. And again, if it is right to declare that the laws in force prior to the 6th of March, 1820, protecting, prohibiting, establishing, or abolishing slavery in Kansas and Nebraska, shall not be revived, the truth being that these laws did protect slavery, I know of no reason why the law" ALIEN SUFFRAGE. 875 existing prior to 1850, either by Mexican legislation, as In Utali and New Mexico, or by our own legislation, as in Oregon and Wasliington, should not bo repealed, the fact being that these laws 'prohibit slavery. I want to see the laws in all the territories reduced to a uniform stand- ard on the subject of slavery. I shall not, at this late hour of the night, when I know that senators are impatient to take the vote, press these considerations upon the Senate. But I cannot forbear saying that, with these two amendments, the bill would have been much more acceptable to me than it is in its present form. With them, and with the amendment which has just been voted down, it would be entirely acceptable to me. I have voted in favor of the amendment of the senator from Maryland. I now look upon the provision which it proposed to strike out, as I look upon other provisions in the bill, as pernicious. The provision does not meet the sanction of my judgment. But, sir, there is a great overruling and con- trolling principle established in the bill, which commands my vote in despite of all the objectionable features embodied in it ; and that is, that it proposes to abrogate the odious Missouri restriction — a restriction which, six years ago, and as often as I have had occasion to speak of it since, I declared to be in violation of the Constitution, in derogation of the rights of my constituents, and an insult to the whole southern peo- ple. By no deed or word of mine can I sanction, or seem to sanction, the continuance of that act upon the statute-book. I shall, therefore, notwithstanding its objectionable features, still vote for the bill. I think it is due to myself, and not at all disrespectful to gentlemen who disagree with me, to say, that with the amendments I have suggested, the bill would be more acceptable to me than it is in its present form. ALIEN SUFFEAGE. SPEECH IN THE SENATE, JULY 10, 1854, ON ALIEN SUFFRAGE. Mr. President : I may vote against striking out this section. I rather think I shall ; and I wish to submit one or two observations in explana- tion of my present views. I do not put the construction upon this sec- tion which other senators have placed upon it. My reading of it is not the same as theirs. It provides : — " That if any individual, now a resident of any one of the states or territories, and not a citizen of the United States, but, at the time of making such application for the benefit of this act, shall have filed a declaration of intention, as required by the natu- ralization laws of the United States, and shall become a citizen of the same he/ore the issuance of the patent, as made and provided for in this act." "As made and provided for in this act." Take that language in cor. nection with the rest of the bill, and what do we ascertain ? The bill elsewhere provides that the patent shall issue at the expiration of five years. It is "made and provided" that it shall do so. It is clear to my mind that if an alien born seeks the benefits of this act, he can ob- tain them only on the condition of his perfecting his citizenship in the 376 ALBERT G. BROWN. five years. The act only proposes to hold the land in reserve for him five years. In that time he may complete his citizenship, if he chooses. If he fails, he loses all rights under the act. He cannot receive the title, because, having had the opportunity of becoming a citizen compe- tent to receive it, he has voluntarily declined doing so. The means are "made and provided" for him; and if he rejects them it is his own fault. I think the construction placed upon the section by some senators, that a foreigner may continue to reside on the land without becoming a citizen, is not sustained by the language of the section. If he has filed his declaration of intention to become a citizen, and shall actually be- come so within the five years, a patent shall issue to him, just as though he were a native-born citizen. That is all that the section means, according to my reading of it. If he fails to become a citizen, at the expiration of the five years, he cannot receive the title, and government, having complied with its part of the engagement, may, and doubtless will, sell the land to any one else who may offer himself as a purchaser. Now, sir, a few words as to granting lands at all to foreign-born people. I am, perhaps, as much opposed as any gentleman in the Senate to conferring political rights on foreigners, as long as they are such ; but when they have been naturalized, when they have been, by our laws, placed upon the same footing with American-born citizens, then, and then only, am I ready to admit them to all the rights of citizenship. But, sir, during this session of the Senate we have made a very marked exception to that general rule. We have, by the almost unanimous vote of the Senate, authorized, in the two important territories which we have just organized — Kansas and Nebraska — foreign-born people, who are not yet citizens, to vote, and we have admitted them to all the poli- tical rights of our own native citizens. And now, sir, shall we hesitate when we are asked simply to allow these same people to settle upon a piece of public land ? How can the mere fact of a foreigner settling upon a bit of land affect the political prosperity or property of the coun- try ? How is it going to affect the political rights of our people ? His settlement there does not give him the right to vote ; it does not give him the right to hold office ; it confers upon him no political authority. And as far as the mere occupancy of the soil, it no more affects the rights of native-born citizens, or the political rights of the country, one way or another, than if the man were back in Germany or in Ireland. It is the right of suffrage, the right to vote, and to hold office by the votes of other foreigners like himself, that interferes with our people and our politics. We get a marked advantage from having laborers employed on the public lands ; and the labor of a foreigner is quite as productive as though he were a native-born citizen. Every bushel of corn that he raises, every bushel of wheat, every ounce of produce of every kind which he makes by his labor, enters into the general wealth of the nation, and to the same extent as though he were a native-born citizen. Then, I say, that so far as this bill goes, you grant him no right except the mere right of occupying the land and cultivating it ; and, in return for this, he gives you all that a native-born citizen would give you ; he gives you the products of his labor as an addition to the general wealth. I cannot, myself, see the propriety of first admitting foreigners to all the ALIEN SUFFRAGE. ' 377 political rig;hts of Araerican-born citizens, and then stopping short when jou are only asked to allow them to occupy and cultivate the wild lands of the West. If they arc are fit to vote and hold office, I hardly think we shall be seriously damaged by allowing them to mingle their labor with the soil which we allow them to govern. If they do any part of the voting, I am for getting as much work out of them as possible ; and if they have a fancy for cultivating the soil, I am clear for letting them do it. I think there is a manifest propriety, wlien you have admitted a man to political rights, that you should provide for him in some way a home; and that, too, at the cheapest rate at which it can be supplied. What is your interest, sir; what is manifestly your interest towards these people whom you have allowed, by your legislation, to vote in Kansas and Nebraska ; and, I believe, in all the other territories ? It is to settle them down, to make them permanent inhabitants of the country, to stop their roving disposition, to get them out of your cities and towns, and identify them as early as possible with the soil. That, I believe, is our true policy. If I could have had my way, I never would have admitted these people to political rights until they had been here long enough to learn something of our laws, long enough to learn and study and under- stand our Constitution ; but the policy of the country, as marked out by the two branches of the legislature, and sanctioned by the President, has been different. It has been to admit them to all the rights of citizen- ship, so far as votinnf and holding; office in these territories are concerned. Now, I am not going to stop short and say to a man, "though you may have the same right to vote as a najtive-born citizen ; though you have the same right to hold office as a native-born citizen, you shall not have the same right to occupy the land ; though you may govern, you shall not occupy the soil." I see no propriety in this — no reason for it. Why, sir, I would rather any sort of a foreigner should occupy a quarter sec- tion of land than it should be occupied by a wolf or a bear. I would rather that any sort of a foreigner, who would cultivate it, should occupy it, than a savage. And this upon the principle which I have already stated, that his labor is just as valuable as though it were the labor of a native-born citizen. It is worth as much, and the products of it will sell for as much in the market, and go as far in subsisting the country. According to the bill, you do not give him a title until he is a citizen, and made so according to the laws of the land. When he is made a citizen, then, I say, not only in reference to this, but in reference to all other rights, I am for putting him upon a footing with natives-born. It is said many of these emigrants are bad men; doubtless, this is true. But will he be made a better man by keeping him in a city or town ? The best thing that can be done Avith a bad man is to put him to work, and, as long as you can keep him at it, he will be out of mis- chief. Upon the broad principle that one man's labor is as good as another's in raising corn, wheat, cotton, rice, or tobacco, I am willing to see every foreio-ner iro to work on the public lands. When he becomes a citizen in tlie regular way, I would admit him to all the rights of a citizen, political as well as others. I would not give him the title until he became a citizen ; but if he wanted to work the land, I would tell him to go ahead. It would make a better man of him ; and when he came to 378 ALBERT G. BROWN. he a citizen, he would love the land all the more in which he had mingled his sweat. You committed a grievous fault when you authorized foreigners to vote and govern the country. You cannot atone for it hy refusing them the right to work the land which they govern. Note. — By reference to pao;e 573, another speech of Mr. Brown on the same sub- ject, in connection with the Minnesota Bill, will be found. GKADUATION BILL. REMARKS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JULY 20, 1854, ON THE GRADUATION BILL OP MR. HUNTER OF VIRGINIA. Mr. President : The proposition of the senator from Virginia presents, in my opinion, the most stupendous land scheme that has ever been presented to the American Congress. It proposes, by one single stroke, to give up the authority of this government, over about one billion five hundred million acres of land. Mr. Clay. If the states will accept. Mr. Brown. My friend from Alabama suggests " if the states will accept." That is a suggestion which it is scarcely worth making, be- cause we know they will accept. When you have passed this bill, the authority of Congress over the public lands will be extinct in the states. I believe the territories are excluded. Now, sir, in deference to the opinion of my friends on this floor, being a new state man, coming from a state which is to derive benefits from the passage of this proposition, I shall vote for it ; but here on this evening, at six o'clock, I protest, that if any evil is to come of it, it must be charged to my friends and not to myself. I have had no opportunity of investigating in detail a great scheme like this, the most magnificent and the most stupendous that has ever been brought before Consirress ; a scheme which it ouo-ht to take months and months to deliberate upon. Why, sir, the proposition of the senator from Virginia has eleven sections and thirteen provisos. There are thirteen separate and distinct limitations to the granted powers. What they all mean, I say again, as a common county-court lawyer (and I never aspired to any higher reputation), I have had no opportunity of weighing and deliberately considering. I doubt whether there is a senator on this floor, except the senator from Virginia, who has had any opportunity, or, having it, has been able, in this extremely hot Aveather, to avail himself of that opportunity of weighing and examining this proposition as it ought to be done, considering the magnitude of the interests involved. Other schemes propose to parcel out the public lands in very small quantities ; but here you have a great and magnificent scheme which divides out the whole at one single leap. I feel that I ought to pause and weigh my mind long in the balance whether I ought not to vote against this proposition, at least until I shall have had time to consider it. But, in looking around the cham- GRADUATION BILL. 879 ber, I find my friends disposed to go for it. I Lope it ■nil! tuiii out well ; but I notify you, gentlemen from the South and West, and from the land states particularly, if this turn out to be a political iniquity, I wash my hands of it now. Charge part to the senator from Virginia, and the greater part to the men from the new states. A great portion of the public lands in the old congressional district which I had the honor to represent, in the other House, and to whose people I am under deep and lasting obligation, are interested in this proposition. They were entitled to buy their lands at ^1.25 an acre. Congress granted alternate sections to a railroad running through that district, north and south, and increased the price of the reserved sections to $2.50 an acre. Scarcely a mail comes to me from Mississippi which does not bring some complaint of the gross injustice of that act. Now, sir, when you are reducing the price of the adjoining lands to twenty- five, and even as low as twelve and a half cents an acre, am I to stand here and see those people oppressed by the exaction of $2.50 an acre for their lands ? Shall a man who lives within six miles of a railroad be required to pay $2.50 an acre for his land, and he who lives six miles and a quarter from it, be allowed to take his at twelve and a half cents ? Within the distance to which the railroad provision applies, I want you to apply your graduation principle. Why should not the reserved sections be graduated as other lands are graduated, if the graduation be right in point of principle ? If you are to reduce a quarter section of land outside of the six miles to twelve and a half cents an acre, why shall you not reduce the quarter section inside of the six miles to twenty-five cents an acre ? I want to have some sensi- ble reason for that. You have acted upon the principle that the build- ing of a railroad has doubled the price of the land, so as to make it worth $2.50; but you have now come to the conclusion that the lands shall be reduced one-half in value or four-fifths in value. Why shall you not reduce that land as well as the other ? I am not asking you to reduce the land within the line of the railroad below the double value ; but to reduce it as you reduce the other lands. If you ask twentj^-five cents an acre for lands outside of the six miles, then ask fifty cents an acre for land of the same class within the six miles. If you ask but twelve and a half cents outside of it, then ask twenty-five cents inside of it. Let the same scale of graduation apply everywhere. I cannot consent, sir, that my hardy constituents, the pioneers of the country, those who have lived there, and felt the oppression of your legislation heretofore ; who have never received the benefits of your railroad projects; who have only felt your policy in doubling the price of the lands, shall now have their land kept up at twenty times its value. Mark you, you are reducing the land outside of the six miles to twelve and a half cents an acre, but you are keeping the land with- in the six miles at $2.50 an acre, which makes twenty times as much inside of the six miles as outside of the six miles. I want to know where is the propriety, where is the reason, where is the logic, which will justify conduct like that? I ask, in moving this amendment, that you shall apply the same scale of graduation inside of the six miles, on either side of the railroad, which you apply outside of the six miles. Outside the six miles you sell at twelve and a half cents, inside you 380 ALBERT G. BROWN. should ask no more than double that sum — since it is on the principle of doubling the minimum that you made the grant. In reply to Mr. Yulee he said : — I think I understand the argument of my friend from Florida per- fectly. We have made grants to railroad companies, and have promised that we shall charge double the price for the remaining sections, there- by, as it seems, granting to them that they should sell their sections at $2.50 an acre ; in other words, that we Avould not undersell or force their lands into the market at low prices. Then the whole question is narrowed down to a controversy between the people and the railroad company ; and in that controversy, I am free to say, I take the side of the people. I want railroads built. I want railroad companies to pros- per ; but never shall I stand up here, or elsewhere, and advocate the interests of a railroad company at the expense of my laboring and toil- ing constituents. If a railroad is to be built by wringing from the pock- ets of my laboring constituents their hard-earned money, they may remain unbuilt till the latest hour of time, so far as I am concerned. The whole argument of my friend from Florida resolves itself into the point, that because we have entered into some sort of an engagement with a railroad company, we must not undersell them. "We must not do it for fear we violate faith ; and though we may reduce the price of the public lands in favor of everybody else, yet to those hapless people who reside within six miles of the railroad, we will not ma,ke any reduc- tion whatever. I am unwilling to sanction any such proposition by my vote. I am willing to aid railroads, but I come here not to represent railroad corporations, or railroad monopolists, but as the representative of that portion of the American people who live in the state from which I come, and to their interest I will be faithful, come what may, and let the railroads go to where they choose. On the 7th May, 1856, Mr. Brown spoke on the subject of titles under the Graduation Act, as follows : — I submit the following resolution, and I ask for its immediate con- sideration : — Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lands be instructed to inquire into and report what legislation is necessary to secure the United States against fraudulent entries under the graduation act, and what is necessary to quiet titles of purchasers under said act. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the reso- lution. Mr. Brown. I wish to submit a few words of explanation before the vote is takoi on the resolution. The Department of the Interior, through the General Land Office, has issued two or three circulars in reference to entries under the graduation act of August, 1854. Their design is a good one — to protect the government against fraudulent entries under that act. The intention of Congress in passing that law was to secure its benefits to actual settlers on the public lands. Doubtless in some cases speculators have been engaged in making entries, through third persons, for their own benefit, which certainly never was contemplated by the act; but the Land Office has issued circulars, the effect of which has been to disquiet the titles of all who have entered lands under the graduation GRADUATION BILL. 381 act. One circular required all persons "who made such entries to come forward -within two months and purge their entries of fraud, hy making certain additional affidavits, not prescribed by the law, but by the regu- lations of the department. A second circular extends the period within which they may come forward with additional proof to twelve months. The effect of this upon the bona fide purchaser has been to throw a shade over his title. The law has not forbidden him to sell the land if he has entered it in good faith, for his own use, and not for purposes of speculation ; but if he finds it to be to his advantage to sell, he cannot now do so because of the shade thrown over his title by the orders from the department. I object to these orders for another reason. While the law did not lay down any rules which should establish fraud in the entry of land, the department has undertaken to lay down a general rule, and to make it apply to all entries, whether good, bad, or indifferent. Every man who has entered land under that act is required, by an order of the department, to come forward in twelve months and do certain things, and in default of doing them he is notified that his entry will be vacated and a patent withheld. Why ? Not because all the entries are supposed to be fraudulent ; not because one-tenth part of them can, by any pos- sibility, be fraudulent ; but because the department has a suspicion — • probably a well-grounded suspicion — that some entries are fraudulent, it applies this rule to all who have entered under the law. The bona fide purchaser, who has complied in good faith with the requisitions of the law — who has done his whole duty in good faith, is required to do pre- cisely what the man who enters in bad faith and in fraud of the law is called upon to do. I do not pretend to say what ought to be done ; but I do declare that bona fide, honest purchasers ought not to have their titles thus disquieted by suspicion being thrown over them. They ought not to be disturbed in their peaceful and quiet possession of the property which they have purchased, and for which they have paid all that the government de- manded of them, and this on a simple order from one of the depart- ments of the government. I desire that the committee on public lands shall inquire what legis- lation is necessary to secure the government against fraud. If it be found that the principles embodied in these orders are necessary, let us enact them into law ; let Congress pass a law embodying these orders in the form of a congressional enactment, and rescue parties who hold good titles from the disturbance imposed upon them by mere orders from the land department. At the same time, if anything can be done to relieve bona fide, honest purchasers and settlers from the suspicion thrown over their title by the orders from the department, I wish it to done, and done promptly. My constituents are writing to me constantly of the effects which these orders are producing on their titles. They -feel insecure. They are put to the trouble sometimes of going consider- ible distances to make new affidavits at additional cost to secure their :itle, after they have done everything which the law requires — after they lave paid their money and received their certificate. So far as I am concerned, I do not believe that these orders amount anvthing. I have no idea that the general land office or the interior epartment has the right to lay down a general rule by which it will 382 ALBERT G. BROWN. determine fraud and vacate titles whicli are acquired under an act of Congress by purchase. What right has the land office to say to me, after I have complied with the law, paid my money, and received my certificate, that if I do not come forward and do something else which is not required by the law, but is simply prescribed by the land office, they will vacate my title ? The proposition, I feel assured, cannot be maintained legally ; but the consequence of this state of things is to cause a great deal of disturbance to settlers who are actual, bona fide purchasers. It is for the purpose of putting an end to those disturbances that I ask this inquiry. In reply to Mr. Stuart, Mr. Brown said : — I certainly did not mean to be understood as unnecessarily or even severely criticising the course which the Secretary thought it his duty to pursue. He doubtless has done what he thought was right. I differ from him. I think that the action of the department shows that the department itself is not very harmonious on the subject. First, a circu- lar was issued, requiring these additional affidavits to be made within two months. When that circular has had the effect of disturbing the title of the purchaser, the department finds out that the time allowed is too short, and extends it to twelve months. That time I think too short; I consider any time whatever too short. My friend from Michigan seems to think that it is the patent which gives a man a title to his land. I differ with him on that point. It is the act of purchasing and paying the money under the law, and in accord- ance with the requirements of the law, that gives the purchaser his title. The patent is but the evidence of a title already acquired and possessed. I have no idea that, when A or B has purchased a tract in accordance with the law, the department has a right to lay down rules subsequently which will vacate his title, unless it be first established that the purchase was made by fraud. I grant you that fraud will vitiate the purchase, and will overturn the title. What I object to, however, is laying down a general rule by which fraud is to be presumed and adjudged against all parties, whether they are honest or dishonest. If my friend had gone forward and made a bona fide purchase, complying with all the regula- tions which had been made previous to the time of his entry, I hold that he would get a good title against the government, and against the world. If his neighbor went forward and made an entry in fraud of the law, he would have a defective title — or rather no title at all. But you must first establish the existence of the fraud before you can overturn his title. What I object to in these circulars is, that they lay down a general rule by which the department arrives at the conclusion that fraud has existed in all cases. That rule is, that unless a man comes forward and complies with certain requirements within twelve months, the depart- ment will adjudge the entry to have been fraudulent, will set it aside, and refuse a patent. That, I say, they have no riglit to do. If the committee and Congress shall judge that to be proper in the premises, let us enact it into a law. I object to the department making laws. I do not mean certainly to charge that the Secretary intended to do it, but I mean to say that such is my judgment of the transaction, and that the action of the department has had the effect of disturbing the quiet of hundreds, and I may say thousands, of my constituents, who have pur- chased land under this law, honestly and in good faith ; but they will JOINT COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS. 383 not be able to comply with these rules, or, at any rate, compliance with them will be attended with a great deal of trouble. These are the reasons why I desire to have this inquiry made. The resolution was agreed to. • JOINT COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS. SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, DECEMBER 19, 1854, ON HIS PROPOSITION TO ESTABLISH A JOINT COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS. In pursuance of notice given yesterday, I now introduce a resolution providing for an additional joint rule of the two Houses : — Resolved, (the House of Representatives concurring), That the following be added to the standing rules of the two Houses of Congress: — There shall be appointed a standing committee of the Senate to consist of seven members, and another of the House of Kepresentatives to consist of thirteen members, to be called, in each House, the General Committee on Claims. It shall be the duty of said committee in the House of Representatives to report a bill at each session of Congress making appropriations for the payment of private claims. When the several committees of the House report in favor of any claim, the report, with the evidence on which it is based, shall be referred, and without debate and as a matter of privi- le^'^e, to the said General Committee on Claims, and if that committee, after due examination, concur in said report, they shall insert an item for the payment of said olaim in the bill for the payment of private claims, and thereupon submit a report and the evidences to the House to be printed, or otherwise disposed of as tlie House may direct. When the bill aforesaid is reported from the House to the Senate, it shall forthwith be referred to the General Committee on Claims in the Senate, and they shall proceed to insert therein such items as may in like manner in the Senate 8S in the House have been reported from the several committees, and have received tvlso the sanction of said General Committee. The said bill, before its final passage ifl either House, shall be read by sections, and a separate vote taken on each section bject of this provision in the bill, the language in which it is drawn is very much misapplied. So far as taking up a bill at a subsequent ses- sion of the same Congress is concerned, wo do that every day. That is all right; but the point which I make is, that this measure requires that bills shall be continued from Congress to Congress, and that I maintain you have no power to do ; at least, such is my judgment, and I, of course, give it with great deference. I may be mistaken, but it does strike me, with great force, that you have no right to do such a thing. At any rate, about this I am not mistaken, that this is the first time in the history of this government when there has been an attempt to do such a thing. If you can do it in reference to claims, why may you not do it in reference to all bills, and all other legislative business ? If you can do it in reference to private claims, why can you not continue all business from Congress to Cengress ; and whatever we leave undone at the close of this Congress, hand over to the next, and they take it where we leave it ? I say this is commencing a very serious innovation; and if this be not the object, the language should be so changed as to leave no doubt of it. I have other objections, Mr. President, to this bill, which I will not detain the Senate by assigning now. The objections which I have stated, if I had none othei% are insuperable with me, and I cannot, un- der any circumstances, vote for this bill. JOINT COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS. 389 Mr. Hunter of Virginia having replied to Mr. Brown, lie rejoined as follows : — I wish to say a few words in reply to the senator from Vir- ginia. He brings me to that point to which I supposed we should be brought in the discussion of this bill, and that is, that when the reports of the court are made to Congress, Congress is to pass them ncm. con. Mr. Hunter. I did not say so. i Mr. Brown. The senator says he did not say so, but his whole argu- ment went to prove it so, and I will undertake to show to the senator that he has come as near saying so as ninety-nine and three-quarter cents are to a dollar. He alluded to my argument against the expense of this proceeding — and how did he answer it ? By saying that the dis- cussion of one private bill now consumes more money than the whole expense of this court would be. Are we not to discuss these private bills when they come from the court ? If we are, what becomes of the senator's argument about expense ? for the same discussion will bo had then, I apprehend, as now. What becomes of that argument unless we pass the bills without discussion, which I said in the beginning was expected of us ? Mr. Hunter. I will correct my friend. My argument was this : I hope and believe this court wull entitle itself to the confidence of Con- gress, and will have so much of the confidence of Congress, that in general its decisions will not require revision ; that the cases requiring revision will be the exception and not the general rule. Mr. Brown. Then that is one step further in the same direction which I was pointing out — that this court is to have the confidence of Congress, as the senator expresses it, and we are to register what it tells us without discussion. I dare say there will be an attempt to stifle dis- cussion here and in the other House of Congress, and to force the deci- sion of the court upon us, whether we will or not. I protest, in advance, against any such thing. I dare say it will be done ; but I have no doubt that after two or three years shall have elapsed, its proceedings will be discussed. I know they ought to be discussed from the commencement, because I know that the obligation of appropriating money belongs not to a court, but to Conoi-ress. That member of Congress who fails to dis- cuss or understand thoroughly a bill appropriating money before he votes on it, is not discharging his duty to the Constitution. Why was Con- gress required to appropriate money ? Why was this responsibility riveted upon us, which we are now endeavoring to shake oft"? It was that the people's representatives — those who are amenable to the people and to the states — should give an account of the disposition which they make of the people's money. Here, sir, we have a proceeding which is to relieve us of this responsibility. We are to have so much confidence in this court, that we are not to discuss its proQeedings, except now and then, I suppose, simply to keep up a show of discharging our duties. This is precisely what I apprehended in the beginning, because I saw, from the commencement, that unless we did that, we should have made by this movement — as I have already stated — not one step in advance of the position which we at present occupy. Unless you pass, without discussion, the bills sent by the proposed court, you will have accom- plished nothing by its organization ; and if you do discuss them, the court is a nullity, not worth a sixpence. 890 ALBERT G. BROWN. On the same day Mr. Brown again spoke as follows : — Mr. President, I should not again trouble the Senate — and I only mean now to speak a few minutes — if senators had not stated my position entirely as though I were averse to these private claims. I must have labored to little purpose, if I have not convinced every one who pays the least attention to my course, that I have always sympathized deeply and earnestly with claimants, and, perhaps, said as much, and endeavored to do as much, as any other senator, or any other member of the other House of Congress, to relieve this branch of the government, and, at the same time, relieve the wants of private claimants. It is, as I under- took to demonstrate this morning, because this bill does not accomplish either of those objects, that I am opposed to it. I do not wonder that claimants should be in favor of this proposition. A man in a frying- pan would be very apt to jump into the fire — anything for a change. Claimants have suffered, I know, for years and years, under the inaction of Congress. I have ahvays been ready and anxious to act in their favor ; but when you make a change at all, I want it to be a beneficial change ; and the point which I undertook to make this morning was, that, before senators should insist upon the passage of this bill, they should show that the bills coming from the court would be more readily acted upon than bills coming from a committee ; for I insist that, until that is shown, you have not shown that this bill will give relief either to Congress or to claimants. I want to show, while I am up, that so far from this bill giving relief to the claimants, it will be a total denial of justice to all small claimants. Why ? It involves an amount of expense to them which they will never be enabled to pay, unless they have a claim for some thousands of dol- lars. Suppose there should be a claimant in one of the remote states, as Florida, or California, or in one of the remote territories, as Oregon, or Washington, for $500. Now, he presents his claim to his representative or delegate, and he brings it here before Congress, and gets some sort of investigation — it does not amount to a great deal, it is true, but it does not cost him anything. Establish the court, and what will you require of him ? He must, in the beginning, employ an attorney to present his claim to it, according to form ; for here you are prescribing that petitions shall be drawn up in form, and then you are authorizing the court to lay down the rules which are to govern it. What will a poor fellow away off in Florida, or California, or in one of the remote territories, know of the forms and rules of this court ? How is he to get his case fairly before the court, otherwise than by employ- ing an attorney ? What next ? The court is to send out a commission — a commission from Washington City to Florida, or Oregon, or some other remote point, to take testimony ; and if testimony is to be taken in favor of the claimant, he is to pay the expense of it. What private claimant can afford to pay the attorney's fees and expenses of this com- mission simply to get justice from his government? I stand up here, and in the name of those claimants, protest against the iniquity of this thing. It is our business to give justice to our creditors, and not impose upon them expenses which will amount to a total denial of justice. You have it in your power to do it without encumbering them with those ex- penses. You ought to do it ; and if you are faithful to yourselves and to the Constitution, you will do it. JOINT COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS. 391 I want some one to show me liow these enormous expenses are to he avoided. What attorney will take a claim from a remote state without his fee ? The court will have its own rules, and will not consider a case without testimony. Ex parte testimony will not be considered. A com- mission will be sent out to take testimony anoAV. The claimant must pay the expense, so far as his side of the case is concerned. That ex- pense must necessarily swallow up all the profits of the claim ; and then, when he has paid the expenses, where does he stand ? Precisely where he stands to-day, with a bill before Congress, which would be no more likely to pass on account of the expenses incurred and paid, than it is likely to pass now, unless you do as my friend from Delaware has said, pass it because of your confidence in the court. Sir, confidence is a plant of sickly growth ; the very moment that you breathe suspicion upon it, it will be like the Exchange Bank of Washington. When con- fidence was destroyed, the bank went down. When confidence is de- stroyed in the court, the court will go down. Members will not be apt, after once being imposed upon by a decision from the court, to pass other bills without consideration ; and when you come to discuss them as you discuss bills now, this discussion will occur upon every proposition as it comes up, as I will now proceed to demonstrate. The expense of the discussion of bills coming from the court will be equal to the expense of the discussion of bills coming from a committee ; therefore, my friend's argument all falls to the ground. How will the discussion arise ? There will be outside parties, ready to complain that justice has not been done to the government, or to other parties ; or the claimant will say that he got but some fifteen, or twenty, or fifty per centum of what he claims. He will say to his friends : " Injustice has been done to me ; I want you to investigate this case ; I want a discus- sion before the Senate about it." In every case where a claimant has not got all he asked for, he will demand discussion ; when he has got all he has demanded, some ill-natured friend of his will be very apt to prompt discussion. One single member rises and attacks a bill on the ground of the insufficiency of the testimony ; then you will have all the discus- sion on a bill coming from the court that you have on a bill coming from a committee. You cannot keep down these discussions ; and above all, Mr. Presi- dent, you cannot prevent the utterance of those two potential words in the House of Representatives, "I object." "I object" has destroyed more bills in that House than the most eloquent arguments have ever carried through it. That same potent " I object" will be there to meet your bills from this court, as they have met your bills from committees ; not because there is any reason in it, not because there is justice in it, but because members think proper to say " I object." I ask those who have served in the other House of Congress, if this is not true, and to the letter, according to their experience ? Mr. Hunter. The senator from Mississippi seems to think that this bill will entail a great deal of expense on the petitioner. I think not. It requires him to do in the court what our rules require him to do here, file a petition, state the persons interested, and the action of Congress and the department upon it — a thing that he can do without an attorney, if he can draw up a petition at all. Mr. Brown. We all know that the representatives of the people do 392 ALBERT G. BROAVN. not take note of the want of form. We do not care whether the peti- tion is precisely addressed according to the forms of kAV, whether it opens and concludes properly, or not. We look to the substance of the thing ; but what Avill the court do ? What do we authorize them to do ? Why, to make their own rules. What do courts do ? Where is the private citizen in this country who can get his case fairly into court, and fairly out of it, without the aid of an attorney ? Are not attorneys required in all courts ? Has not the ingenuity of legislators in the several states been racked for years, seeking to dispense Avith attorneys before a court ? And what has it all resulted in ? Why, in imposing additional burdens upon the claimant. Where a private party goes into court, he must go with the aid of legal counsel, and so this court will require the same thing, whatever may be the pretensions or honest con- victions of gentlemen. PKIYATEER BFJG GENERAL ARMSTRONG. SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 26, 1855, ON THE CLAIM OF THE OWNERS OF THE PRIVATEER BRIG GENERAL ARM- STRONG, DESTROYED IN THE PORT OF FAYAL, PORTUGAL, IN VIOLATION OF THE NEUTRALITY OF THAT PORT. Mr. President : As I voted for this claim before, and intend to do so again, I desire in a few words, to assign the reasons which govern that vote. The facts in the early history of this case seem to be well understood, and about them there is little or no controversy, here or anywhere else. That the brig General Armstrong was attacked by a greatly superior force, in a neutral port, where she made a most signal defence; one which reflected high honor upon the nation, and upon all the parties engaged on our side of the controversy, seems to be everywhere admitted. That she was attacked in violation of the law of nations, seems never to have been disputed at any time. Through all the changes of adminis- tration, there has not been found a Secretary of State, or a President who has not insisted that the attack was in violation of law, and that an obligation was thereby imposed upon Portugal to indemnify the claim- ants. Portugal resisted, and our government continued to insist upon satisfaction until we were brought, under the administration of the late General Taylor, almost to the very verge of a conflict with that govern- ment, growing out of this claim. Portugal has been discharged ; and the question arises, by whose agency ? It is admitted that the Secretary of State of the United States agreed to an arbitration of the case ; and it is nowhere insisted that he consulted the clients of the government — for I shall so treat them — as to whether the case should be thus submitted or not. Assuming that he had the right to do so, he exercised it, and submitted the case to arbitration without their consent. The submission was to the late Presi- dent of the Republic of France ; but before he rendered his decision he became the Emperor of that country. PRIVATEER BRIG GENERAL ARMSTRONG. C93 Now, sir, I am not going into any minute investigation of each par- ticular fact in the progress of this case ; but I shall endeavor to touch on those facts which are most prominent, and, in my judgment, ought to govern our decision. Up to the point Avhere we now are there seems to be no controversy about the facts ; but the senator from Tennessee asks whether it was not within the knowledge of these claimants that the case was submitted, and whether they protested against it ? Well, sir, I apprehend that, if an attorney employed to prosecute a suit decides it out of the ordinary course of his profession, he will render himself liable if the money is lost; in other words, if I employ you, Mr. President, or any other gentleman, as a lawyer, to prosecute my case, and you submit it to arbitration without my consent, you render yourself liable to me for whatever damage I may sustain thereby. But it is said that you may protect yourself by a charge that I had knowledge of the fact that there had been such a submission, and that I did not protest against it. If tbis be not a violation of one of the established rules of law, it comes so exceedingly close to it that I hardly perceive the difference. It is an attempt to force on the claimants here the proof of a negative. If the government gave them notice, it is the duty of the government to show that the notice was given. If they had notice, let those who take the affirmative of that proposition come forward with the proof, and not impose on the claimants the necessity of proving a negative — that they did not consent. My own clear judgment is, that, the government of Portugal havino- been originally liable, and our government having discharged that lia- bility by its own mismanagement of the case, has obliged itself to make indemnity to these claimants ; and upon that broad principle I shall place my vote. I will not follow the lawyers through all the little technicalities of the case, seeking a little technical objection here, and another one somewhere else, by which .we may discharge ourselves from an honest obligation to these parties. Sir, Avho is the claimant, and what were the services rendered by him in the beginning of this claim ? As gallant a soldier as ever drew a blade in defence of his country ; a man who, by universal consent, fought the most gallant action that was ever fought upon the bosom of the waters, in proportion to the numbers employed. Wiien before, sir, in the history of naval warfare has it been known that a little brig, with five or six guns and ninety men, could stand out in noble resistance against more than five times its strength, and come out of the conflict with only two men killed, when there lay dead on the decks of the enemy more than twenty times that number? When this transaction first occurred, if history speaks truly, it electrified every American heart from one extremity of the Union to the other. I dare say, if, at that time, the gallant old captain who stood upon the deck of the Armstrong in this conflict, had come to his government, and asked for payment for his ship, it would have been rendered, and there would have been no cavilling about it. The govern- ment would have said : " Here, my gallant son, take the money, and we will demand a return of it from Portugal ; but so far as you are con- cerned, your ship shall not be sacrificed unlawfully in the defence of your country, and we stand by and permit it to be done without makinff an effort to save you and your men from ruin." In such a case as this, sir, I cannot persuade myself to sink down to the mere technicalities of the 894 ALBERT G. BROWN. lawyer, for there is too much in the history of the case, too much in the gallantry of the great and good old man who prefers the claim, for me to descend to those little particulars. Sir, Captain Reid is not known to this country alone as the com- mander of the armed brig in this conflict. Y'lx your eye as you come to the Capitol upon that flag which waves over us to-day, and ask who is its author ? Sir, the author of that flag, the man who designed it, is the claimant in this case. It was under his humble roof, by the hands of his wife and daughters, that the first flag that ever floated over this Capitol was manufactured. In every way he has manifested his devotion to his country, his deep and lasting devotion to America, to her institutions, and to her honor ; not only toiling in season but out of season in her defence ; and shall we, the representatives of the states, stand here to- day cavilling upon little miserable technicalities of the law, such as lawyers resort to in courts of law and courts of equity, to avoid the payment of honest claims ? I have great respect, not only personally, for my friend from Michigan [Mr. Stuart], but I have the greatest respect for his astuteness as a lawyer ; and if he were in court to-day pleading for some man who was trying to resist the payment of an honest claim, I should applaud his technicalities and say they were Avell taken. His was a lawyer-like speech. I am not prepared to say that, according to the strict rules of technical law, it was not a correct speech. As between A and B — A trying to avoid the payment of an honest debt on a technicality — I think the speech would have been well delivered ; but I think it was out of place in the Senate of the United States for a great nation to attempt to get rid of an honest claim, preferred by a high- souled and patriotic citizen, who has shed his blood in defence of the country, who has reflected glory upon his flag. For myself, sir, I repeat, I am satisfied this government has made itself liable, in law, for the pay- ment of the claim ; but whether liable or not, I am going to vote on the broad principle that old Reid fought the battle, that somebody was responsible for the loss of his ship, that that responsibility has been removed from the party who was clearly liable, and that we ought to make up the damage. LETTER AGAINST KNOW-NOTHIjSTGISM. Newtown, Hinds Co., Miss., April 12, 1855. Dear Sir : — Yours of March 21st, inviting an expression of my views in reference to the new political organization called "Know-Nothings," has been received. It has all along been my intention to avail myself of some suitable occasion to express my opinions of this Order. None arose while Congress was in session, and the limits of a letter, such as I am now called upon to write, hardly aftbrd scope enough for a full expression and vindication of the views entertained by me. I content myself for the present, therefore, with a glance at some of the more prominent points of the issues presented. Personally, I know nothing of the " Know-Nothings." Taking it for granted that common fame presents the Order in its true colors, it is a i LETTER AGAINST KNOW-NOTHINGISM. , 395 secret political organization gotten up for the ostensible purpose of ex- cluding Roman Catholics from office, and foreign born persons from office and the right of voting. If I misstate the object of the party it is because, in the absence of any public avowal of its purposes, 1 am compelled to rely for information upon common rumor. I am opposed to all secret political organizations. The laws should be made, construed, and administered in the open face of day. From the first suggestion that gives them shape, to the final act of their com- plete execution, all should be public as the sun at noon-day. The history of the Jacobins, the Star Chamber, and the Inquisition, give us many and painful proofs that liberty is a by-word, and life a mockery, when the laws are either made, adjudged, or executed in private. It will be said, I know, that the new Order does not propose to legislate in secret. This is an unworthy evasion. If it is agreed in secret to pass particular laws, and men are chosen in secret, and secretly bound by oaths to enact them, of what avail is it that they go through the forms of legislation in public. The Jacobins consulted and agreed in private, but they went through the forms of legislation in public. The result was that they deluged France in blood. If we consent to pass laws in secret or through secret agencies, how long will it be before we shall be called on to revive the Star Chamber, and pass judgment in secret ? And when this is done, will not the Inquisition shake the dust from its implements of death, and claim the right to execute in secret ? Thus may be revived in republican America the appalling and bloody tragedies that blacken the pages of EngHsh, French, and Spanish his- tory. The secrecy observed by the Know-Nothings cannot be excused on the plea that all political parties hold secret caucuses. Whigs and Democrats avow their party associations — inscribe their principles on the banners they unfurl, and publicly — in the newspapers, on the stump, and everywhere else, vindicate their principles. They consult privately as to the means of reaching a conclusion ; but the conclusion once reached, it is openly proclaimed. Not so with the Know-Nothings ; they do not avow their party associations. As a party, they avow no principles before the public ; and of course enter into no defence of their principles in the newspapers, on the stump, or elsewhere. They consult in secret, and when conclusions are reached they are made known only to the initiated. There is, therefore, no parallel between a Whig or Democratic caucus and a Know-Nothing lodge. A vain effort has been made to excuse the secrecy of the Know- Nothings, by citing the example of Free Masons, Odd Fellows, and other benevolent associations. Things to be compared must have some sort of resemblance to each other. Free Mason and Odd Fellow asso- ciations are purely charitable. Know-Nothings are exclusively political. We have the highest Christian example for dispensing charities in secret. But the same high authority teaches us to govern openly. I am American enough to prefer my own countrymen to any other, and Protestant enough to prefer a follower of Luther to a disciple of Loyola. But my love of country will for ever keep me out of any asso- ciation that (if fame speaks truly) binds its members by terrible oaths to sustain American Protestants for office, though they may be fools, 396 ALBERT G. BROWN. knaves, or traitors, in preference to Irish or German Catholics, though they may have genius, honor, and the highest evidences of patriotic devotion to our country and its institutions. All other things heing equal, I should certainly prefer an American Protestant to an Irish CathoHc. But I will take no oath nor come under any party obligation that may compel me to sustain a fool or a knave, in preference to a man of sense and honor. While I assume no censorship over other men's thoughts or actions, I am free to say for myself alone, that such oaths and such obligations are, to my mind, palpably at war with man's high- est and most sacred duty to his country. To my mind the secret feature of the Know-Nothing organization, though paramount, is not its only objectionable feature. A party that is worth joining and worth sustaining ought to have some permanent, palpable, and lasting principles — some principles that can be carried into useful and active practice in the administration of the government. Have the Know-Nothings such principles ? To my comprehension, as at present advised, they have not — can they, for example, by any sys- tem of legislation, short of a radical change in our Federal and State Constitutions, exclude Roman Catholics from the right of suffrage or the right of holding office. Our enlightened and liberal Constitution, as we all know, makes no invidious discrimination against Catholics, but ex- tends the segis of its protection over thera and all religionists, assuring them of their right to worship God after the dictates of their own con- science. I am a progressive Democrat, but I have not progressed far enough to make war on the guaranties of the Constitution, to gratify a hatred of the Pope, or to undertake, by stealth, to accomplish that which the Constitution has forbidden me to do openly. I am for the Constitution as it is written, and among the last of its guaranties that I would disturb is that in reference to religious freedom. How any man, schooled in our institutions and accustomed to the free- dom of religious worship, which he sees every day, can desire any change, surpasses my comprehension. Theology is not my profession, and I leave to the learned D.D.'s the discussion of the relative merits of the several Christian denominations, gently hinting that such discussions suit the pulpit better than the bar room. And as they should be con- ducted for the honor of God and the glory of his church, the secrecy of a Know-Nothing lodge may, I think, be safely dispensed with. I may be mistaken, but if there is anything to be gained, of a practical nature, by the projected war of the Know-Nothings against the Catholics, it has eluded my observation. The idea of excluding foreign born persons from office and the right of voting, is not quite so visionary, but practically it amounts to but very little more. It is a palpable but common error, that the right to vote is inseparable from citizenship. Many people appear to think that none but native or adopted citizens can vote in this country. This is a great mistake. Whatever may have been the individual opinions of men who framed the Federal Constitution, they practically ignored all control by Congress over the ballot box. They very properly gave to Congress the sole right to make a citizen of a foreign born person, but they wisely left with the states the power to regulate the right of voting. Each state, for itself and within its own limits, declares who shall vote. In the exercise of this right, Virginia and other states have imposed pro- LETTER AGAINST KNOW-NOTHINGISM. 397 pertj qualifications ; Mississippi and some others allow every Avliite male citizen, over the age of twenty-one years, to vote ; while Illinois, Michi- gan, and perhaps others, allow male inlialntants (including foreigners not naturalized), to exercise the right of suffrage. The Constitution of the United States allows qualified voters for memhers of the state legis- lature to vote for Congressmen; and this is the only limitation, restric- tion, or regulation that is imposed, or can be imposed, without a change of the Constitution. Presidential electors are chosen as each state for itself may elect; South Carolina, in the exercise of this right, has always chosen hers by a vote of the legislature. In what manner, then, allow me to ask, with great respect, will the Know-Nothings authorize Congress to exercise control over a subject that belongs exclusively to the states ? I do not understand them to propose a change of the Federal Constitution, and v.ithout such change Congress has as little control over the elective franchise as it has over the English nobility. But suppose a proposition shall be submitted to change the Constitution, so as to confer on Congress the right to deter- mine who shall vote — what is the first obstacle that interposes to the practical exercise of the right? The same that confronted the framers of the Constitution originally, to wit : Virginia would insist on a property qualification. New York would contend for free suff"rage, Illinois would demand for her alien inhabitants the right to vote, while jMississippi would contend that none but citizens should exercise that privilege. And thus we should be brought back to where we were at the beEcinninof, where we have been ever since, and where we are now — to the point of allowing those to vote within the states whom the states adjudge worthy and well qualified ; or else we should have what I suppose the extremest Federalist would not insist on — Congress marching into a state and, vi et armis, striking down the last remaining vestige of its reserved rights, by assuming control over the ballot box. The ballot box is the bulwark of liberty ; it should, under all circumstances, be kept free from im- proper influences. When secret influences are set on foot to wrest it from the states and put it under the control of Congress, the people may well tremble for the safety of their firesides. Is there one man in Mississippi who would be willing to see Congress invested with the power to determine who should vote and who should not in our state ? Would not such an investiture become the winding sheet of liberty in Missis- sippi ? and yet it comes to this, or else the proposition to exclude foreign- ers from the right of suff'rage is an empty bubble ; for I repeat, Illinois, Michigan, and other states have allowed aliens not naturalized to vote. It was their right to do so. They and any, or all the states, may do so again, and there is no power on earth to prevent it, short of a change in the Constitution. The simple question, therefore, is, " Will we abide by things as they now are, or will we change the Federal Constitution, and allow Congress to say who shall vote and who shall not?" Give Congress the power, and who will undertake to say what will be the result? If Virginia has her way, no man may be allowed to vote who does not own real property ; if Massachusetts prevails, no man will be allowed to vote who owns a slave ; if Illinois is heard, we shall have all the inhabitants voting, whether native or foreign born. I cannot help what other men may think or do, but for myself, I " will bear those ills I have, sooner than fly to others that I know not O'f." I 398 ALBERT G. BROWN. In what manner the Know-Nothings intend to exclude Catholics and foreign born persons from office, I do not exactly understand. If it is proposed to exclude them by law, the idea is simply ridiculous. The Constitution has conferred no power on the legislature, state or national, to pass any such laws. If it is meant to exclude them by refusing to vote for them, then the whole thing becomes a matter of taste, de gustibus nil disputandum. I have said that other things being equal, I should prefer an American Protestant to an Irish Catholic; but if I had to choose between Montgomery and Arnold, I should not be long in making up my mind. I have treated the subject thus far as a national question. First, be- cause I am dealing with what purports to be a national organization ; and secondly, because in Mississippi we have not been troubled with foreigners, and no one has been bold enough to propose that Mississippi shall assume control over the local affair's of New York, Pennsylvania, and other states where foreigners do most abound. The aliens residing in these states are subjected to the local jurisdiction, and if they are troublesome let the states exercise their undoubted right to control them. It is our business to attend to our own affairs. We have seen nothing practical in Know-Nothingism as a political movement thus far. There is one, and only one point discoverable by me, in the whole creed of the new order, that rises above the low degree of a mere abstraction. It is this: '' The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states," says the Constitution. A naturalized citizen of Illinois for in- stance, coming to Mississippi, would be entitled to the same privileges that would attach to a native of Illinois coming to this state ; whereas, a foreign-born inhabitant, although entitled to vote in Illinois by the laws of that state, would, if he came to Mississippi, be an alien, and entitled only to the privileges of an alien. Mississippi may admit an unnaturalized person to the right of voting, or exclude him if she chooses, but she can no more exclude a foreigner that is naturalized than she can exclude a native of another state. Mississippi could, if she choose, exclude all but natives of her own soil, but she cannot dis- criminate so as to admit the right of suffrage to the native of another state, and exclude the adopted citizens of the same state. In this view of the subject, it is admissible in Mississippi, as a part of the nation- ality, to express her opinion as to what should be the term of probation preceding naturalization. If an alien resides five years continuously in Illinois, or any other state, or in the United States, as the law now is, he is entitled to naturalization, and having obtained it, he may claim, as I have said before, all the privileges in Mississippi that rightfully belong to a native of another state. This presents the only point open to national legislation that is embraced in the whole Know-Nothing creed, as I understand it. We cannot exclude foreigners from the right of voting by act of Congress. A total repeal of the naturalization laws would not, as we have already seen, prevent a state from admitting a foreigner to vote within her limits. But the repeal of those laws would throw a foreigner upon the indulgence of each state in which he might reside. This modification would leave him the privilege, by one act of naturalization, to acquire all the rights and privileges in all the states of a native born citizen of any of the states. LETTER AGAINST KNOW-NOTHINGISM. 390 In my opinion, Congress has no right to repeal the naturalization laws. The states conferred on Congress the power to pass uniform laws of naturalization, and by that act they divested themselves, as separate independencies, of all authority over the question. To repeal the laws and refuse to pass others would be effectually to deny to foreigners, in perpetuity, the right to become citizens. A state would have the right to complain that having given to Congress the sole power to pass natu- ralization laws, Congress, by a non-use of that power, had effectually deprived its alien inhabitants of all power to become citizens. Good faith to the states making the grant, in my opinion, requires its exer- cise. But the manner of its exercise is a subject open to the sound discretion of Congress. On this point, Mississippi, as a party to the compact, has a right to be heard. If five years residence is in her opinion too short a time to entitle an alien to the privileges of a citizen, she has a right to insist on ten, fifteen, or any reasonable number of years — any number that does not amount, virtually, to a denial to the constitutional right of naturalization. A proposition to change the naturalization laws is quite a different question ; it falls within the purview of congressional legislation, and furnishes a legitimate subject for debate as a national issue. For my- self, I can say that whenever the public will or the public wants shall demand a change I am prepared for it. While I would yield nothing to the demands of fanaticism, or the spirit of intolerance, I am pre- pared to assist in carrying out whatever the calm dispassionate judgment of the country may require on this subject. I hardly feel called on to give an opinion as to what change should be made. In my character, as senator, it is my business, on a question of public policy, to follow rather than to lead public sentiment. If I gave an individual opinion, I should say, that having felt no personal inconvenience from the presence of Catholics or foreigners, I have made no complaint, and if others had been content to let tlie law remain as it is, I should have been content also. I have asked for no change, because no one in Mississippi, so far as I know, has petitioned for it, and personally I am satisfied with the law as it now is. If, however, my state, in its organic capacity, or if a majority of her people shall manifest a wish to have the law changed, and will indicate in what respect and to what extent, I will, as senator, endeavor to execute the will of the state or of the people. I have said that I would yield nothing to the demands of fanaticism or the spirit of intolerance, but I have not characterized the Knoiv- Notldng movement as fanatical or intolerant. It would be indecorous in me thus to speak of a movement in which I have reason to suppose many of my fellow-citizens are engaged. And yet I must say (and may I not hope without offence ?) that there is much, very much in the movement that I cannot approve. It comes heralded by no previous warning — ushered into being without parentage — with no purposes openly avowed, and its supporters, though often victorious, are unknown to the public. If there exists a real necessity for changing the laws of naturalization, why not submit the proposition to the calm, dispassionate judgment of the country ? — why not submit it openly ? — why so much secrecy ? Is there anything in a proposition like this, so startling that its advocates must band themselves in secret, and bind one another by terrific oaths to be faithful to their pledges ? I have all my life been 400 ALBERT G. BROWN. accustomed to think bad men who sought to elude the laws of justice, had need of secrecy and oaths to make them faithful. But among honest men, seeking to evade no law, and pursuing honest ends by fair means, I can see no use for much concealment. In expressing these views I am not taking sides against my own countrymen, I am not defending Catholicism or foreign influence in our affairs, I am not defending our foreign population in all their past con- duct, or attempting to maintain that they have been faultless in their deportment. In many things they have been to blame. They have in our large cities banded themselves together for social, religious, military, and political purposes ; thus keeping up in our midst a nationality alien to our country and distasteful to our people. They have gone to the ballot-box in large numbers, banded together as a class, to cast not American, but Irish, German, and other foreign votes. Conduct like this is indefensible. I will neither undertake to palliate or excuse it. While we open our country as an asylum to the oppressed of other lands, the least return they can make, it seems to me, is to conform heartily to our customs — mingle freely in our society — forget as soon as possible their foreign birth, and become in truth and in fact Ameri- cans in every sense of the word. But let us not forget what belongs to the dignity of the American character. I would no more think of granting a foreigner the rights of citizenship and then grudge him their exercise, than I would invite a gentleman to my house and then deny him its hospitalities. But if I invite a man to my board and he behaves with rudeness I will not press him to stay, and I may be slow to urge a visit from his kith and kin. If foreigners cominu; to America would insure to themselves a countenance of cordial national hospitality, they must respect America, its institutions, and its people. And if they expect us to keep up a standing invitation to their friends and brothers to come among us, they must show by their own conduct, that we are to be benefited, or at least not injured by their coming. There are classes of foreigners to whose presence in this country I object, and against whose coming I enter my solemn protest. I mean criminals, convicts, and paupers. Our country is neither a common jail nor an almshouse for the old world. Against the introduction of foreign criminals and convicts there is perfect unanimity of sentiment in the United States, so far as I know or have reason to believe. But the public mind is not so well settled as to the introduction of paupers. Some extremely philanthropic people protest against the exclusion of those whose greatest fault is poverty. ^Vithout entering into any meta- physical disquisition concerning the obligation of the rich to feed and clothe the poor, I content myself with saying that there is not a state in the Union that would allow another state to quarter its paupers within its limits. The rich and prosperous county of Claiborne or any other county in this state would protest at once against another county impos- ing its paupers on its bounty. What the states will not do for one another, and what one county in a state will not do for another county in the same state, the United States can hardly be expected to do for a foreign country. Foreigners have sometimes been at fault. Foreign governments have grievously wronged us by trying to palm their refuse population upon • LETTER AGAINST KNOW-NOTHINGISM. * 401 US. These are things to be complained of, but they do not demand the extreme remedy of political revolution. I am inclined to think the law is sufficient for our protection, and with a little more vigilance in its execution, all cause of complaint, I hope will vanish. If the law needs amending, let us amend it so as to give ourselves perfect safety for the future. I am speaking of things as they are, and trying to deal justly with all parties; "I will nothing extenuate, nor aught set down in malice." Good faith requires me, therefore, to go on and say that our people have not abvays been without blame. Many of our leading politicians of all parties, in their intercourse with foreigners, have been guilty of marked improprieties. If I select an example here and there, for the sake of illustration, I am not to be suspected of charging one or of excusing another. Men of all parties have been to blame. There has been too much seeking after the foreign vote. My own emphatic conviction is, that no distinction should be known between native and adopted citizens. All are Americans, and all should be treated alike. While I condemn, therefore, the Know-Nothing movement as harsh, and to a degree cruel towards foreigners, I reprobate in the strongest terms every appeal to the separate foreign vote, and every attempt, come from whom it may, to identify or unite foreigners, as a class, with one party or another. When General Scott, in the late presidential contest, went out of his way to compliment the "sweet Irish brogue," and the " silvery German accent," I thought he oft'ended the national pride of his own countrv- men, and gave to foreigners a gratuitous assurance that they constituted a separate class whose votes he would like to have. It is not quite twelve months since the Congress of the United States, by an overwhelming vote, gave to foreigners not naturalized the right of suffrage in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. I voted and spoke against this movement. But my opposition was unheeded. Many who are now for a total exclusion of foreigners from all rights, or, as a matter of extreme concession, are willing to compromise on a twentv- one years' residence as the shortest term in Avhich a foreigner can qualify himself to vote, were then the most clamorous for giving them the right without a month, a week, or even a day's residence. Men may palliate their past follies on the one side, by their excessive zeal on the other for the future. But I take leave to say that a little more consistency would inspire in me a higher degree of confidence in their good faith. 1 shall never forget the reception of Kossuth at the national capital. He came to this country breathing contempt of Washington's precepts, and the people's representatives received him with open arms. The President (Mr. Fillmore) sent his son to New York, and bid him welcome ; Congress, by an almost unanimous vote, invited him to Washington as the guest of the nation ; and when he got there, honors were lavished on him such as have not been bestoAved on any living man. There was an igno- ble rivalry between Whigs and Democrats, as to who should be the most obsequious in these attentions to this intermcddler in our affairs. Not only did they entertain him and his suite at the expense of the nation, but they spread before him a banquet such as kings might envy. And at this banquet the American Secretary of State (Mr. Webster) appeared, and made a speech highly complimentary, if not, indeed, eulogistic of the "distinguished guest." Nor did the disgusting folly stop here. 26 402 ALBERT G. BROWN. Kossuth was invited within the bar of the two Houses of Congress, and appeared in the Senate chamber, clad in an imperial uniform, with a sword girt to his side. It is creditable to the nation that this was the first, as I humbly believe it will be the last, exhibition of its kind. Is it wonderful that the national taste was offended, or the national pride aroused ? . It is said that Kossuth was the friend of liberty, and these foolish demonstrations in his favor have been excused on this ground. He made some pretty speeches, and he left on paper some stirring essays. But if he x3ver '■'■ set a squadron in the field, or did the divisions of a battle know more than a spinster," history has cruelly failed to make the least record of it. In this country, he was mainly distinguished for his impassioned appeals to our government and people to abandon the teachings of Washington, and follow him (Kossuth) in a crusade against all the world, and Austria in particular, in favor of a restoration of Hungarian independence. He would have had us embark in a bloody war to restore Hungary to a position in which she could recognise him as king. For this, his singular devotion to liberty, our public men feted, toasted, and caressed him ; grave senators and dignified representatives hung about him for days and weeks, and drank in his words as though they had fallen from inspired lips. It is curious to see how many of those who followed Kossuth like a shadow, and seemed actually to revel in the sunshine of his favor, are now become rampant Know-Nothings, and are trying to conceal their folly in running after him, by cursing all foreigners, and threatening to expel them from the country. Consis- tency, thou art indeed a jewel! I need hardly add that I voted against inviting Kossuth to Washington, and refused to participate in doing him honors after he got there. These remarks are made in no complaining spirit against my peers. If there have been faults on the part of foreigners, there have been follies on the part of our people. Preserving, as far as possible, a calm equilibrium, I have not been exasperated by one, nor taken captive by the other. To me it will be a source of unalloyed pleasure, if my fel- low-citizens shall see in the future a necessity for encouraging foreigners to become more intensely American in their habits, sentiments, and deportments, and for placing over their own conduct a closer watch. Having already drawn out this letter to a much greater length than I intended, and still omitting several points on which I could with propriety have touched, I am constrained to bring it to a close. On some proper occasion, I will undertake to analyze the constituent elements of the Know-Nothing party. To show that it is composed chiefly of Whigs, Free-Soilers, and disappointed Democrats ; to exhibit its incompatibility, and show how improbable it is that suCh incongruous materials can ever harmonize in the administration of the government. If the party was in power to-day, it could not pass one act of national importance without the grossest surrender of principle on the part of some one. How could National Whigs and National Democrats act together on issues that have separated them and their fathers for half a century; and how could either act in concert with those pestilential disturbers of the public peace, who make unceasing war on the South and its institutions ? To my mind the thing is impossible. As I mean to belong to a homogeneous party, I will stick to the Democracy. And NAVAL RETIRING BOARD. ' 403 ■why should I not ? why should not every true Democrat be faithful to his flag ? Is not Democracy now what it has ever been ? Has it not for fifty years and more administered the govei'nment with unparalleled success, lifting it up, from a few feeble and almost dependent states, to the most powerful confederation of independent sovereignties on the face of the earth ? Has it not extended our area to more than four times its original limits ; thus multiplying our domestic pursuits until their name is legion, and expanding our commerce until it takes in the four corners of the globe ? And has it not raised up a policy, at home and abroad, that entails upon us unequalled prosperity, and is literally wringing respect from all the world? Why should I or any other Democrat quit his party ? Suppose errors have been committed ; suppose men in high places have disappointed our hopes — would it have been better under a Whig or Free-Soil administration ? No, sir, Avhatever have been the errors of the past, let us look hopefully to the future. Democracy has not yet filled her mission ; and until she has, I will follow her ban- ner. She has conquei'ed many fields ; but it is her mission to conquer a universal dominion. The soldier who deserts now is, in my judgment, a traitor to liberty and the dearest interests of humanity throughout the world. The mission of Democracy is no holiday march. It is des- tined to emancipate the world — to trample thrones and sceptres under foot, and set the people free in every land. Just now the enemy is before us. He vauntingly boasts that he will drive back this young and daring cavalier. Shall we ground our arms and surrender at discretion, or shall we gird on our swords and be ready for the conflict ? The quick response of every loyal Democrat will be, " the flag, at every cost, must and shall be defended." I will give neither sleep to my eyes nor rest to the soles of my feet, until the assailants are driven back and the ban- ner of Democracy waves in triumph over every foe. With sentiments of high regard, I remain, very truly. Your friend and obedient servant, A. G. Brown. J. S. Morris, Esq., Editor "Port Gibson Reveille." NAVAL RETIRING BOARD. SPEECH IN TEE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 2, 1856, ON THE ACTION OF THE NAVAL RETIRING BOARD. Mr. President: If it had suited the purpose of other senators to allow this whole question to lie over until the Committee on Naval Affairs should have reported upon it, that course would have suited me, and I ' think would better have comported with the fitness of this occasion. ! But, since other senators have thought proper to defend their positions, I there can be no impropriety in my saying a few words in reference to my own. No more delicate or difficult question is coming before the Senate than the one which we are now considering. We have already heard 404 ALBERT G. BROAVN. complaints of the law under -which the action of the Naval Retiring Board took place, and senators, in their places, have apologized for having voted for it. Some have intimated that they voted without pro- per reflection, and that no proper opportunity was given for consideration. I voted for the law, and I have no such excuses or apologies to render. I voted for the law because officers of the navy of every grade besought me, and besought me most earnestly, to vote for it ; and my experience, I dare say, was the experience of almost every senator on this floor. Pend- ing its consideration, officers of every grade, from commodore down to an acting midshipman, besought their friends here — at least I was so besought — to give it their support. I was reluctant to do so, because I apprehended that difficulties would grow out of the execution of the law. Where there was so much unanimity in favor of the measure, I could but foresee that there was no one on the whole navy list who expected to be dropped or retired. Every officer, from the lowest to the highest, was looking for promotion. I foresaw that when some were dropped, and some fur- loughed, and some retired, dissatisfaction would spring up, and that the officers thus dealt with, by themselves and through their friends, would come here and complain of having been harshly treated. For these reasons I was reluctant to vote for the bill which was passed establishing the Naval Board. I voted for it, however, at the earnest and unanimous solicitation of officers of the navy. So far as my inter- course with them extended, no officer of the navy, of any grade, ever intimated to me, in the slightest possible degree, that the law ought not to be passed. I have no reproaches to enter against myself or others for having sustained the law. As to the manner of its execution, that is another question. I am not here, sir, to censure the Naval Board indiscriminately, and upon the complaint of every man who chances to have been dismissed, retired, or furloughed, and especially when we have not heard a solitary word from the board itself; and I confess that I am getting somewhat impatient when I see your table morning after morning crowded with complaints, reflecting more or less upon a board composed, in my opinion, of as honorable men as the country or the world has ever produced. They may have made mistakes — doubtless they have ; but hear before you strike. Let your own committee investigate the question, and make its report; and upon that report let the judgment of the Senate be pronounced. A few words, now, as to the condition of the question as it stands. The law, according to my judgment, has been executed. Gentlemen speak of repealing the law. Well, sir, suppose the eff"ects of its execution were even ten times worse than they are alleged to be, how much diffi- culty would you relieve by repealing the hnv ? Certain gentlemen have been dismissed from the naval service ; the President has stricken their names from the rolls ; they are out of the navy. Suppose you were to repeal the law, Avill you thereby restore such men to commissions ? Un- questionably not. Suppose you repeal the law in reference to those who have been furloughed ; what will be the consequence of that? They have been furloughed in obedience to an act of Congress, and the repeal of the law will not take them ofi" the furlough list and put them into- active service. Congress has no right to pass any Ij^w appointing A, B, or C to office. Gentlemen who have been stricken from the rolls are out NAVAL RETIRING BOARD. 405 of the service, and if you sit here and legislate till doomsday, you could not, in my opinion, legislate them into the service. This is no new question ; it has already been decided. If Congress had had the power of appointing men to office, it would have made a provision declaring that General Scott should be Lieutenant General. But you had no such power. It was conceded on all hands that you had no such power. It was also conceded by everybody that you had no power to pass a law requiring the President to nominate General Scott as Lieutenant Gene- ral. You only had the power to pass a bill creating that rank, and then the President, in the exercise of his duties as Executive of the United States, could nominate him if he chose, and the Senate confirm him if it chose. You have no right to legislate back again into office the gentle- men who have been dismissed from the navy. Whether their dismission was rightful or wrongful, is not the question. The question is one of constitutional power. I hold that all these appeals to Congress to legislate gentlemen out of difficulties into which they have, in some cases, been legislated at their own solicitation, are out of place. I shall be very glad to contribute whatever may be in my power to relieve those who have suffered injustice. If any man has been unjustly dismissed from the service, I am willing to hear his petition and to consider his case ; I am willing to extend to him all the relief that is in my power ; but we cannot ignore the ques- tion as to the extenc of our power. What have we the right to do in reference to the case as it is now presented ? — that is the question. Admit, if you please, that injustice has been done — that all these complaints are well founded. What can you do ? Some one says, "repeal the law." Very well, suppose you do, does that restore the dismissed officers ? You might as well talk of restoring a man to life by repealing the law under which he was executed ! The law is executed, and is a dead letter on the statute-book — as dead as an Egyptian mummy ; and the officers dismissed are as far out of the service as if they had never been in it. What can you do ? I recur to that question. It seems to me, with all due deference to the judgment of other gen- tlemen, that the Secretary of the Navy himself, in his report, has inti- mated a step in the right direction. Without undertaking to state precisely what he means, or what is his plan, I may venture to suggest that it may be this : that whenever vacancies occur in the service by death, resignation, dismissal, or otherwise, they shall be open to be filled by the nomination of gentlemen who have been dismissed improperly from the service in consequence of the action of the late board. Eor example : if B, on the active list, shall resign, or die, or be dismissed, then A, who has been improperly dismissed under the operation of this law, may be nominated by the President to take the place, and thus be restored to his rightful position in the service — a position from which it I will thus have been admitted he was improperly discharged. Unless we approach the question in some such form as that, I am at a loss to see what we can do. Even admitting that all the complaints which naval officers make, and all that are made by their friends on this floor, be true, you have no power to compel the President to nominate any one of the dismissed officers to the Senate. If you undertake to suggest to him that he ought to do it, and especially if you undertake to direct him to do it, he would 406 ALBERT G. BROWN. probably take the bit in his mouth, as I am sure he ought to do, and refuse to do it. But, unless he does nominate these men in the mode I have suggested, how are you to get them back into the service ? Accord- ing to my understanding of the law, there is but one way of restoring them to the service, and that by a nomination from the President, and confirmation by the Senate. I shall not go into a discussion of cases of individual merit or demerit ; but I should do injustice to myself if I did not say that I think the senator from Florida [Mr. Mallory], the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs, has taken the true position, so far as the individual case presented by the distinguished senator from Tennessee is concerned. I am sure I should be as slow as any senator, or as any citizen of the republic, to deny to Lieutenant Maury any honor which is his. That he has contributed largely to science, that he has reflected credit upon our common country, I am as ready to admit as any one here or else- where, and I am as proud as any senator that it is so ; but when you passed this law, what did you mean ? I take it for granted you meant Avhat you said — that you were passing a law to promote the efficiency of the navy. Is the efficiency of the navy to be promoted by having one man on shore for half a lifetime, pursuing scientific studies, and at the same time remaining in the line of promotion in the navy, while another of equal grade is encountering the dangers of the Atlantic Ocean, or the diseases incident to the coast of Africa, or is doubling the Cape of Good Hope, or is penetrating the icy northern seas ? Is the man who happens to be next to Lieutenant Maury on the list to be kept back through all after time from that promotion to which his sea service justly entitles him, because Lieutenant Maury happens to be distinguished in scientific pursuits, but who happens also to have no particular dis- tinction as a seafaring man ? I understood, most distinctly and particularly, when I voted for the law, that we were to do something which was to encourage our naval officers to pursue their profession in its fair, legitimate line — something which was to give them hope of promotion if they fairly won a title to promotion in the proper discharge of their professional duties. I did expect that those who had for a long series of years remained on shore in scientific or other pursuits, however honorable they might be, would be removed out of the way, so that those who were in the active pursuit of their profession might have an opportunity of rising in proportion to the service they had rendered. I am not, therefore, disappointed that Lieutenant Maury has been placed upon the reserved list with full pay. His position gives him an opportunity to pursue his scientific studies to his heart's content. He can add to that immense reputation which he already has, and which I am as proud as any other American to feel is yet a growing reputation ; and he will no longer stand in the way of the promotion of those Avho are engaged in active sea life. When I voted for the law, I anticipated just that sort of result, and I feel some surprise that Lieutenant Maury should desire, without encountering any of the risks or hardships of the sea, to stand in the way of those who do. If he takes the honors of civil life, let the mariners have those that belong to the sea. Nor am I more disappointed in the case of Commodore Stewart. I know the history of the gallant old commodore, and as an American I NAVAL RETIRING BOARD. 407 am proud of it. I am proud of all his naval achievements, and of his glorious services ; but I did anticipate that a man of his great age would be removed from active service, and lionorahlij retired. Sir, gentlemen must excuse me when I say it. The idea never crossed my mind that retiring these gentlemen was the slightest possible reflection upon their honor. If I could suppose that placing Commodore Stewart upon the reserved list was a reflection upon his professional, or upon his private character, I would be as ready to denounce the proceeding as any other man ; but I have never so regarded it, and do not so regard it now. Commodore Stewart has been almost literally worn out in the service of his country, and does it follow that he is dishonored because his coun- try prefers the services of a younger and more active man ? I know that the old commodore has the true ring of the metal in him. I know that he is true game. He does not appreciate the idea that he has grown old, and that his position at the head of the navy may, in the judgment of younger men than himself, impair the efficiency of the ser- vice ; but it is for that reason alone — because he has been literally worn out in the service of his country — that he has been honorably retired. No reflection on his honor was contemplated ; no indignity was intended. No man living regards him as less honored by his country or his country- men to-day than he was this day twelve months ago. This proceeding cannot, by any possibility, in the judgment of the men of this day, or in the judgment of posterity, reflect the slightest discredit upon Commo- dore Stewart. The same may be said of Lieutenant Maury, and of other gentlemen. A great deal has been said in the Senate and out of it about this having been a secret and inquisitorial proceeding. Mr. President, you and I are opposed to secret meetings of all kinds ; you and I prefer open fair dealing; but I can see — and I think if other gentlemen would look at this thing calmly they would see — many reasons why this investiga- tion ought to have been secret. While many gentlemen prefer, that whatever investigation occurred in regard to them should be open, there may be, there doubtless are, many others who would prefer that the investigation should not be quite so public ; and as neither the public interest, nor any other interest, was to be subserved in any high degree by an open proceeding, it was better to have it secret, than to wound the sensibilities of those who did not choose to have their private aftairs publicly investigated. If public opinion were directed in the proper course, it seems to me that the sound judgment of the country would be, that, in the absence of all evidence to the contrary, it must be assumed that none were dismissed for dishonorable conduct, or for conduct which was disreputable as gentlemen. I am not willing to investigate the causes of every man's dismissal. I will inquire into no man's private conduct, Avithout I am bidden ; but I give notice to all the world, that if officers of the navy, or others, come here and demand investigation, I will give it to them ; and if they find transactions paraded before the world that had better slept in secret, it is their fault, not mine. I am willing to believe that no man has been dismissed the service for base conduct of any kind. Why assume, under the language of the law, that any man has been dismissed for dishonorable conduct ? There are many other reasons pointed out in the law for which he may have been dismissed or retired. 408 ALBERT G. BROAYN. Why not assume that he was dismissed or retired for some one of these ? Age is one ; infirmity another ; incapacity, not brought upon himself by bad conduct, another ; none of these are dishonorable — incapacity arising from the want of an earnest pursuit of his profession, is another cause for retiring or dismissing officers. Retiring, or even dismissing, for such a cause, would convey no reflection upon his personal honor ; but it would simply show that the officer did not like his profession, and therefore had not pursued it xnth the eagerness necessary to the highest degree of efficiency. When you can find so many reasons in the law itself why officers should be retired, or furloughed, or dismissed the service entirely, that reflect no discredit on them, it is passing strange to see it assumed that all who are displaced are thereby dishonored. For myself, I am perfectly willing to believe that those who have been dismissed from the service are, in all the relations of private life, quite as honorable now as they were when they occupied positions on the active service list. I am so, because I can see a hundred reasons fairly deducible from the law itself why they ought to have been dismissed, which do not reflect at all upon their honor as gentlemen. I am therefore slow to take the view of this case which other gentlemen have taken, that those who have been dis- missed, retired, and furloughed, have been in some degree dishonored. The proceeding was private, and it is therefore assumed that reflections on private character were cast or meditated — verily, the Avicked flee when no man pursues. The man who is strong in his own conscious rectitude, ought not to be so easily alarmed as to the judgment that others may pronounce upon him. But I did not rise to discuss this question at any considerable length. I think this matter can be so arranged as to carry out the objects of the law, in promoting the efficiency of the navy, and at the same time guard the innocent and meritorious against all injustice. This may be done, as I intimated before, by the Executive declining to fill vacancies in the service by regular promotion, and leaving them open to be filled by the nomination and confirmation of such dismissed officers as have been improperly dealt by. This may be done. If the Senate acts in concert wiih the Executive, I feel assured this will be done. If any gentleman can suggest a better remedy, I shall be glad to hear it. The plan com- mends itself to me in this, that all who get back will do so on their merits, and not under the smoke created by a general emeute raised against the law. I am not going to vote to put things back to where they were before the law passed. We have no power to do that, and I Avould not do it if I could. After sixteen or seventeen years' constant complaints from naval officers of every grade, that there was inefficiency in the service ; and after Congress and the Executive have united in declaring that the navy did need reformation, I am not now going to stultify myself by proclaim- ing on the record that no reform was ever necessary, and that I will therefore undo all that has been done, and go back to the beginning. I am willing to give relief as far as I can, whenever justice demands it, but I want it understood that every case must stand on its own merits. This general outcry against the naval board will not move me one jot one way or the other. If errors have been committed, as doubtless there have been, I will do NAVAL RETIRING BOARD. 409 ^vhatevcr is in my power to repair them. If any man has been unjustly dismissed, I will do anything in my power to restore him to his proper position ; but I will not, at one move, restore to the navy, by my vote, all the materiel that has been cast out of it, good, bad, and indiiferent. Naval officers may have persuaded me into an error ; they may have persuaded me to believe that there was inefficiency in the service when there was really none ; but I listened to their complaints, and brought my mind to the conclusion that there was inefficiency, and that pruning and lopping off were necessary, I listened to the various and successive heads of the Navy Department, and heard the same story. The whole country became full of that complaint. There was a universal belief that reform in the navy was necessary. You have had the reform, and now you have as universal complaint against it. If we believed all that we hear in this chamber, we should be brought to the opinion that there was not a solitary man in the navy who was not perfectly efficient, afloat or ashore, and that, therefore, nothing in the way of reform was neces- sary, I do not believe that story, and I do not mean to vote as if I believed it. On the Gth of February, ]856, Mr, Brown again spoke on the same subject as follows : — I do not intend, Mr, President, to review the speech of my friend from Tennessee ; but it seems to me that, in his resolution and in his speech, he has fallen into some errors which ought to be corrected. The whole censure thrown upon the Naval Board, not only by my friend from Tennessee, but by other senators, seems to me, with all due deference to the superior judgment of other gentlemen, to be out of place, and arises from a misconception of what was the true relation of this board to the law and to the Executive of the United States. The board have not dismissed any man from the public service. They were simply authorized, under the law, to advise the President who ought to be stricken from the list of naval officers, who ought to be furloughed, and who ought to be retired on full pay or on the reserved list. Their proceedings were absolutely null and void without the approval of the President. They had no power to do anything beyond simply making a recommendation, and that needed the confirmation of the Executive before it became in anywise obligatory or effective — the Secretary of the Navy, of course, intervening between the board and the President. Therefore, sir, I hold that all the censure which is heaped on them, all the complaints that they have not kept a record, are wrong. Who had the right to demand a record, and who had the right to review that record, if any had been kept ? The President, and nobody else — the Secretary of the Navy, however, intervening between the President and the board. Sir, we are not here to revise the action of the board. When the law was passed, the Senate reserved to itself no such revisory authority. Congress authorized the appointment of a board to advise the President as to w^ho should be dismissed, who should be furloughed, and who should be placed on the reserved list. It belonged to the President, and to him alone, under the law, to revise the action of the board. With that action I hold that the Senate has no concern. It is no business of ours whether 410 ALBERT G. BROWN. they kept a record of their proceedings or not. The President has ap- proved the action of the board, and from that approval certain results have been reached ; and you are now asked to concur, not with the ac- tion of the board, but with the action of the President. Because cer- tain parties have been removed, others furloughed, and others put upon the retired list, promotions have become necessary ; and the President has made his nominations for those promotions, and you are here asked to confirm or reject those nominations. I do not pretend to say, that censure belongs anywhere, but I say that least of all can it attach to the board. Suppose that the President of the United States, without the authority of Congress, as he would have an unquestioned right to do, under the Constitution, had chosen to ap- point a board to advise him as to who should be dropped from the naval list, who should be furloughed, and who should be placed on the retired list, if one had existed — suppose he had taken it into his head to exercise his constitutional function to strike certain gentlemen from the list of naval officers, and, not feeling quite sure in his own mind who ought to be dropped, he had himself constituted a naval board to advise him — in that action, I hold that they would have been responsible to the Presi- dent, and to nobody else. Instead, however, of things taking that direc- tion, Congress by a direct statute authorized the appointment of such a board. Why was that done ? Congress believed that the President had not exercised his constitutional functions by striking inefficient officers off the list. They believed that the navy required reducing ; that it re- quired pruning ; that its dead limbs should be lopped off. With a view to enable the President to understand who were inefficient, Congress pro- vided for a board simply to advise him. The President, I say again, might very properly have demanded of the board, in writing, the reasons why they made this or that recom- mendation ; but it was for the President, and not for the Senate, to approve the action of the board. There was nothing in the law, there is nothing in the policy of the government, there is nothing in its past action, that justifies the Senate in demanding the reasons why this or that recommendation was made to the President. Our business is to re- vise the action of the Executive, and not that of the board, which was simply advisory to the President. Now, sir, have you any right to demand of the President the reasons why he approved the action of the board ? Have you any right to de- mand of a coordinate and equal branch of the government the reasons why it has displaced certain officers, and sent us the names of certain others to take their places ? I hold most emphatically that you have no such rights. If you think proper to reject a nomination made by the President, you may do so for reasons which are satisfactory to your- selves ; but you have no business to demand from the President why he has dismissed this officer or that, nor why he has made a nomination to fill a particular place. As well might the President come and demand of you the reasons why you have passed laws, or why you have refused to confirm nominations. The departments of the government are separate, distinct, and inde- pendent, each from the other. The legislative branch has no right to demand of the judiciary the reasons why they act thus and so ; the legislative branch has no business to demand of the Executive why he NAVAL RETIRING BOARD. 411 acts thus or so ; nor has either of them the right to demand of the legis- lature "vvhy we act thus or so. If our action is harmonious, it is well ; hut if any one of the departments of the government disagree, the action of the whole must necessarily fail. I confess I do not like the idea, and I do not fully understand the object of undertaking to pass by the President, and throw the censure wholly on the board, who were never required to act with any responsi- bility to the Senate, or to Congress, or to the country. It was simply an intervening board, authorized and appointed under a law to advise the Executive what he ought to do. When they gave their advice, their functions entirely ceased ; and if the President had not approved what they did, their whole action would have fallen to the ground and become null and void. The President, therefore, being the revisory power, had the right to demand the reasons why they recommended to him to do thus and so ; but as they made no recommendations to the Senate, and as the Senate is not called upon to revise their action in any way, and reserved to itself no power to make this revision when the law was passed, I maintain that this demand for reasons is altogether wrong and out of place. My friend from Tennessee says he would demand the reasons why each and- every man was displaced, and, though the assignment of those reasons might fall with crushing power on ninety-nine men, if their as- signment was necessary to rescue one fair character, he would still de- mand them. That sentiment is noble enough ; but the case did not re- quire the enunciation of any such sentiment. Some of the officers who have been retired have sent in their applications by memorial, and have demanded an investigation into the causes why they have been displaced ; and those memorials have been sent to the Committee on Naval Aftairs. You are not to conclude in advance that that committee will not dis- charge their duty and their whole duty. By what authority do senators assume that the Committee on Naval Afiairs will not make all the investigation which the case requires ; that they will not report all the facts which are involved in each particular case separately, on the memorial which has been referred to them ? It seems to me that the passage of such a resolution as this distrusts the integrity of your own committee. I hold it to be the duty of the Com- mittee on Naval Affairs to report on the separate cases which have been referred to them, as much so as to report on the memorial of any other citizen of the republic who feels that he has been aggrieved by the action of the government. When those reports are made, let us con- sider each case on its own distinct merits. I rise solemnly to protest against this mingling of the guilty with the innocent, and this idea of making a hotch-potch business of the whole concern, and dragging pri- vate gentlemen's private affairs before the Senate, and before the world, when they have made no application to be thus dragged before the Senate and before the country. If there be a single man on the list of dismissed officers, who feels that his reputation is more secure in that privacy where he now stands, than it would be by having it paraded before the Senate, I would leave him to his repose. I am not willing that one man should have his reputation fairly established, as my friend from Tennessee says, by dragging one hundred others with him, who think their reputation would be blasted by this sort of investigation. 412 ALBERT G. BROWN. I take it for granted that those who believe they have a fair record behind, and are willing to stand the test of investigation, have sent in their memorials, and have demanded the investigation ; and though Con- gress might sit until the end of this century, I would give it to them, and give it to them to their heart's content. If a record shall be brought here which will not stand the test, I notify them, I notify their friends, and all the world, that I will discuss their private characters with all the freedom with which I Avould express my views on a public measure, because they come here to demand it. I will not assume in advance, by any vote of mine, that the Com- mittee on Naval Affairs of the Senate will not discharge their duty by investigating this matter to the bottom on each man's distinct and separate petition. I think I can see in this whole proceeding here a disposition to get all these officers off by making a general commotion and general row over the whole thing, so that the responsibility shall rest equally alike upon the innocent and the guilty ; and those half-dozen or so of innocent men who have been discharged, are to drag the great car which is to carry them all back again to place. I am against that. I believe men have been dismissed who ought to have been dismissed ; I believe men have been furloughed who ought to have been furloughed ; I believe men have been put on the reserved list who ought to have been put there. That some have been dismissed who ought to have been re- tained, I have no question. I am for winnowing the whole matter, and for getting the wheat out of the chaff, and taking care of the wheat and throwing the chaff to the four winds of heaven. I do not mean, so far as my vote or ray action is concerned, to take all the chaff, with a few grains of wheat, back again. If I am not mistaken, the distinguished senator from Kentucky [Mr. Crittenden] advocated the idea, and certainly made an argument to prove that the whole law might be repealed, with a declaratory clause that things should be restored to their former position ; in other words, that you should treat the law as a certain election w"as once treated in a sister state — as though it had never been passed. I shall not take issue with the distinguished senator from Kentucky on a law point ; but I wish to make a suggestion. The repeal of the law, with a declaration that things shall be restored to the position which they occupied before the law was passed, could mean nothing else than that the Secretary of the Navy and the President had so bunglingly executed the law that they had thrown things into inextricable confusion, and that therefore it was necessary to rub out all that had been done, and make a new start. What else can it mean but that they not only failed to execute the law in its true spirit, and according to its true intent, but that they have made "confusion worse confounded," so that there is no possibility of making sense out of their proceeding. Sir, when you send an act to the President to be approved, with that implied declaration on its face, do you think he will approve it ? Do you think he will go for upsetting all that he has done under the law, when your declaration can amount to nothing else than that his proceeding is so foolish, and so absurd, and so utterly without order, that you can make nothing out of it ? I do not know what he would do in such a case. I am not ashamed to acknowledge that my relations with him are not of a character to justify me in representing him here, as I do not represent him ; but he is NAVAL RETIRING BOARD. 413 President of the United States, and I suppose, indeed I knoAv, that he has a full and proper appreciation of the dignity of his position, and of the rights -syhich attach to it. If you should undertake, by an act of this nature, to make him stultify himself, to make him admit, by the ap- proval of your act, that he had so bunglingly executed the law of Con- gress that the whole thing was thrown into utter confusion, I take it for granted he would say, " I saw clearly through the thing from the begin- ning ; I know what I meant ; this is a trick of politicians to get me into difficulty ; and I do not mean to put my signature to my own death- warrant." I take it for granted he would take some such view as tliat. Now, sir, I understand that we have already before us, if not directly, at least sufficiently for us to comprehend them, two propositions for getting out of this difficulty. One of them is to keep open the places in the navy that shall be made vacant by death or resignation, to be filled by officers who have been improperly dismissed from the service ; in other words, instead of carrying on the line of promotion in regular order, that those vacancies shall be left open, so that men who have been improperly dismissed may be restored. Some senator the other day made a good deal of complaint about the case of Commodore Stewart. It so turns out — and I mention it certainly with as much regret as any other senator can feel — that the position from which he was displaced is already vacant. If the President, in his wisdom, should think proper to restore Commodore SteAvart, there is the place ready, waiting for hira, in consequence of the unfortunate death of one of his associates. Va- cancies in the same way will occur in every grade of the service which may be filled by nominations by the President. If this does not satisfy us, another plan is presented of passing a law providing for a sufficient number of temporary captains, commanders, and lieutenants, to take in all who have been unjustly dismissed from the service. I am ready to go for either of these propositions ; I have no choice between them. If the judgment of the Senate shall be against both, I shall then be ready to go for anything else which shall be suggested from any quarter which shall do perfect and entire justice to all parties ; but as I said to the Senate on a former occasion, and as I now repeat, I do not mean to vote to restore things as they stood before the law, even though I may have the power to do it. In the first place, I do not believe you have the power to do it ; and if you had, I do not believe you ought to exercise it. If any injustice has been done, at least half a dozen modes may be pointed out by which you can do justice to those who have been wronged. There does not exist, there cannot by possi- bility exist, any sort of necessity for your repealing the law with the declaration that things shall be restored to the position which they occupied before the law was passed. I felt it due, Mr. President, to the position which I occupied in this matter, in consequence of some remarks which I made on a former occasion, to say this much. I do not think I shall ever allude to the subject again. Mr. Jones, of Tennessee. I wish to ask my friend from Mississippi a question before he resumes his seat. I do not mean to follow him in his arfrument. I understand him to assume that this is the act of the President, and that the responsibility is with the President, because all power over the subject is vested in him. His whole argument goes on the assumption that the President is omnipotent in all questions of re- 414 ALBERT G. BROWN. moval, and that therefore the President is responsible for this "whole thing. The senator tells us that there are two remedies. What are they ? One, to keep open the vacancies that may occur by death or resignation ; and the other, to provide for a temporary increase of the grades of the navy. Does not the omnipotence of the President in dismissing apply just as strongly in restoring as in dismissing ? What is the use of tallying about your remedy when this power of omnipotence has to be consulted at last ? I do not believe in the omnipotence of any man ; but if the President alone is responsible for this proceeding, being omnipotent in removals, he is equally omnipotent in restorations and nominations. I can tell my honorable friend, however, that the President is not so omnipotent as he supposes. That was manifested in the case of a very great and good man, for whom I cherish as kind feelings as any senator on this floor, and more so than some do. The contest with him showed that no president can be considered omnipotent. Have you not seen promotions in the army of the United States suspended here for two or three years, on the single application of one man ? Where, then, is the omnipotence of your President ? Have you not seen nominations sent here, and sent back to him, and returned to us, and sent back to him again, and kept in abeyance until the voice of the sovereignty of the states of this Union was heard in the confirmatory power of the Senate ? He is not omnipotent ; and so far as I am concerned, I shall never sur- render that question ; I will never vote to confirm one man whose nomi- nation he sends here until I think the injured men have had a fair hear- ing. The Senate have refused, on many occasions, to confirm nomina- tions ; they have a right to refuse again ; and the omnipotence of the President is not an argument that extends far with me. Mr. Brown. I said nothing about the omnipotence of the President. With all due deference to the acumen of my friend from Tennessee, I must say that I said nothing from which, in my opinion, he could have drawn any such inference. I spoke of the President's powers under this law. I said that the law itself gave him the right to approve the action of the board, and that until it was approved by him, it amounted literally to nothing. If the President had chosen to withhold his ap- proval from the action of the board, things would have stood precisely as they did before the law was passed. If he had chosen to approve in part, and to disapprove in part, it was his right to do so. My position was, that the action of the board amounted to nothing without the ap- proval of the President ; that it was simply an advisory body ; and that therefore the censure heaped upon the board was unjust in every sense of the term. The senator from Tennessee says, he will not vote to confirm nomina- tions. Possibly, I may agree with him in that respect. That it is the right of the Senate to reject the nominations, one and all, is true beyond _ all controversy. The question beyond that is, as to the position in which you will leave the navy if you do reject the nominations which the Presi- dent has made to fill the vacancies which have been occasioned ; and when the first nomination shall be taken up for confirmation, it will be time enough to discuss that proposition. The dealing which we have now, is not as to the point whether we will confirm nominations, but il «i BADGER AMENDMENT. 415 is, as I understand the discussion to-day, as to -whether the whole censure of this proceeding shall rest on the board for having made cer- tain recommendations which the President has approved. Now, sir, we all know perfectly well that it is the right of the Presi- dent to remove men from oflBce — a right which he exercises every day in civil life. He removes a foreign minister, or a cabinet minister, or the collector of one of your important ports, or any other oiEcer that you choose, or whole scores of them together ; and he sends in nominations of gentlemen to take their places : is it your right to demand of the President why he made those removals ? No. If you think the removals have been made from improper motives, and without just and proper reason, you may reject the successor and leave the office for the time being vacant ; but you cannot, I maintain again, demand of the President why he made the removals. That attempt was tried during the days of " Old Hickory," and he resisted it, and very properly re- sisted it, as an encroachment on his rights as the executive of the nation ; and he never would assign reasons why he dismissed anybody from office. He would not do it because you had no right to demand it. You had no right to demand it in matters relating to offices in civil life ; and if you had no right to make the demand in such cases, I maintain that you have no right to make the same demand in reference to men in the navy or army service. You may, as the senator from Tennessee suggests, refuse to confirm the nominations of the successors of those removed. That is your privilege, and that is the whole extent of it. If you fail to be satisfied that the man was removed for proper cause, you may, on that account, if you choose, refuse to confirm his successor, and leave the office vacant. That is your privilege ; but it is the privilege of the President to give reasons for the removal, or to refuse to give them, according as he thinks proper. This is my understanding of the rights of the different departments of the government. BADGER AMENDMENT. SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 20, 1854, ON THE BADGER AMENDMENT. The honorable senator from North Carolina having felt it his duty to give to the Senate and the country the reasons which influenced him, and which, in his opinion, justified him in moving the proviso when the Nebraska bill was under consideration, and the two distinguished sena- tors from South Carolina and Virginia having justified themselves before the Senate and the country in voting for that proviso, I wish to say a word in justification of myself for having voted against it. I was one of five southern men who recorded their votes against that proviso ; and though I had stood alone in the Senate, I should have voted against it. When I was called upon first to vote for the Nebraska bill, I understood that its only dealing with the Missouri compromise was 416 ALBERT G. BROWN. to repeal it. And the reason given for that repeal was, as I understood it, that originally it had been passed in violation of the Constitution, and in derogation of the rights of the southern people. This being so, a returning sense of justice, as I supposed, had induced our northern brethren* to come forward to strike it from the statute-book. That, I understood to be what Congress was called upon to do, and all that it was expected to do. If that had been done, and nothing more, we should, in my judgment, have been restored to the position which we occupied before the passage of the Missouri act. Upon what ground does the South claim its repeal, and upon Avhat ground is it conceded to us, let me ask honorable gentlemen ? We claim its repeal, because ori- ginally, as I said before, it was passed in violation of the Constitution, and in derogation of our rights ; and it is to be repealed, that we may be restored to the rights which we had before it was passed. If we are not restored to those rights, I submit to you, Mr. President, and to the country, the repeal of it is not worth a rush to us. Why should we work ourselves into a passion, excite the country, and reviveall this slavery agitation upon a mere abstraction ? and I hold that it is an abstraction, unless we are restored to the rights we had in the territory before the passage of the Missouri compromise. If we get nothing by the repeal, why repeal it ? I dare say that the Nebraska bill stands, in the minds of southern people to-day, as it stood in yours and mine at tlie beginning — as a simple proposition to repeal the Missouri compro- mise, and nothing more. When the distinguished author of the bill [Mr. Douglas] came forward with his amendment — the one which the senator fronrNorth Carolina read this morning, and which I would reproduce if I had it before me* — I hesitated long as to whether I would vote for it. It was doing a little more than I felt we had contracted to do in the begin- ing ; but finding older senators, men of more experience, more learning, more ability in every way, disposed to go for it, I finally gave up my objections. I hesitated, sir, because, among other things, I saw in it a departure from the original liberal and just purpose of restoring us to the position we had before the act of 1820. If we had the right to introduce slaves into this territory before the restriction act of 1820, the repeal of that act would have restored us to that right. The amendment moved_ by the senator from Illinois seemed to me to be a denial of that restoration. But, as this construction did not meet the sanction of older senators, 1 abandoned it. My anxiety to act in harmony with my southern friends gave an easier impulse to my decision. Imagine my surprise when I heard the senator from North Carolina gravely contending that the amendment proposed by the senator from Illinois precluded theidca of restoring the South to its original position, and that his proviso only expressed, in language more distinct, what had already been expressed in adopting the amendment of the senator from Illinois. Allow me to say, Mr. President, that I by no means concur with the senators from North Carolina and Virginia, that this bill is all the South has ever asked. If their reading of it is correct, it falls immeasurably * This is the amendment alluded to:—" It being the true intent and meaning of this act, not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate tlieir domestic insti- tutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." 1 1 BADGER AMENDMENT. 417 short of that point. The South has asked to be left alone in the enjoy- ment of all her rights — not to be legislated into or out of the territories. In 1820, Congress legislated her out of Nebraska. In 1854, it is pro- posed to repeal this unjust legislation, and restore her to her lost posi- tion. But the senator from Illinois comes forward with an amendment, which the senator from North Carolina insists precludes this idea (I take it for granted no one questions that but for the act of 1820 the southern people could have introduced slavery into this territory). The idea of restoring the French laws by repealing the Missouri act is wholly dis- pelled, we are told, by the language of the amendment first proposed. But to make assurance doubly sure, the senator from North Carolina brings in his proviso, which says in terms that no law existing prior to 1820, giving sanction or protection to slavery in these territories, shall be revived or put in force. Suppose there were laws in these ter- ritories, prior to 1820, sanctioning and protecting slavery, as I think there were, and that you repealed them by the act of 1820' — as you did, what does justice demand of you now? — not to legislate slavery into the country, no one asks that, but to repeal your repealing act, and put us back where you found us. This would be non-intervention. But it is not non-intervention for you to keep in force the laws of Mexico, which abolished slavery in Utah and New Mexico, and to repeal the laws of France, which tolerated slavery in Nebraska and Kansas. I cannot concur with my friend from North Carolina in the opinion, that in the simple act of repealing the Missouri Compromise, and thereby restoring the laws in force before its passage (admitting that those laws sanctioned and protected slavery), we should be legislating slavery into the country. We found laws in force there sanctioning slavery ; we repealed those laws in 1820. If, in 1854, we repeal the repealing act, and thereby place the original law in force, the case will stand as if we had not acted at all. So far from legislating slavery into the country, we shall simply leave things where we found them. Mr. President, in voting for the amendment of the senator from Illi- nois, I stood on the outer verge of the precipice. One hair's breadth further, I felt, would put me overboard. When the senator from North Carolina brought forward his proviso, I said promptly I would not vote for it. The senator has explained that it makes no alteration in the text of the bill as it had been amended. In this he and I difter. But suppose it does not ; then why ask us to vote for it ? If it left us where Ave stood before, why was it urged upon us ? I felt at the time that it was another concession ; thn.t it was still an- other and wider departure from the original purpose of the bill — the simple purpose of repealing the Missouri act, and leaving the South Avhere we found her — and so regarding it, I could not consent to vote for it. If the South is not restored to her position, is it not a mockery to talk about non-intervention ? She has lost her position in the territories, and by the acts of Congress, and by those alone. She had protection for slaves by virtue of the French laAvs prior to 1820, in these territories. You took it away by the act of 1820. You not only do not restore this specific right in 1854, but you have said, in so many Avords, it shall not be restored. - I beg leave to dissent from another vicAV of this subject taken by the distinguished senator from North Carolina ; but — no, I will not pursue 27 418 ALBERT G. BROWN. the discussion. I simply rose to give the reasons which influenced me in voting against the proviso of my friend from North Carolina. I felt called upon to do this from the course the discussion had taken this morninir ; and now havino; done this, and not desiring to widen the field of debate by the introduction of new topics, 1 take my seat. AMERICAN FLAG IN MEXICO. SPEECH IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 7th OF JANUARY, 1856, ON THE, CLAIMS OF GENERAL JOHN A. QUITMAN TO THE HONOR OF HAVING RAISED THE FIRST AMERICAN FLAG IN MEXICO. Mr. Foot. I ask the Senate now to proceed to the consideration of the resolution which I introduced this day week, in reference to Colonel Roberts. I understand that the senator from Mississippi [Mr. Brown] desires to submit some remarks upon it before it shall be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, that being the motion pending. I intro- duced at the same time, a joint resolution to request the President to cause a sword, with suitable devices, to be presented to Colonel Roberts, in testimony of the high sense entertained by Congress of his gallantry and good conduct at the storming of Chepultepec and taking of the city of Mexico ; but inasmuch as the Senate are acting upon a determi- nation not to receive bills or resolutions requiring the coordinate action of the other House, until that branch of Congress shall be organized, that joint resolution is withdrawn for the time being. The motion was agreed to : and the Senate resumed the consideration of the following resolution : — Resolved, That the report of Benjamin S. Roberts, Captain of the Rifles, made to General Twiggs, on returning to him the American fla^ which had been the first planted upon'the Capitol of Mexico, and which he had intrusted to the keeping of Captain Roberts in the storming of Chepultepec, and the taking of the city of Mexico, bearing date " City of Mexico, 17th September, 1847," be taken from the tiles in the office of the Secretary of the Senate, and be printed ; and that the President pro tem- pore of the Senate cause an engrossed copy thereof to be deposited in the Department of State with the flag whose history it gives, and which has already been deposited in said department by order of the Senate. The pending question was on Mr. Foot's motion to refer the resolu- tion to the Committee on Military Affairs. Mr. Brown. Mr. President, it will be recollected by the older mem- bers of this body that the flag mentioned in the resolution was intro- duced into the Senate on the second of June, 1848, by Mr. Davis, then a senator from Mississippi, and now Secretary of War. On the 1st of July of that year, as is shown by the journal, he presented a document in relation to that flag. The document then presented is the one which is now called for from the files, by the senator from Vermont. On the introduction of that document, as is shown by the debates in Congress, a discussion arose in the Senate between Mr. Davis and Mr. Foote, of Mississippi, which the curious on that subject may find at page 890 of the Congressional Globe of that year. I shall not detain the Senate AMERICAN FLAG IN MEXICO. 419 by reading it ; it is sufficient for me to remark that Senator Foote thouglit that, in the paper which was then presented, injustice was done to Major-General Quitman, who commanded the forces under whom, and at the head of whom, the first flag was placed upon the Capitol of Mexico. The paper which is oifer.ed does not disclose the fact that General Quitman was in the action at all, had anything to do with the command, or gave any orders which led to the planting of that flag upon the walls of Mexico. Because of this unintentional injustice — I am willing to admit that it is unintentional — to the major-general commanding the forces, senators at that day objected to having this paper placed upon the files of the State Department, as giving the cor- rect history of the transaction. It is noted in the debates that an angry controversy arose in reference to it. That portion of the debates has been suppressed, and very properly suppressed in my judgment. As I intend to make the paper part of my remarks — I mean the one alluded to by the senator from Vermont, which he desires to have printed, and enrolled on parchment, and filed in the State Department — I send it to the Secretary's desk, and ask to have it read. The Secretary read it as follows : — City of Mexico, September 17, 1847. Sir: I have the honor to return the American flag you intrusted to my keeping in the storming of Chepultepec and the taking of the city of Mexico. Your charge to me was : " I expect i\\&tfiag to be i\\e first planted upon the Capitol of Mexico." The commission has been executed, and the first American flag that ever floated upon the Palace of the Capitol of Mexico is now returned to you. It was also the first planted on the five-gun battery stormed and carried by tlie Kifle regiment between Chepultepec and the Garita. It was also the first planted on the batteries at the Garita, and the fust on the Citadel of Mexico. It was carried by Sergeant Manly, of " F" Company, whom I selected to bear so distinguished a flag, and the anticipations I entertained of his doing honor to the banner of his country were not disappointed. - I desire to commend him to your spe- cial consideration. This flag would have been returned through him, but for a severe wound which confines him to his quarters. It is proper that I should state that I was not with the flag when planted on the battery at the Garita, and when planted on the battery between the Garita and the city, having been detained to guard the prisoners taken at the five-gun battery assaulted by my storming party. On inspection, you will perceive that this flag has been pierced six times by the balls of the enemy. I have the honor to be, with high regard, &c., B. S. Roberts, Captain Rifles. General D. E. Twiggs, Commanding Second Division. Mr. Brown. Mr. President : It will be seen, from the reading of that letter, that I was correct in saying that it makes no mention what- ever of Major-General Quitman. Captain Roberts seems to have received this flag from General Twiggs, who was not in command at the time when this service was performed. It will be further remarked, that Captain Roberts states in his dispatch that the flag was " the first planted on the five-gun battery stormed and carried by the rifle regi- ment between Chepultepec and the Garita." He also says that it vras "the first planted on the batteries at the Garita, and the first on the citadel of Mexico." He afterwards remarks, however: — " It is proper that I should state that I was not with the flag when planted on the battery at the Garita, and when planted on the battery between the Garita and the city." 420 ALBERT G. BROWN. If Colonel Roberts \,^as not present, the history of the transaction ought to state how he came in possession of the fact, that this precise flag was the first raised at those two points, for he admits himself not to haye been personally present, and, therefore, he must have derived his information from some other quarter. Out of that has grown some controversy in which I do not wish to entangle myself; but it is better, when we are settling a transaction of this sort, in which the reputation of gentlemen who have rendered distinguished services to the country is somewhat involved, to turn our attention to the report of the General- in-Chief. I ask that the committee who shall have this question in charge, will turn their attention to Major-General Scott's report, dated " Headquarters of the Array, National Palace of Mexico, September 18th, 1847," to be found in the first volume of Senate Documents, fijst session, thirtieth Congress, 1847 and 1848, beginning at page 375. From that paper it will be seen that the General-in-Chief, after giving an account of certain consultations between officers of the army, and stating the views expressed by them, says : — " Those views I repeatedly in the course of the day communicated to Major-Gcneral Quitman ; hut heinf; in hot pursuit— gallant himself and ahly supported by Briga- dier-Generals Shields and Smith— Slnelds badly wounded Ijefore Chepultepec, and refusing to retire — as well as by all the officers and men of the column, Quitman con- tinued to press forward under flank and direct fires; carried an intermediate battery of two guns, and then the gate, before two o'clock in the afternoon, but not without proportionate loss, increased by his steady maintenance of that position." After giving some further account of the day's transactions, he says : — " Quitman within the city, adding several defences to the position he had won, and sheltering his corps as welfas practicable, now awaited the result of daylight under the guns of the formidable citadel, yet to be subdued." After the whole fighting was over, General Scott gives an account of a visit of a deputation of the city — tho city council — Avho waited upon him, for the purpose of surrendering the city on terms which he promptly rejected, and insisted upon taking it upon his own terms. After the interview he says : — "At the termination of the interview with the city deputation, I communicated, about daylight, orders to Worth and Quitman to advance slowly and cautiously (to guard against treachery) towards the heart of the city, and to occupy its stronger and more commanding points. Quilman proceeded to the (jreal plaza or square, planted guards, and hoisted the colors of the United States on the National Palace, containing the halls of Congress and executive departments of federal Mexico." Now, sir, when it is proposed to do honor to national flags because they were first planted upon the walls of Mexico, I do not choose that the name of the major-general in command, especially when that major- general is a distinguished citizen of my own state, shall be wholly omit- ted from the record without some effort on ray part, as his representa- tive in this body, to see justice done him. I am as willing as the senator from Vermont to award all possible honors to Captain Roberts, but I will never consent to see the honors of the nation bestowed upon a captain in the line to the exclusion of his major-general; and especi- ally Avhcn, in doing honor to that captain, for aught that appears on the paper, Major-General Twiggs, who was not in the field at all upon that 2 AMERICAN FLAG IN MEXICO. 421 occasion, is represented as the general who gave the order to bear the flag. Sir, the man who in after years shall examine the archives of the State Department and find this paper there, if he knew nothing else of the transaction, would be very apt to conclude that Major-Gen eral Twiggs was in command, and that Major-General Quitman" was not in the field at all, whereas the reverse was the case. I hope that the committee who shall have this question in charge will sift it to the bottom. Let Captain (now Colonel) Roberts have all the honor that is due to him. Heaven knows I would not pluck a solitary leaf from the laurel that adorns his brow. That he is a gallant soldier, I am perfectly willing and ready to admit. That he exposed his person and endangered his life in defence of his country, I am as ready to acknowledge as the senator from Vermont. But I am not willing to admit that he planted the first flag that was ever placed upon the walls of Mexico, and did it of his own will — or by the order of Major-General Twiggs. Sir, I have here a letter to which these squabbles gave rise when this question was up before. It is a letter written by Captain Roberts him- self, dated St. Louis, Missouri, July 12, 1848. I send it to the secre- tary's desk, and ask to have it read. I present this letter as the true history of the transaction rather than the one which is found on the files, and which my friend from Vermont proposes to honor. Although it does not, I think, come up to the history of the transaction as detailed by Major-General Scott, the General-in-Chief, it does make honorable mention of General Quitman, who Avas in command. The secretary read the letter, as follows : — St. Louis, Missouri, Jiihj 12, 1848. To the Editor of the " Union :" I have noticeJ, through the Washington correspondent of tlie "Journal of Com- merce," of date July 1st, giving the debate in the Senate of that day, that misunder- etandings, out of which difficulties may grow, have arisen between the friends of Generals Twiggs and Quitman touching the Jiag presented by General Twiggs to Congress. It may be proper before mischief can arise, or these misunderstandings grow further, to correct the errors that seem to be entertained relating to the history of this flag. 1 know its entire history. It is as foliates : On the 12th of September, General Smith called for two hundred and fifty picked men from General Twiggs's division, as a storming party for the assault of Chepul- tepec. I was selected by General Smith to command the party from his brigade, and, after the party was organized, was taken by him to General Twiggs's headquarters, where was this flag, which General Twiggs gave to me, saying in substance, among other things, " This is a flag I wish to go with the storming party from my division. Let me hear that it is the first flag on Chepultepec, in the city, and on the Capitol." Six non-commissioned officers and privates were selected from the Rifle regiment to bear this flag at the head of the storming column. Tiie storming party from this division (commanded by Captain Casey, Second In- fantry) reported to General Scott, at Tacubaya, before sundown, and was assigned to the command of General Quitman ; and from that time, until the flag was raised upon the Capitol, it was under his control, and all the movements of the storming party carrj^ing it were under his eye and direction. This storming party stormed and carried the strong five-gun battery commanding the Tacubaya road at the base of the hill in the rear of Chepultepec, and this fiatj was the first planted on that battery. It was also the first flag planted on the strong battery midway on the road between Chepultepec and the Garita of Belen, which was stormed and carried by the Rifle regiment, supported hj the South Carolina regi- ment. It was also i\\c first flag planted on the Garita of Belen, which work was also stormed by the Rifle regiment, supported by General Smith's entire brigade, and General Quitman's entire division. The storming of these three batteries was 422 ALBERT G. BROWN. directed by General Quitman in person, -with the assistance and support of General Smith, The fighting of the 13th ended with the day ; and at daylight next morning, Gene- ral Quitman formed his division (General Smith's brigade in front), and entered the city. He took possession of the citadel ; and by his order, delivered to me through General Smith, this flag was raised above that mighty fortress. The division ad- vanced, led by Generals Quitman and Smith on foot, and took possession of the Capitol, when this flag, by the order of General Quitman, delivered to me by a staff- officer, was raised, displaying tlie first American banner above the National Palace of Mexico. This is the entire history of the flag. I understood it to be the property of General Twiggs, and at his request returned it to him with my written report. It was borne in these actions by troops of his division, detached from his immediate command, and placed under the orders of General Quitman. If this Jlag is to become of any historical interest, its history should be truly told ; and if any merit is supposed to attach to the fortune or accident of raising the first flag upon the Capitol of Mexico, it is just to General Quitman, to have it known it was done by troops he commanded in person and under his orders. I am, sir, very truly yours, B. S. KoBERTS, Captain Rijies. Mr. Brown. Mr. President : If that had been the report which it was proposed to print by order of Congress, and to transcribe on parch- ment and file in the State Department, as containing the true history of this flag, there would probably have been no controversy about it. Here Captain Roberts again repeats that it was the first flag planted at three different points, but he admits himself not to have been at two of them. He omits to mention how he came into possession of the know- ledge of those facts, but they are yet of sufficient consequence to have given rise to controversy, and there is difference of opinion as to whether it was the first flag planted on these points. To that matter I beg to call the attention of the committee, when they shall take this subject into consideration. I desire that the letter which has just been read by the secretary, at my request, shall go to the committee, and shall be considered by them in connection with this subject. With these remarks, I am willing to let the subject go to the commit- tee. If credit is due to General Quitman, I want him to have it. If it is not due to him, I know he would scorn to take it. And now, it is but just to him, to say that, though he is a member of the House of Representatives, I have not made these remarks at his request, nor by his solicitation, nor even with his knowledge ; but his reputation belongs to the state of Mississippi, and, as one of her senators here, I have felt bound to protect it. i ■1: f OUR RELATIO^'S WITH ENGLAND. 423 OUE EELATIOXS WITH ENGLAND. JPEECH OF HON. A. G. BROWN, OF MISSISSIPPI, IN THE SENATE, MARCH 11, 1856. The Senate having under consideration the three million bill, Mr. Brown said ; — Mr. President : As the Senate is probably aware, it is not my pur- pose to address it especially on the provisions of this bill. Heretofore I have forborne to take any part in the debates which have taken place in the Senate in reference to our difficulties with Great Britain. I have pursued this course because, among other reasons, I thought it best to wait until the whole correspondence was before us, that I might have an opportunity of examining it, and speaking intelligently in reference to it, when I spoke at all. I wish now to advert very briefly to the two points of difference between this government and that of Great Britain : first, in reference to the construction of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty ; and, secondly, and perhaps more at length, in reference to the enlistment question. In this whole controversy, from the beginning down to the present time, I think our own government has been right ; but I have no war speech to make in reference to the matters of difference. I shall be most happy, as an American citizen, and as a representative of one of the states of this Union, if these difficulties can be adjusted without a resort to arms. While I shall speak plainly, and call things by their right names, I mean to utter no expression designed to excite a war spirit in the country. I must confess, sir, that I have been unable to understand how it is, or why it is, that so much difficulty has been found in reaching a proper conclusion as to what is the true construction of the now somewhat cele- brated treaty, commonly called the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. It has seemed to me froai the beginning, as it does now, that the language is susceptible of but one construction. I do not know how I shall proceed to demonstrate that which is already so clear that no language can make it plainer. In the first article it is stipulated, that " neither will ever erect or maintain any fortifications commanding the same" — that is, the canal — " or in the vicinity thereof, OR occupy, or fortify, or colonize, OR ASSUME, OR EXERCISE ANY dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America." When a party is obliged not to occupy, and not to exercise any do- minion over a particular country, the ordinary, plain, common sense of man would conclude that he could not remain in that country — that, being there, he must withdraw, because if he remains in the country he must necessarily occupy the country, and if he occupies it he must neces- sarily exercise authority over it. I know, sir, that before this treaty was ratified, the British negotiator addressed a note to the American Secretary of State, in which he said : — " In proceeding to the exchange of the ratifications of the convention signed ai Washington on the 19th of April, 1850, between her Britannic Majesty and the 424 ALBERT G. BROWN. United States of America, relative to the establishment of a communication by ship canal between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the undersigned, her Britannic Ma- iesty's Plenipotentiary, has received her Majesty's instructions to declare that her Majesty does not understand the engagements of that convention to apply to her Majesty's settlement at Honduras, or to its dependencies. Her Majesty's ratification of the said convention is exchanged under the explicit declaration above mentioned," It therefore appears that the only portion of the country, even in the vicinity of Central America, which, according to the declaration filed at the time by the British negotiator, was not covered hy the treaty, was the British settlement at Honduras. The American Secretary and nego- tiator replied to that note as follows :— "The language of the first article of the convention concluded on the 19th day of April last, between the United States and Great Britain, describing the country not to be occupied, &c., by either of the parties, was, as you know, twice approved by your government, and it was neither iinderstood by them, nor by either of us [the negotiators], to include the British settlement in Honduras (commonly called British Honduras, as distinct from the State of Honduras)." Again : — " It was understood to apply to, and does include, all the Central American states of Guatemala, Honduras, San Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica, with their just limits and proper dependencies." These notes were exchanged immediately preceding the exchange of ratifications, and of course after the treaty had been ratified by the Senate. It is, therefore, clear that it was understood on both sides by the contracting parties, at the time when the ratifications of the treaty were exchanged, that the state of Honduras, as contradistinguished from the settlement known as British Honduras, was covered by the treaty. It was understood that the whole of Central America, no matter by what name it was known, was covered by the treaty, and that both parties obliged themselves not to occupy and not to exercise dominion over any part of it. The British government undertook and maintained for a long time, or endeavored to maintain, that she had the right, notwith- standing these plain and stubborn facts, notwithstanding the plain and explicit language of the treaty, to occupy certain portions of the country which she herself admitted to be within the limits of Central America. This was her first claim, but being driven from this position, she subse- quently assumed a different ground. On the 10th of January, 1854, xMr. Buchanan informs Secretary Marcy that he had had a conversation with Lord Clarendon in reference to the points of difference between the two governments. After discussing a great number of questions, Mr. Buchanan says : — " After this we had a discursive and rambling conversation, embracing the Roatan and Belize questions, the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, and several other matters which I do not propose to detail. In the course of it he stated, distinctly, that this treaty teas, in their opinion, entirely prospective in its operation, and did not require them to abandon any of their possessions in Central America." Here, for the first time, the ground is taken that the treaty is pros- pective in its operation. The first ground, as I understand, is virtually abandoned, viz : that particular portions of territory are not covered by the general name of Central America ; but now, admitting those parts which the British occupy to be a portion of Central America, it is con- tended that the terms of the treaty are " prospective in their operation," OUR RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND. 425 and do not require them to abandon those parts which they then occu- pied. Now, sir, to the phiin, common-sense understanding of most men in private life, this woukl look very much like an attempt at fraud. Let me suppose, Mr. President, that you and I have a controversy as to tlie occupancy of a house which has five apartments, I being in the actual occupancy of one of them ; and we sign a written agreement that, from a particular date, neither of us will occupy that house or exercise au- thority over it. If I afterwards assert that I meant by this simply to be left in the possession of the fifth apartment, and that the first, second, third, and fourth were not included, in what position would I stand ? If I assumed such ground as that, and went before any intelligent jury in Christendom, and escaped with a very small portion of a reputation for honesty, I should esteem myself singularly fortunate. Such a construc- tion of such a contract would be so palpably an infraction of common sense, that honest men everywhere would declare that I was wilfully attempting to evade and to violate the agreement. Here, Great Britain admits that she did oblige herself not to occupy, or colonize, or exercise dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras, or any part of Central America ; that is, she agreed that she would not occupy the first, second, third, or fourth apartment, or any other apartment in the house ; and if she means to execute her contract in good faith, she must do precisely what an honest man would do under like circumstances — not only refuse to occupy the apartments which were vacant before she made the con- tract, but vacate the one she then occupied. If the treaty found her in possession of any part of Central America, she is obliged to abandon it. Her stipulation is, that she will not occupy or exercise dominion over any part of Central America. She cannot remain, then, without violat- ing the contract. She cannot remain there without occupying the country. She cannot maintain her positix>n without exercising dominion. She must quit the country or violate the treaty. Suppose, Mr. President, that it shall turn out, in the future examina- tion of this question, that the British negotiator was informed that the words "not to occupy" in the treaty meant "not to take or keep pos- session" of the country; suppose it shall turn out, in the course of the investigation, that the American negotiator told Sir Henry Bulwer that when we said, "You shall not occupy the country," we meant "You shall not take or keep possession of the country;" suppose this fact is not oidy known to Sir Henry Bulwer, but to-day, and at all times here- tofore, has been known to Lord Clarendon and the whole British govern- ment. I am not going to assert that it is so ; but I am going to assert that I believe it is so, and I do not make that declaration lightly. I have what I conceive to be good evidence ; I do not speak by the au- thority of the American Secretary [Mr. Clayton], but I have what I conceive to be good authority for saying to the Senate and to my coun- trymen that the British negotiator was informed that we used the words "not to occupy" as synonymous with the expression "not to take or keep possession of the country." This being so, with what sort of pro- priety — with what sort of plausibility does Lord Clarendon take the ground that the treaty is simply prospective in its operation ? If he was forewarned that he was not to take and not to keep possession of the i 426 ALBERT G. BROWN. country, he was forewarned that the treaty was not to be prospective, but that it was to be present and instantaneous in its operation. This branch of the subject has been so elaborately debated in the Senate that I do not feel disposed to pursue it at greater length. The light which the distinguished senator from Delaware [Mr. Clayton] always throws on every subject which he touches has been thrown over this question. He negotiated the treaty, and must be presumed to un- derstand what was meant by it better than any one else. He has given us the benefit of his experience and advice on this subject. His age, experience, and political advantages entitle his opinions to great weight ; and we all know that he utterly repudiates the British construction of the treaty. t Old senators, who were here and took part in the ratification of the treaty, have given us the benefits of their opinions as to what was meant by it. The distinguished senator from Vermont [Mr. Collamer], then a member of the Cabinet which advised the making and ratification of this treaty, has given us his opinion as to what was meant by it. No- where in our country has a single voice been raised to express a doubt as to the rightfulness of our construction of the treaty. Whatever may be thought of it in England, in this country there is but one opinion ; whatever may be thought of it among diplomatists, the honest, fair- minded, common-sensed yeomanry of the country will have but one opinion — and that will be, that, when Great Britain agreed not to occupy or exercise dominion over the country, she meant, if there, to go away, and, if not there, to stay away. I do not like the temper or the spirit in which this negotiation has been conducted on the British side. There seems to me to have been one of two things ; either a gross and inexcusable misunderstanding of the facts, or a light and trivial and almost contemptuous treatment of those facts. The impression left on my mind is, that Great Britain, having planted her foot in Central America, is determined, treaty or no treaty, not to withdraw it — to pursue the same policy there which has marked her course in all ages and in all parts of the world. It is the boast of her statesmen that she never abandoned a foothold. I should be as reluctant as any other citizen to see this country involved in a war with any country, and more especially with England ; but if she take this position with us, I am free to say, for one, that I would meet her on the ocean and on the land, and stand to her, man to man, until the question of her right thus to disregard her treaty obligation with us is settled. I say, I fear — I do not charge — that this is the disposition of the British cabinet. I am not, Mr. President, in the habit of paying much attention to what newspapers in this country, or in any other, may say of public men or public measures, further than as they state facts. I hokl in my hand, however, a British paper, containing a paragraph of such extra- ordinary character, that I feel disposed to lay it before the Senate ; and those who shall think proper to read the remarks which I am now sub- mitting — not as containing the sentiment of the British cabinet, for that I do not charge — not as containing the sentiments of the British people, for that I do not know — but as certainly containing the sentiments of the editor of a widely- circulated British journal, and as reflecting, it OUR RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND. 427 may be fairly presumed, the sentiments of his readers, 'who, we are informed, are very numerous. Mr. Cass. What paper is it? Mr. Brown. The London Telegraph. Mr. Cass. It has the largest circulation of any paper in England, it is said. Mr. Brown. My friend from Michigan says it has the heaviest cir- culation of any paper in England. I call the attention of southern senators to this article : — > " We are afraid there is but one way to settle this dispute, and that is, at the point of the bayonet. The aggressive spirit of the people of the United States requires an humbling, and it is for us to perform the task. England's mission is to comjilete the great AYork commenced by her in 1834, when she liberated her slaves. There are now over three million human beings held in cruel bondage in the United States ; fellow-creatures, who are prepared to go through fire and water, even to the very gates of death itself, to escape their republican task-masters ; mothers who destroy their children to save them from bondage ; fathers who would risk the funeral pyre, like the martyrs of old, to save their little ones from the ruflBan planter's lash ! And in that republican country men are burned in the public streets ; children torn from their mother's bosoms, and sold to vice and bondage; and woman with white skins even lashed to death, or compelled to submit to the licentious behest of a brutal owner! There the laws of God and of civilized man are despised, and fellow-beings are bound as brutes and sold as chattels. If, therefore, the United States government deny, and is resolved to question, the right of Great Britain to her Central American possessions, we, the people of the British Empire, are resolved to strike off the shackles from the feet of her three million slaves. And there are those amongst us who will sanctify such a glorious cause ; the people of England will deny themselves every luxury to assist their counti-y in a contest more sacred and more glorious than ever formed the watchword of the Crusaders of old, when combating the infidel hosts of a Saladin. If we have not a Richard Coeur-de-Lion, we have one name which will carry liberty to millions, and the emancipation, by '■force of arms,' of the slaves of the American states will be connected to the end of all time with that rallying word of freedom — Victoria." Mr. Butler. Will my friend from Mississippi allow me to interrupt him for a moment ? Mr. Brown. Certainly. Mr. Butler. I feel that it is an act of justice, in connection with the extract which my friend has read from the British print, atrocious as it is — and the very recital of its falsehoods makes my blood boil — to say that I have seen, in a newspaper of the United States, having, it is said, a more extensive circulation than any other, a statement scarcely less atrocious than the one which he has read from the English news- paper. I know of no part of the United States which would join more heartily in maintaining the honor of the common confederacy than the Southern States ; but, at the very time Avhen war is threatened, I read, in a ncAvspaper sent to me the other day — sent to me, perhaps, because it was feared that otherwise I would not read it — a statement that a war with Great Britain would have other results than those which have been contemplated in the maintenance of treaties ; and that one result Avould be that the Virginia capes, the Carolina shores, and all the southern coast would be open to the enemy's ships ; that there could not be found ten thousand fighting men among the effeminate owners of slaves ; but that fifty thousand well-armed, trained, and disciplined soldiers could be brought together in a short time to put down their masters, and thus effect the liberation of this class of people. 428 ALBERT G. BROWN. Now, sir, atrocious as is the sentiment of the paper from which my friend from Mississippi has read, I would not put in comparison with it one who claims the name of brother. I can meet an open enemy ; but in the case of one who claims the relation of brother, and utters such sentiments, I would rather see him burnt in a bonfire of his own papers than undertake to countenance him. I have no doubt that the Enfrlish paper, in some measure, got its information from the paper to which I allude. My friend from Mississippi has indicated a spirit to maintain the honor of this country, and the South entertains as much of that spirit as any other portion of the Union ; and yet, at the very time when we are manifesting it, a newspaper from England is quoted, deriving, I have no doubt, its information from the newspaper to which I have alluded, which has one of the most extensive circulations in the United States. Mr. Brown. Mr. President, my friend from South Carolina has anticipated most of the comment which I intend to offer on this article. I know very well that articles written in this spirit have been published in American newspapers ; and when so published they can be meant for but one purpose, and that is the same which this English writer has in view — to stir up discord, and finally to break up this government. I called attention to the article for the purpose of showing that there was a certain portion — how numerous I have no means of knowing — of the British people who are actuated by the atrocious spirit manifested by this article. Be they few or many^ their movements deserve watching. I must do the senator who handed me that paper [Mr. Foot] the justice to say that he attended it with this commentary : " However we may differ and wrangle among ourselves about slavery or anything else, if Great Britain dares to touch the humblest state in this Union, or the meanest right which belongs to an American citizen, you, sir, will find the North as ready to strike in vindication of the injury as any portion of the South." . The sentiment was a proper one. It comes from a northern senator. If that is the spirit which actuates the whole northern people, I shall be ready to defy the British lion, and tell him that if he wishes to strike for what he chooses to call liberty in this country, let him strike at once — we are prepared for the blow. But I cannot and will not overlook the fact, that while the British press is thus threaten- ing us with terrible chastisement, the British cabinet have acknowledged their weakness by a mean attempt to recruit their Crimean armies in this country. I shall not, Mr. President, review that portion — that childish portion, as I conceive it to be — of the correspondence which relates to the sub- ject of arbitrating this difiiculty. I believe that no serious proposition has ever been submitted from the British government for an arbitration. If any has been or shall be submitted, I trust that our government will promptly reject it — not for the reason assigned yesterday, hypotheti- cally, by the senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Hale], but for the reason that a great republic like ours can scarcely expect justice in a contest between us and England, where a crowned head is the umpire. I am not prepared to say that I should go for arbitration under any circumstances ; but the only umpire whom I would recognise or tolerate would be a board composed of eminent individuals, having no con- nection with government. I think the reply of Mr. Buchanan was OUR RELxiTIONS WITH ENGLAND. 429 eminently proper, when lie said laughingly — he might have said it with great propriety earnestly — to the British minister : " You arc fighting the only power in all Europe or in the world who would have the bold- ness and independence to decide this question justly." As to allowing a petty German prince — a mere stipendiary on the bounty or depend- ency on the forbearance of Great Britain — to arbitrate a great question like this between her and us, I am most emphatically against it. It would be surrendering without a struggle a right with which we cannot part. Great Britain has thrown herself across our transit from the Atlantic to the Pacific. She cannot occupy or exercise dominion over any part of Central America with any advantage to herself or without serious injury to us. She has agreed not to take or keep possession of the country, and she must fulfil her contract. We make no child's bargains with anybody, and especially one affecting the national safety. I pass now, sir, to the remaining point of difference between the two governments. I take it up on the 21st of April, 1854, when Mr. Cramp- ton commenced the correspondence by notifying our Secretary of State that the British government would not issue letters of marque and re- prisal, and requesting the strict neutrality of this government in the pending war between the Allies and Russia. He said : — " Iler Britannic Majesty's government entertains the confident hope that the United States government will receive with satisfaction the announcement of the resolutions thus taken in common by the two allied governments ; and that it will, in the spirit of just reciprocity, give orders that no privateer under Russian colors shall be equipped or victualled, or admitted with its prizes, in the ports of the United States; and also, that the citizens of the United States shall rigorously abstain from taking part in armaments of this nature, or in any other measure opposed to the duties of a strict neutrality." On the 28th of April, 1854 — ^just one week afterwards — Mr. Marcy replied, stating that he had submitted Mr. Crampton's communication to the President ; and added that he was directed by the President — " to express to her Majesty's government his satisfaction that the principle that free ships make free goods — which the United States have so long and so strenuously contended for as a neutral right, and in which some of the leading powers of Europe have concurred — is to have a qualified sanction by the practical observance of it in the present war by both Great Britain and France, two of the most powerful nations of Europe." In the same despatch, Mr. Marcy said: — ' " ' "The undersigned is directed by the President to state to her Ma-jesty's Minister to this government, that the United States, while claiming the full enjoyment of their rights as a neutral power, will observe the strictest neutrality towards each and all the belligerents. The laws of this country impose severe restrictions not only upon its own citizens, hut upon all persons who may be residents within any of the terri- tories of the United States, against equipping privateers, receiving commissions, or enlisting men therein, for the purpose of taking a part in any foreign war. It is not apprehended that there will be any attempt to violate the laws ; but should the just expectation of the President be disappointed, he will not fail in his duty to use all I the power with which he is invested to enforce obedience to them." Now, sir, three things are made plain by this correspondence : First, [that Mr. Crampton obtained the required pledge of unqualified neu- Btrality on our part ; second, that he was notified of the stringency of tour laws, and therefore put on his guard ; and third, that he was told 430 ALBERT G. BROWN. the President would most unquestionably enforce those laws. Therefore, for the enforcement of the laws, he certainly has had no just ground of complaint. And he cannot, after the date of this letter, plead that he was not fully advertised as to what the law was. Nothing further oc- curred until the 9th of June, 1855, when Mr. Marcy wrote to Mr. Buchanan that it had come to the knowledge of this government that " a plan was on foot to enlist soldiers within the limits of the United States to serve in the British army, and that rendezvous for that pur- pose had been actually opened in some of our principal cities." It cannot escape the attention of the most casual observer, at this point, that the British government, the first to ask neutrality, was the first to violate her obligations. Mr. Marcy, in this despatch, says : — " When intimations were thrown out that the British consuls in this country were aiding and encouraging this scheme of enlistment within our limits, Mr. Crauipton, her Britannic Majesty's Minister to this government, showed me the copy of a letter which he had addressed to one of them, disapproving of the proceeding, and dis- countenancing it as a violation of our laws." 'O It was very proper, on the part of Mr. Crampton, to write a letter discountenancing these proceedings, and to give notice to the British consuls that they were in violation of our law ; but, sir, we shall pre- sently see how sincere Mr. Crampton was when he showed this letter to the American Secretary of State. It has been stated broadly out of doors, and more than intimated in-doors, that our Secretary of State was, in some manner, to blame, because he did not, at an earlier day, present the double point, as against the British government, of having not only violated our municipal laws, but also of having violated our territorial rights of sovereignty under the laws of nations. That Mr. Marcy did comprehend the whole case in all its bearings from the be- ginning is manifest by the same despatch from which I have already read ; for in it he said to Mr. Buchanan : — "Besides being a disregard of our sovereign rights as an independent nation, the procedure was a clear and manifest infringement of our laws, enacted for the express purpose of maintaining our neutral relations with other powers." Here, then, in the outset, the American Secretary of State, in the very first letter which he wrote on this subject, called attention to both points of the controversy, and put the violation of our territorial rights in the foreground, mentioning, in advance of the other complaint, that it was also a violation of our municipal laws. There is, therefore, no just ground to charge that the American Secretary did not raise the two points. If the British government was not promptly advised of the double ground of complaint, it was no fault of Secretary Marcy. He certainly saw and raised both points in the onset, and put it in the fore- ground as the most important of the two, the violation of our " sovereign rights as an independent nation." g On the 6th July, 1855, Mr. Buchanan wrote to Lord Clarendon, no- tifying him fully of what had been done, and informing him of the com- plicity of the British functionaries in this country with this business, and calling his attention to the second section of the neutrality act of 1818. The language of that act is in these words : — " That if any person shall, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, enlist or enter himself, or hire or retain another person to enlist or enter himself, or to go beyond the limits or jurisdiction of the United States with intent to be enlisted or d OUR RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND. 431 entered in the service of awj foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people, as a sol- dier, as a marine or seaman, on board of any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer, every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be fined not exceeding one thousand dollars, and be imprisoned not exceed- ing three years," &c. Whatever might have been said before this, it would be shameless mendacity to contend that the British government were not fully ad- vised, from the date of this despatch, as to what was the municipal law of this country. If after this despatch any person was induced to go beyond the limits of the United States "with the intent of being enlisted" in her Majesty's service, it must have been known to be in violation of our law ; and those who did it, or made the attempt to do it, must have been aware that they violated, or attempted to violate, these laws. Not- withstanding this, on the 16th of July last. Lord Clarendon wrote to Mr. Buchanan expressing his regret, not that the laws of the United States had been violated, but " if the laws of the United States have been in any way violated," he says that "such infringement is against the positive instructions of her Majesty's government." Hear him: — " The undersigned, however, thinks it right to state to Mr. Buchanan that some months ago her Majesty's government were informed, from various sources, that in the British North American possessions, as ivell as in the United States, there were many subjects of the (^ueen who, from sentiments of loyalty, and many foreigners who, from political feeling, were anxious to enter her Majesty's service, and to take part in the war." They were advised, he says, that many persons in the United States desired to take part in the war ; and if they devised a way by which such persons should leave the United States with the intention of enlisting in her Majesty's service, they knew that such device would be a violation of the spirit of our law ; and yet what did they do ? Ilis lordship says : — " Her Majesty's government, desirous of availing themselves of the oifers of these volunteers, adopted the measures necessary for making generally known that her Majesty's government were ready to do so, and for receiving such persons as should present themselves at an appointed place in one of the British possessions. The right of her Majesty's government to act in. this way was incontestable ; but at the same time they issued stringent injunctions to guard against any violation of the Unit-ed States law of neutrality." " . • This is, perhaps, the most extraordinary paper that ever emanated from a statesman of acknowledged ability. Recollect that Mr. Buchanan had, on the 6th of July, sent to Lord Clarendon a copy of our law, making it an offence for "any person" to retain another "to go beyond the United States with the intent to be enlisted in the service of any foreign State;" and yet on the IGth of the same month, his lordship unblushingly says that her Majesty's government Avas informed that "many persons in the United States," subjects of the Queen and others, were "desirous of taking part in the war;" and that her Majesty's government, being anxious to get their services, notified them of the fact, and " appointed a place for them to present themselves in one of the British possessions;" and he says, "the right of her Majesty's government to act in this way was incontestable." Mr. President, can his lordship be serious ? Does he really mean to take the ground that the British Queen has an "incontestable" right to violate our laws at her pleasure ? If he does not mean that, his declaration is without meaning ; for, with a full knowledge of what the law is, he states a case palpably in the very teeth of the law, and then asserts that her Majesty's 432 ALBERT G. BROWN. government had an incontestable right to act as they did. Her Majesty's government appointed a phice for them to assemble. "Were they to go for nothing ? Were they to go for the mere love of fighting ; or were they to go because they had been hired or retained ? I will not insult the common sense of mankind by arguing a proposition so plain as that these men were not expected to enlist without pay. If they went for pay, the law was violated, and Lord Clarendon knew it. But, sir, his lordship said that he issued " stringent instructions not to violate the law;" that is to say, his lordship told his servants to go upon his neighbor's premises, cut down and carry away his timber with- out leave and against his instructions, but to be very cautious not to commit trespass. Why, sir, in the very act of obeying the orders he must necessarily commit trespass. In the very act of obeying the orders of the British government, its agents were necessarily compelled to violate our laws. How could they establish, as they confessedly have done, a rendez- vous in Nova Scotia, or in Canada, for the express purpose of drawing recruits from this country, for the purpose of hiring men to go there, with the intention of enlisting in her Majesty's service, without violating the law — without violating that clause of our law which says, that if any man shall be hired or retained to leave the United States with the inten- tion of being enlisted, the person so hiring, &c., shall be guilty of a misdemeanor? His lordship admits that many acts were done which were undoubted violations of the law, but he denies the authority of the persons who did these acts. I will use his own language : — " Her Majesty's Government do not deny tliat the acts and advertisements of these self-constituted and unauthorized agents -were, in many instances, undoubted viola- tions of the law of the United States: but such persons had no authority whatever for their proceedings from any British agents, by all of whom they were promptly and unequivocally disavowed." We shall see, as we proceed, how much of this statement is according to the record. On Hertz's trial, it was shown that many of her Majesty's ofiicers were not only cognisant of these acts and advertisements, but actually aided and abetted in them. Lord Clarendon calls them " un- authorized and self-constituted agents" in all they did. The truth will be clearly seen when I come to examine the evidence in Hertz's case, as I propose to do. His lordship, in the despatch from which I last read, next proceeds to vindicate Sir Gaspard Le Marchant, the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia, against all suspicion of intending to violate the laws of the United States, though he admits that he did issue a proclamation, which was subsequently posted in Philadelphia, and perhaps in other cities of the Union, with the view of raising recruits in this country. The attempt at this point to fasten the responsibility on unauthorized agents, and to work Sir Gaspard out of the difficulty, is, I think, to say the least of it, unmanly. But his effort further along to shield himself and his Nova Scotia protege behind Judge Kane, the distinguished jurist who presided on the trial of Hertz, is almost childish. He says: — " With respect to the proclamation by the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia, enclosed in Mr. Buchanan's note, the undersigned can assure Mr. Buchanan, with reference both to the character of Sir Gaspard Le Marchant and to the instructions he received, as well as to his correspondence on these instructions, that that officer is quite incapable of intentionally acting against the law of the United States ; and in proof that he did not in fact do so, the undersigned begs leave to refer Mr. il OUR RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND. •^ 433 Buchanan to tlie legal decision given on the particular point adverted to l)v Mr. Buchanan, by Judge Kane, on the 22d of May last, in the United States Circuit Court at Philadeli)hia. The judge says, '/ do not ihiuk iliaf tlie j)nijment of the passage Jroni this coiDitnj of a man ivho desires to enlist in a foreiyn ^wrt comes ivithin the act.' [The neutrality act of 1818.] ' la the terms of the printed proclamation there is nothing conflicting with the laws of the United States. A person may go abroad, provided the enlistment be iu a foreign place, not having accepted and exorcised ;i commission. There is some ecidence in Hertz's case that he did hire and retain, and, therefore, his case would have to be submitted to a jury. In Perkins's case there was testimony upon which a jury might convict. In Buck'nell's case it appears that there was a conversation at which he was present, but there was no enlistment, or hiring, or retaining. Tlio conversation related as to the practicability of persons going to Nova Scotia to enlist. If the rule I have laid down be correct, tlien the evidence does not C(mnect him with the misdemeanor.' ' Mr. Bucknell is, therefore, discharged, and Mess7-s. Perkins and Hertz are remanded to take their trial.' " Hertz was held to trial, and was afterwards tried and convicted, and yet Lord Clarendon quotes Judge Kane as authority that Sir Gaspard Le Marchant did not in fact violate the law hy procuring the enlistment of men in the United States tlu'ough Hertz's agency ; for it will be borne in mind that he was but the agent of the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia in all that he did. Lord Clarendon continues : — " As regards the proceedings of her Majesty's Government, the undersigned has the honor to inform Mr. Buchanan that Mr. Crampton was directed to issue strict orders to British consuls in the United States to be careful not to violate the law, and Mr. Crampton was enjoined, above all, to have no concealment from tlie Govern, ment of the United States." " Not to violate the law !" And it is maintained that the law has not been violated ! And this in the face and teeth of the fact that one of j the parties (Hertz) had been arrested, indicted, and convicted, and would have been punished but for a pardon. He Avas tried and convicted before the very judge whose authority is quoted to show that there had been no violation of the law ! Now let us sec what were the actings and doinp-s in this case. I hold in my hand a copy of the proceedings in Hertz's trial ; and, at the risk of being a little tedious, I must read some extracts from the testimony of the principal witness, Strobel, premising that he is shown throughout the whole proceeding to have been the companion and the guest, not only of Sir Gaspard Le Marchant, but of Sir Edmund Head, the Governor-General of Canada, and of Air. Crampton himself. The intimacy, the daily association between the parties, exclude the idea that he was not a gentleman. The man who but a little while before ■was taken into the families of these distinguished British functionaries, feasted by them, wined by them, sheltered b}^ them, and taken to their bosoms as a companion, is not to be shuffled off and " whistled down the ' ■wind" as an unworthy personage when he comes to tell the truth under '. the solemn obligations of an oath. All attempts, therefore, to discredit this witness must necessarily fall to the ground, at least until these gen- - tlemen can show something that has transpired, after they were dinino-, * wining, sheltering, and associating with Strobel. Previous to the time •when he gave this testimony, he was a gentleman ; what has transpired since to invalidate his testimony ? Nothing. No attempt has been made to prove him unworthy of credit. What did he say ? After relating a great many other things, he said : — " A few days afterwards, I suppose, on the 28th of February, I received a letter from Mr. Crampton. -^ . < 28 ■••-■,■.,. f* . ,• 434 ALBERT G. BROWN. " Question. Is this the letter ? "Answer. Yes, sir. " Q. And this the envelope in which it was enclosed ? "^. Yes, sir. " The letter was here read in evidence, as follows : — " 'Washington, February 14, 1855. " ' Sir : With reference to our late conversation, I am now able to give you more precise information in regard to the subject to which it related. '* ' I remain, sir, your obedient servant, " ' John F. Crampton. " ' Mr. Max Strobel.' " "After receiving this letter, I went to see Mr. Crampton next morning; Mr. Crampton told me that he had received letters from home, and that he was willing now to raise men here in the jurisdiction of the United States for a British foreign legion, which should be established either in Nova Scotia or in Canada. " Q. Did he use the words 'within the jurisdiction of the United States?' "A. Yes, within the jurisdiction of the United States. " Q. He used those precise words, did he ? "A. Yes, sir ; but he was not sure at the time whether the main depot should be at Halifax or in Canada, and he was obliged to make arrangements with the Governor- General of Canada. At the very same time he gave me a letter of introduction to the British consul in New York, Mr. Barclay, in which he states, that I am already acquainted with the matter, and that Mr. Barclay might receive me and talk with me about this subject, and that I should make preparations in New York for getting men. He told me at the very same time he would send a messenger to the Governor- General of Canada. I went to New York, and delivered my letter to Mr. Barclay. " Q. What was this messenger sent for ? "A. To arrange matters about a depot, or place where we could send these men whom we got here in the States." At another point of his testimony, I find this : — " Q. In consequence of what Dr. Biell told you, state what you did ? "A. I went to Hertz, and had a conversation with Hertz about this matter. " Q. Where was he ? "A. He was in his office. No. G8 South Third street, opposite the Exchange. I saw, then, Mr. Hertz, and from that time (nine o'clock, a. m.) I was with Mr. Hertz till three, p. m., where, in pursuance of the advertisements, men came and wrote their names down on a book, and agreed to enter the foreign legion at Halifax. " Q. Have you ever seen a bill like this ? "A. I have seen this hand-bill. " Q. Where ? "A. In Mr. Hertz's office. " The bill was here read in evidence. It reads as follows." The bill here alluded to is the proclamation of Sir Gaspard. Mark the language of this proclamation, and see if it does not bear on its face internal evidence that it was meant for circulation in the United States ? Men Wanted for Her Majesty's Service. (Arms of Great Britain, with mottoes.) Provincial Secretary's Office, Halifax, Nova Scotia, March 15, 1855. The Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia having been employed to embody a foreign legion, and to raise British regiments for service in the provinces or abroad, notice is hereby given, that all able-bodied men, between the ages of nineteen and forty, on applying at the depot at Halifax, will receive a bounty of £6 sterling, equal to $30, and on being enrolled will receive $8 per month, with the clothing, quarters, and other advantages to which British soldiers are entitled. Preference will be given to men who have already seen service. The period of enlistment will be from three to five years, at the option of the Bri- tish Government. OUR RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND. 435 Officers who have served will be eligible for commissions. Gentlemen who wish to come into the province will please lodge their names, rank, date of service, &c., at the office. Persons who serve in the foreign legion will, on the expiration of their term, be entitled to a free passage to America, or to the country of their birth. Pensions or gratuities for distinguished services in the field will be given. Nova Scotian and other shipmasters icho may bring into this province poor men willing to serve her Majesty, will be entitled to receive the cost of a passage for each man shipped from Philadelphia, New York, or Boston. By command. Lewis M. Wilkins, Provincial Secretary. That is Sir Gaspard Le Marcliant's proclamation, sent out from Nova Scotia, signed by the secretary of that province, posted up in the streets of Philadelphia, notifying those who should carry men from this coun- try that their passage-money would be paid by the British government. Now, sir, can there be any doubt that it was intended by this procla- mation to draw men from the United States ? Then by what authority does Lord Clarendon pretend to assume that Sir Gaspard did not mean to violate the laws of the United States, if he issued a proclamation — and here is the paper — and had it sent to Philadelphia and other cities, and posted up, saying that the British government would pay the ex- pense of men from New York, Philadelphia, and Boston, to Halifax ? Was it not done with the intention and expectation of drawing men from these points ? If he intended to get men in Ncav York, Boston, and Philadelphia, did he not mean to violate that provision of our law which forbids men being hired or retained to leave this country with the inten- tion of enlisting in the service of a foreign state? It seems to me that the proof on this point is conclusive ; but still the agents were told not to violate the law ! That assertion presents itself through the whole of the correspondence. Every time the British government is brought to a sharp corner in this correspondence, you may feel sure that, as soon as you turn round, you will see it written, " Do not violate the law !" but at the time the government were telling their agents not to violate the law, they were giving them instructions which they knew could not be obeyed without violating the law. Mr. Hale. Will the senator allow me to interrupt him at this point ? Mr. Brown. Certainly. Mr. Hale. I think the senator is arguing this case under a misap- prehension, and I wish to put him right. I desire to ask him whether he understands it to be against the law to leave the United States with the intention of enlisting in any foreign service ? Mr. Brown. I do. The law says, in express terms, just what I have stated. Mr. Hale. I think the senator will find himself exceedingly mistaken in that respect. Mr. Brown. I have read the law ; and if I am mistaken about it, I am willing that anybody shall detect the error. Mr. Hale. I think the senator will find the law to be this : That it is criminal for any man to procure a person to go abroad with the inten- tion of enlisting ; but if a citizen of this country wishes to go to Halifax, or anywhere else, and enlist in a foreign service, it is no crime for him to do it. He may do it, and there is no crime in declaring his intention to do it. I think I am not mistaken in this. It is unlawful for some- body else to procure him to do it; but anybody in the United States has a right to go if he chooses, and to go armed if he wishes to do so. 436 ALBERT G. BKOWN. ' Mr. Brown. The senator and I do not understand the law precisely alike. I have read it verbatim, and the Senate -VYill judge whether my comments are sustained by the text. Now, sir, let us proceed further. At another point in Strobel's testi- mony I find this : — '' Q. (Paper shown). Will you look at that paper, and state what it is ? "A. It is the instructions I received at Quebec, in Sir Edmund Head's house, out of Mr. Crampton's own hands. The original was rvrittea in Mr. Crampion's oivn liandwriting, and was written, at least jwr^ of it, in my presence, in his room. This is a copy made from the original; I made it for the purpose of preserving a copy. The original I gave back in a report I made to Sir Gaspard Le Mai'chant, in Halifax. That report stated what I had done to clear me of two charges made against me up there. " Q. That, then, is a copy made from the original instructions of Crampton, as to your duty in the United States ? "■A. That is a copy of the original instructions I received at this time from Mr. Crampton. " The paper was being read as part of the evidence, when, on motion, a recess was taken for ten minutes. On the court reassembling, the reading of the paper was concluded. It is as follows : — " ' Memorandum for the guidance of those who are to make known to persons in the United States the terms and conditions upon which recruits will be received into the British army : — •' ' 1. Tlie paiiies who maij go to Buffalo, Detroit, or Cleveland, for this purpose, must clearly understand that they must carefully refrain from anything which would constitute a violation of the law of the United States.' " Very careful, Mr. Crampton ! For what purpose did he send them to Buffalo, and Detroit, and Cleveland? If they were sent there for any purpose, it was to get men to fill up the British foreign legion, and how could they do it without violating the law ? Let us go further, and see how cautious Mr. Crampton was : — " * 2. They must, therefore, avoid any act which might bear the appearance of re- cruiting within the jurisdiction of the United States for a foreign service, or of hiring or retaining anybody to leave that jurisdiction with the intent to enlist in the service of a foreign power. [Both these acts arc illegal by the act of Congress of 1818, sec. 2.] " ' 4. There must be no collection, embodiment of men, or organization whatever, attempted within that jurisdiction. " ' 5. No promises or contracts, written or verbal, on the subject of enlistment, must be entered into with any person within that jurisdiction. " ' 6. The information to be given will be simply, that to those desiring to enlist in the British army, facilities will be afforded for so doing on their crossing the line into British territory, and the terms offered by the British Government may be stated as a matter of information only, and not as implying any promise or engagement on the part of those supplying such information, so long, at least, as they remain within Amei'icau jurisdiction.' " That is to say, they were to be told how much they would get if they would go ; but there was no absolute engagement, because that might possibly break the law ! See again how cautious he is. What a cunning old fox is Mr. Crampton ! Let us examine his instructions further : — " ' 7. It is essential to success that no assemblages of persons should take place at heer-houses, or other similar places of entertainment, for the purpose of devising measures yb?' enlisting ; and the parties should scrupulously avoid resorting to this or similar means of disseminating the desired information, inasmuch as the attention of the American aiiihorilies tooulcl not fail to he called to such proceedings, which would undoubtedly be regarded by them as an attempt to carry on recruiting for a foreign power within the limits of the United States ; and it certainly must be borne in mind that the institution of legal proceedings against any of the parties in question, even OUR RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND. 437 if they were to elude tlie penalty, would be fatal to iJie success of the enlistment itself: " All ! liad lie not been told to have no concealaient from the United States ; and docs not Lord Clarendon make it a matter of boast that Mr. Crampton had been told above all things to have no concealment from the United States? Yet here is a paper, drawn by his own hand, in which he tells his men not to do particular things, because they could not fail to attract the attention of the American authorities. If these things were lawful, why need he care if the American authorities did see them ? If he was doing no wrong — if he was violating no law — if he was conscious of the perfect propriety of his conduct, why this violation of his instructions to have no concealment from the United States ? The amount of the instructions is, that they must not go into beer- houses, they must not talk about the matter at the street corners, they must not assemble in large squads, for this would attract the attention of the American authorities, and " be fatal to the success of the enlist- ment itself." Sir, do not forget that we are told Mr. Crampton was acting under instructions to have no concealment from this government. Another point of these memoranda of Mr. Crampton to the recruiting agents is : — " ' 8. Should the strict observance of these points be nei^lected, and the parties thereby involve themselves in difSculty, they are hereljy strictly apprised that they must expect no sort of aid or assistance from the British Government; this Govern- ment would be compelled by the clearest dictates of international duty to disavow their proceedings, and would moreover be absolved from all engagements contingent upon the success of the parties in obtaining, by legal means, soldiers for her Britannic Majesty's army.' " I need not comment on this strange paragraph ; it plainly says, Go and violate the laws of the United States : be cunning, look out for yourselves ; if you get into difficulties, the proud and haughty govern- ment whose dirty work you are doing will disown you. I proceed with the testimony. A paper is shown the witness, and he is asked: — " Q. In whose handwriting is that paper ? "A. At that very time I also received this cipher, to telegraph with to Mr. Cramp- ton and to Halifax, about this recruiting business ; I cannot swear as to whose hand- writing it is in, but I believe it is Mr. Crampton's ; I did not see him write it, but he handed it to me. " The paper was here given in evidence ; the following is a copy : — Letter. Cipher. Letter. Cipher. a y n , q b V . n c J • - P c d 1 q h e X r f = e '8 P . g • z t k h u u g i b V d j w * ' w m k t X r 1 a y i m 8 z f " Q. You were to telegraph him by this cipher, instead of the usual way? "J.. Yes, sir. , - . 438 ALBERT G. BROWN. " Q. What was the object in giving you this cipher ? "A. Such ciphers were given to several officers — to Mr. Smolenski, Mr. Cartensen ; and men actually engaged in the recruiting business received those ciphers. " Q. Was it for the purpose of avoiding detection ? "A. It was for the purpose of avoiding detection, and avoiding any difficulties with the authorities here. It was to enable me to telegraph to Mr. Crampton from every place I might visit, without the people in the telegraph offices understand- ing it. " Q. Were all the officers sent on this recruiting to telegraph to Mr. Crampton as to their proceedings, and was that cipher to be used ? "A. Yes, sir." Here follows a long list of dinner invitations from Sir Gaspard and Lady Le Marchant, and other British officers of high rank ; important only as showing that Strobel was on terms of social intimacy with these gentlemen, and is, therefore, unimpeached, and, so far as we know, unimpeachable. For what purpose did Mr. Crampton want a cipher ? Why should he resort to these cabalistic characters, which only he and the initiated could understand ? Was that to carry out his instructions, to have no concealment from the government of the United States ? Was he deal- ing openly and fairly with the government, when he supplied his agents with a cipher which none but he and they understood? For what pur- pose was the cipher given ? The witness tells us, " it was for the pur- pose of avoiding detection, and avoiding any difficulties with the authorities here." A cipher was resorted to for the purpose of tele- graphic communications, the object being to avoid detection ; and yet he is violating no law — he is keeping nothing concealed from the govern- ment of the United States ! And yet Lord Clarendon defends and justifies Mr. Crampton's conduct, and stoutly maintains, as we shall presently see, that he has done no wrong, violated no law, and disobeyed no instructions. Now, before I pass from this branch of the subject, I desire to call attention to the charge of Judge Kane, delivered on the trial of Hertz. It is important in many points of view, but it is especially important, as Judge Kane is brought into this case by Lord Clarendon himself, as the very judge who had correctly expounded the law. I read this opinion because it is from the man on whom his lordship relies for correct opinions. Judge Kane says : — " Our people and our government have been accused of forgetting the obligations of neutrality, and pushing ourselves forward into the conflicts of foreign nations, instead of minding our own business as neutrals, and leaving belligerents to fight out their own quarrels. For one, I confess that I felt surprised, as this case advsinced, to learn, that during the very time that these accusations were fulminated against the American people by the press of England, there was, on the part of eminent British functionaries here, a series of arrangements in progress, carefully digested, and com- bining all sorts of ^Jeople, binder almost all soiis of influences, to evade the laws of the United States by ivhich our country sought to enforce its neutrality — arrangements matured, upon a careful inspection of the difi'erent sections of our statutes, ingeni- ously to violate their spirit aud principle without incurring their penalty, and thus enlist and send away soldiers from our neutral shores to fight the battles of those who were incontinently and not over courteously admonishing us to fulfil the duties of neutrality." If it were important, I could show, by the speeches delivered in the British Parliament itself, that we are not alone in our construction of our own law, and that we are not alone in the charge which we make I ^'f f>\ OUR RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND. 439 against Mr. Crampton, of having violated the law, and having done it knowingly. These things were charged on the 13th of last month in the British House of Commons, by Mr. Roebuck, by Mr. Gibson, and by others. Mr. Roebuck, on that occasion, said: — " "We have been led to suppose that we have right on our side, and that our cousins on the other side of the water, taking; advantage of our position, were, nevertheless, endeavoring to force us to make a sort of supplication to them for peace. Now, what is the state of the case ? It is this : After the Parliament of Great Britain had passed an act for the enlistment of foreigners, the Government determined, under the provi- sions of that act, to enlist people in America. B^eing unable to intercept the emigra- tion flowing from Germany to America, they went to America, and they gave instruc- tions to our authorities there to form a foreign legion, to be composed of persons enlisted in America. "One of the persons employed on that occasion was our Minister at Washington, (Mr. Crampton;) another was the Governor of Nova Scotia; and a third was the Governor-General of Canada. The noble lord said that, as soon as Government dis- covered that umbrage had been given to the United States by the coui-se they had taken, he gave instructions to our ministers and agents not to trench in any way upon the municipal laws of America, and at the same time sent a full apology to the American Government. He then appealed to the House, and asked, could he do anything more ? " If the noble lord had only done what he stated, I should have answered his appeal by saying that nothing more could be done. But Government did more, and what they did I will now state. Mr. Crampton went from Washington to Nova Scotia, and there entered into a sort of combination with the Governor, and laid a plan by which the laws of the United States might be contravened, in order to obtain surreptitiously that which could not be obtained by other means. 1 will prove directly all that I assert out of Mr. Crampton's own mouth, or rather out of his own pen, but I ought first to state the law of America upon the subject of enlistment; and the House will then see that it is in accordance with the opinion and feeling of the country. " In the first place, it is illegal to enlist anybody in the United States for the service of a foreign state. The Government are not, however, charged with that offence, but with something more. Any person going to the United States, and inducing people to leave those states for the purpose of being enlisted abroad, also acts in contraven- tion of the law ; and this is part of the law which Mr. Crampton is accused of having broken through. He went to Nova Scotia ; he there engaged persons going to the states to enlist people — that is, to induce them to go to Nova Scotia to be enlisted. Now, the very act of inducing people to leave the United States for the purpose of being enlisted is a violation of the law, being a contravention of that neutrality to which the Americans wish to adhere. " Mr. Crampton thought he could do this without being discovered by the authori- ties of the United States. They did, however, discover what was taking place, and, in consequence of that discovery, Mr. Crampton issued a proclamation from Nova Scotia, suggesting a means of evading the law of the United States, and giving the parties whom he employed a cipher by which they might communicate with him. How do I prove this statement ? Why, I hold in my hand a document curious in many ways. It is a report of a trial that took place in Pennsylvania, in which one Henry Hertz was the defendant, being charged by the United States Government with certain breaches of the law set forth in the indictment. One peculiarity of the indictment is, that it is intelligible." [A laugh.] Such is the authority of the leading commoner (Mr. Roebuck). Other members spoke to the same eflfect. But let us return to the despatch of the 16th of July. In this dis- patch the Earl of Clarendon assures Mr. Buchanan of the cordial good- Avill of the British government towards the United States. I wish to be just, I wish to deal fairly with these parties, and therefore state that this despatch does express a cordial good-will on the part of the British government towards the United States. If the sincerity of these assur- ances had been attested by the conduct of the British functionaries in 440 ALBERT G. BROWN. the United States, there would have been no further difficulty after the date of this despatch ; but that they were not so attested, and that they Avere not in fact sincere, is abundantly proven at every step as we ad- vance in the investigation of the case. On the 18th of July, Mr. Buchanan acknowledged the receipt of Lord Clarendon's note of the 16th, and assured him of "the satisfaction he would have in transmitting a copy of it to the Secretary of State by the next steamer." This note is that which has so conspicuously jBgured ever since as an accepted apology and satisfaction for all that has been done. It is not an apology, and was not so accepted. It fell short of this point. If, however, it had been written in good faith, and its senti- ments faithfully carried out in the subsequent negotiations, it would have led to a satisfactory conclusion. It may well be doubted whether the assurances contained in this note were given in good faith. It is perfectly certain that they were not faithfully carried out. [In consequence of temporary indisposition, Mr. Brown was unable to proceed further on Tuesday; to-day (March 13) he concluded his speech as follows :] — On the oth of September, when the evidence had so accumulated as to force conviction on the reluctant mind of Mr. Marcy, that the min- ister (Mr. Crampton), and many others high in British confidence, had taken active and efficient parts in the business of recruiting for her Majesty's army, he departed from the beaten track of diplomacy, and addressed himself directly to the British envoy. In that letter he says : — " The information which has been laid before the President has convinced him that the proceedings resorted to for the purpose of drawing recruits ^/}-o»t this country for the British army, have been instigated and carried on by tlie active agency of British officers, and tJiat their participation therein has involved them in the double offence of infringing our laws, and violating our sovereign territorial rights." This was an open and direct accusation based on testimony. It accuses British officers of the double offence of infringing our laws, and violating our sovereign territorial rights. Nor does the Secretary leave it in doubt as to who are the oflfending parties. He says to Mr. Crampton : — " The President perceives with much regret that the disclosures implicate you in these proceedings." * * * " Xhe information in his possession does not allow him to doubt that yourself, as well as the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia, and several civil and military officers of the British government of rank in the provinces, were instrumental in setting on foot this scheme of enlistment ; have offered induce- ments to agents to embark in it, and approved of the arrangements for carrying it out, which embraced various recruiting establishments in different cities of the United States." Here is a direct and specific charge made against Mr. Crampton, that he was implicated in these transactions, and that, in the judgment of our government, they were flagrant outrages on our law, and direct insults ofiered to our sovereignty. How does Mr. Crampton meet this grave and direct charge ? Does he come forward with a bold and manly denial ? Does he exhibit that calm resentment which conscious innocence always shows ? No, sir, no ; but two days after, on the 7th of September, he addresses a brief note to Mr. Marcy — not to deny the charge, not to resent an unjust imputation, not to palliate an 1 OUR RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND. 441 acknowledged wrong ; oh, no ! not for any of tliese purposes ; but to inform jMr. Marcy that — "I have thought it expedient to defer replying at length to your present commu- nication, until I shall have been more fully put into possession of the views of her Majesty's government, in regard to all the matters to which it relates." ♦ «' " The views of her Majesty's government!" If he had, to nse Lord Clarendon's own words, "stringent instructions not to violate our laws, or territorial rights," and was conscious of having obeyed those instructions — if, as his lordship has undertaken to prove for him, he had violated no law — why did he not say so ? What need was there, in that case, for the views of her JMajesty's government. I suspect that Mr. Crampton's despatch to Lord Clarendon, callings for "the views of her Majesty's government," runs after something after this fashion : " I have been trying to obey your lordship's order ; I have been trying to evade the laws of the United States — violating them while I seemed to respect them ; I have got myself in a scrape ; the Yankees have caught me ; old Marcy has me fairly treed ; and I will thank your lordship to tell me what I am to do." * , Well, sir, the next thing w^e have in arrogance and insolence, after the true John Bull style : — • " The undersigned, her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign, Affairs, has the honor to address a note to Mr. Buchanan, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to her Majesty's Court." Such is the pompous prelude to a note bearing date September 27, 1855. In this note Lord Clarendon adverts to Mr. Marcy 's charge that our sovereign territorial rights had been violated by British officers, and coolly says : — " Her Majesty's government have no reason to believe that such has been the con- duct of any persons in the emploj'ment of her Majesty." And again : — - ■ ' • . -S . % • " Her Majesty's government feel confident that even the extraordinary measures which have been adopted in various parts of the Union to obtain evidence against' her Majesty's servants, or their agents, by practices sometimes resorted to under despotic institutions, but which are disdained by all free and enlightened govern- ments, will fail to establish any toell founded charge against her Majesty's servants." The plain English of this is, that our President and Secretary of State do not understand who they are talking about. Her Majesty's servants are above suspicion. Though a republican court has resorted to despotic means for the purpose of fastening charges against them, they have passed the fiery ordeal unscathed — the charge rebounds and knocks the accuser over. ' - ."* • " / . *' . •,, ' , • I confess, Mr. President, that this language stirs my American blood. ' When a British Secretary so far forgets the proprieties of his position and the respect due to our country as to charge that our government has been " resorting to extraordinary and despotic measures, such as are discarded in free and enlightened countries, for the purpose of obtain- ing evidence against her Majesty's servants," I am not willing to stop with Mr. Buchanan, and sa}'- "the language is offensive;" I go further, and say it is insolent, and ought to be resented. Lord Clarendon, instead of excusing the conduct of Mr. Crampton and his confederates, or tendering an apology for their violation of the » • M2 ALBERT G. BROWN. " Stringent instructions " given them by her Majesty's government, or in some other way offering reparation for the wrong done to our laws and sovereignty, proceeds to arraign the United States on charges of duplicity and bad faith. He says : — " The United States profess neutrality in the present war between the western powers and Russia ; but have no acts been done within the United States, by citizens thereof, which accord little with the spirit of neutrality ? Have not arms and ammu- nition, and warlike stores of various kinds been sent in large quantities from the United States for the service of Russia? Have not plots been openly avowed, and conspiracies entered into without disguise or hindrance in various parts of the Union, to take advantage of the war in which Great Britain?" &c. These and other insinuations are freely indulged in. " Have not arras and ammunition and warlike stores of various kinds," asks his lord- ship, " been sent in large quantities from the United States for the service of Russia?" Yes, sir, doubtless this is true. Our people sell wherever they can find a customer ; and I daresay, if England had needed " arms and ammunition and warlike stores" our merchants would have supplied her as readily as they supplied Russia. How many thousand barrels of pork, flour, and beans have England and France bought in the United States for the use of their armies ? — and yet Russia has not complained. These articles are not arms or ammunition, but they are stores just as essential to the success of an army as powder and ball. How many of our ships have the allies chartered to transport their armies and their warlike stores? — and yet Russia has never charged us with bad faith or double-dealing. This is a complaint based on nothing, and is dictated by no sense of national wrong. It results from a fretful spirit, lashed to anger because excuses cannot be found to justify that which is not justifiable. That, I think, is the whole story on this point of the controversy. Men are very apt to lose their temper when in discussion they are driven to the wall ; and when Lord Clarendon could no longer answer the statesman-like notes of Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Marcy, he lost his temper and became childish — in fact, almost womanish. There are other parts of this letter that are highly offensive, but I pass them by without notice. On the 18th of October, 1855, Secretary Marcy replied to this extra- ordinary note of Lord Clarendon through Mr. Buchanan. The letter is a frank and manly review of his lordship's carping and — I had almost said silly — complaints against our government. After effectually disposing of every point, and dissipating every argument produced by the British Secretary, Mr. Marcy concludes by saying that : " Supported as this government is in the charge made against British officers and agents, of having infringed our laws and violated our sovereign territorial rights, and being able to sustain that charge by competent proof , the President would fail in due respect for the national character of the United States, and in his duty to main- tain it, if he did not decline to accept, as a satisfaction for the wrongs complained of, Lord Clarendon's assurance that these officials were enjoined a strict observance of our laws, and tJiat he does not believe that any of them have disregarded the injunction. " This government believes, and has abundant proof to warrant its belief that her Britannic Majesty's officers and agents have transgressed our laws and disregarded our rights, and that its solemn duty requires that it should vindicate both by insist- ing upon a proper satisfaction. The President indulges the hope that this demand for redress will be deemed reasonable, and will be acceded to by her Britannic Ma- jesty's government." OUR RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND. 443 Our government — very properly, I think — declined to receive an apology for an offence committed by a servant, when the master takes it upon himself to say, "Notwithstanding your declaration that you have the proof, I do not believe a word of it." " This government has indicated the satisfaction which it believes it has a riglit to claim from the British government in my despatch to you of the 15th of July last." In the despatch of the 15th of July, Mr. Marcy informs Mr. Buchanan that notwithstanding Lord Clarendon's assurances, given in his note of the 12th of April, 1855, " the scheme" of enlistment is not abandoned, " but is continued down to this time, and is prosecuted with more vigor and effect than at any previous period." He adds : — " Since that time many months have elapsed, and the British oiEcers, with a full knowledge of the illegality of the procedure and of its offensive character to the government and people of the United States, as an open contempt of their sovereign rights, persist in carrying on this obnoxious scheme without any open disapproval by the Home Government, or any attempt to arrest it." These are important facts in the consideration of this question. At the date of this despatch, it will be perceived, Mr. Marcy was still com- plaining that notwithstanding our remonstrances, the offensive conduct of the British agents was yet carried on in open contempt of our laws and of our sovereign territorial rights. He directly charges that no effort had been made by the British government to arrest it. Was I not right when I expressed some doubts as to whether Lord Clarendon's note of July 16 was dictated in a spirit of true friendship ? If it was, how does it happen that months afterwards this offensive conduct had not been arrested ? • The satisfaction which was claimed in Mr. Marcy 's note of the 15th of July, and which is referred to in his other note of October 18th, may be gathered from the note itself. It says : — " It was reasonably expected that her Britannic Majesty's government would have considered it due to the friendly relations between the two countries, not merely to reprove Us officers engaged in this scheme of raising recruits within our jurisdiction, but promptly to retrace the steps which had been taken, and at once to arrest the illegal proceedings ; but this government is not aware that any such course has been taken ; on the contrary, it has reason to believe that the machinery first put in opera- tion is still at work, and is still managed by British functionaries." ************** " As recruiting for the British army, in the mode alluded to, is still prosecuted in the United States by officers and agents employed for that purpose, the President instructs you to say to her Majesty's government, that he expects it will take prompt and effective measures to arrest their proceedings, and to discharge from service those persons now in it who were enlisted within the United States, or who left the United States under contracts made here to enter and serve as soldiers in the British army." Will any one pretend that this was more than meager justice for the wrongs we had received ? Complaint after complaint had been made, assurance after assurance had been given that the government had full information as to the unlawful acts of British officers and agents ; and yet all that is asked is the smallest measure of justice, and even this is superciliously, if not insultingly denied. The note of the 15th of July was not acted upon by Mr. Buchanan, for the reason as he explains in a note to Mr. Marcy, under date of October 30th. He says : — 444 ALBERT G. BROWN, "I had, previously to its arrival, transmitted to you a copy of Lord Clarendon's note, already referred to, of the 16th of July, on the subject of the enlistment and employment of soldiers for the British army within our limits, and had informed his lordship, in acknowledging the receipt of this note, that I should have much satis- faction in transmitting a copy of it to the Secretary of State. Of course it would have been improper for me to take any new step in this matter until I should learn whether this note would prove satisfectory to yourself." Now let us see what impression this note produced on the mind of the American Minister ; and whether it is different from that which would be produced on the mind of any one who read it until he examined the residue of the correspondence. Mr. Buchanan says : — " The general tenor of this note — its disavowals and its regret — were certainly conciliatory, and the concluding paragraph, declaring that all proceedings for enlist- ment in North America had been put an end to by her Majesty's government, for the avowed reason that the advantages which her ]\Iajesty's service might derive from such enlistments would not be sought for by her Majesty's government, if it were supposed to be obtained in disregard of the respect due to the laws of the United States, was highly satisfactory. It was for these reasons that I expressed the satis- faction I would have in communicating it to you." ************ * * " I can assure you, that I did not entertain the most remote idea that this question had not been satisfactorily adjusted until I learned the complicity of Mr. Cranipton in the affair. This was officially communicated to me in your despatch, No. 107, of the 8th, received on the 24th of September." I think no one can read this despatch without coming to the same conclusion at which I have arrived — that it was designed by the British government for no other purpose than to put our government off its guard. Repeated assurances were given by our government that the laws were being violated, and the British government could have arrested that course of conduct at any moment when it chose to do so. To me it is a matter of very little consequence, whether the wrong was the result of deliberate design, or of a contemptuous disregard of our rights. I believe I would somewhat prefer, that the British government would directly, immediately, and purposely insult ours, rather than shuffle us off as a gentleman does a low felloAV who comes to him and calls him to account for some rude expression, and says, " that I do not recollect that I said so, but if I did I am sorry for it." I am not disposed to see my government shuffled aside so lightly as that. " Thus much," adds Mr. Buchanan at the conclusion of his despatch, " I have deemed necessary to place myself rectus in curia." It is certainly to be regretted that Mr. Buchanan had not at an earlier day, '■'■learned the comijlieity of Mr. Cramjoton in this affair." The magnitude of the offence against our territorial sovereignty would have been comprehended by him at once, and instead of expressing the " satisfaction he would have in transmitting Lord Clarendon's note to Mr. Marc3%" he would have informed his lordship promptly that his note was not satisfactory. No one can fail to see that while a small measure of redress might atone for an infraction of our laws by British subjects or servants in subordinate positions, yet, if these laws are broken, and the sovereignty of the country insulted by a Minister Pleni- potentiary, it is quite a different affair. In that case it becomes a mat- ter of the gravest moment, and is in fact the same as if done by the sovereign herself, and requires the same measure of redress. It will therefore be seen why it was that Mr. Marcy, in the first in- OUR RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND. ' 44£ stance asked but little of the British government, and why Mr. Buchanan may have thouglit all had been obtained that the case re- quired. Neither of them knew of Mr. Crampton's connection with this business. Mr. Marcy was slow to believe in his complicity, and never ventured to charge it upon him until the 5th of September ; and Mr. Buchanan knew nothing of it until the receipt of the despatcli of September 8th, Avhich was received by him in London on the 24th of that month. From this date the whole case assumed a diiferent and graver aspect. Instead of being adjusted, as was hoped by Mr. Buchanan, and, I may add by all our countrymen, it grew into a question of the gravest national importance. About this time — to wit, on the 21st of September — the trial of Hertz commenced at Philadelphia, and resulted in his conviction on the 28th of that month. On this trial the government presented the evi- dence on which it mainly relied to prove Mr. Crampton's complicity ; and I undertake to say no one can read it without being satisfied that the British Minister was the prime mover, chief instigator, the head and front of the whole offending ; and, moreover, that the declaration so imposingly put forth by Lord Clarendon, that "no evidence can be found to establish any well-founded charge against her Majesty's ser- vants," is shown to have been utterly fallacious. The petulant manner in which Lord Clarendon met the demand for explanations, redress, and satisfaction for these serious offences has already been noticed in my brief comments on his ill-tempered note of the 27th of September, to Mr. Buchanan ; I may have occasion to advert to that note again. After the delivery of Mr. Marcy's note of the 18th of October, in which he so effectually disposes of his lordship's sophistry, and so point- edly, yet quietly, rebukes his ill-temper, his lordship appears to have seen with a clearer vision, and in fact, to have been aroused to a con- sciousness of the importance of the issue between the two governments. It is indeed refreshing to witness the improved temper of his next despatch, bearing date November 16. After sundry conciliatory expres- sions, and a distinct recognition of the two grounds of complaint against her Majesty's officers and agents — to wit, that they have infrino-ed our laws, and, besides, violated our sovereign territorial rights — he says : — " Now, with respect to both these charges, I have to observe that the information possessed by her Majesty's government is imperfect, and that none of a definite cha- racter has been supplied by the despatches of Mr. Marcy, inasmuch as no indivirlual Biili^h qp'icer or aycnt is named, and no particular fact, or time, or place is stated ; and it is therefore impossible at the present to know either who i.i arrvsed by Mr. Marcy, or what is the charye he makes, or what is the evidence on which he intends to rely. "Her Majesty's government hare no means of hnowiny who are tlte persons really indicated by the general words 'officers and agents of her Majesty's government;' whether such persons as those who [have] been under trial are the only persons meant to be charged, or, if not, who else is to be included, or tvhat evidence against them is relied upon by the United States government." This language is cautious enough, but its sincerity may well bo ques- tioned. "No individual officer or agent is named," says his lordship, we "have no means of knowing who are the persons really indicated," or "what evidence against them is relied on," &:c. It would hardly be 446 ' ALBERT G. BROWN. believed by one who had not read the preceding correspondence, that, at the very moment of writing this note, Lord Clarendon was in pos- session of Mr. Marcy's letter to Mr. Crampton, in which he accuses that oiScer in these words : " The President perceives, with much regret, chat the disclosures implicate you in these proceedings." * * * * " The information in his possession does not allow him to doubt," &c. Will it be believed that he was ignorant of "the evidence relied on " by this government, when it is known that Mr. Buchanan had furnished him a copy of the evidence taken on the trial of Hertz, and which evi- dence clearly implicated Mr. Crampton, and Consuls Rowcroft, Barclay, and Matthew, together with other officers or agents of her Majesty's government ? Mr. Buchanan says, in a despatch dated November 2, that the testimony of the witness Strobel " was confirmed by several documents implicating Mr. Crampton, which had been given in evidence on the trial of Hertz. I told him he would see this on a perusal of the trial itself, of which I gave him a copy." His lordship further says, the " violation of the sovereign territorial rights of the United States" alleged is the recruiting within the United States ; but to assume that there was in fact any such recruiting (that is, hiring or retaining by British officers) is to beg the question ; and this he says in the face of the fact that Hertz had been convicted before and sentenced by Judge Kane, the very judge on whose exposition of the law he had relied with so much confidence in another despatch. Hertz was not technically an officer, it is true, but he was an agent of her Majesty, and he was acting under the advice and auspices of her Majesty's Minister Plenipotentiary, John F. Crampton ; and Lord Clar- endon knew it when he wrote this note of November 16. His lordship mentions, rather deprecatingly, that " Mr. Marcy cites no authority for the position he assumes," and he declares that "high authority might be quoted directly adverse;" but it is noticeable that his lordship cites no authority for his opinion. Before this he will have learned that Mr. Marcy is sustained by most of the eminent writers on international law. It is but just to allow the Secretary of State to speak for himself on this point. After restating his positions, and adverting to the fact that it has been controverted by Lord Clarendon, he says : — '' " This, as a rule of international law, was considered so well settled that it was not deemed necessary to invoke the authority of publicists to support it. I am not aware that any modern writer on international law has questioned its soundness. As this important principle is controverted by Lord Clarendon, and as its mainte- nance is fatal to his defence of British recruiting here, I propose to establish it by a reference to a few elementary writers of eminence upon the law of nations : — " ' Since a right of raising soldiers is a right of majesty which cannot be violated by a foreign nation, it is not permitted to raise soldiers on the territory of another without the consent of its sovereign.' — Wolfius. " Vattel says that — " ' The man who undertakes to enlist soldiers in a foreign country, without the sovereign's permission, and, in general, whoever entices away the subjects of another state, violates one of the most sacred rights of the prince and the nation.' " He designates the crime by harsher names than I choose to use, which, as lie says, ' is punished with the utmost severity in every well regulated state.' Vattel further observes that — " ' It is not presumed that their sovereign has ordered them (foreign recruiters) to commit a crime ; and supposing, even, that they had received such an order, they ought not to have obeyed it ; their sovereign having no right to command what ia contrary to the law of nature.' OUR RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND. * 447 " Hautefeuillo, a modern French author of muchrepute, regards permission — and acquiescence implies permission — by a neutral power to one belligerent, though extended to both, to raise recruits in its territories, unless it was allowed in peace, to be an act of bad faith, which compromits its neutrality. " There can be no well founded distinction, in the rule of international law, be- tween raising soldiers for a belligerent's army and sailors for its navy within a neu- tral country. Hautefeuille says : — " ' The neutral sovereign is under obligation to prohibit and prevent all levying of sailors upon its territory for the service of the belligerents.' " Again he says : — " ' The neutral must prohibit, in an absolute manner, the levying of sailors upon its territory to complete a ship's company reduced by combat, or any other cause. " ' The prohibition to engage sailors on a territory of a pacific prince must extend to foreigners who are found in the ports of his jurisdiction, and even to those who belong to the belligerent nation owning the vessel that wishes to complete its crew or ship's company.' " Reference to other writers might be made to sustain the position contended for by this government, and to overthrow that advanced by Lord Clarendon, but the authority of those presented is deemed sufficient for that purpose." Whether Lord Clarendon will be able to cite authority so directly in point to sustain his denial of Mr. Marcy's position, remains to be seen. There is a passage towards the close of Lord Clarendon's despatch, which I introduce for the purpose of expressing my unqualified approval of the sentiment it contains, and to say that I, in common with the whole American people, as I firmly believe, regret, deeply regret, that the same spirit had not animated the whole of her Britannic Majesty's officers, agents, and subjects, at home and abroad, from the commence- ment of this business. It would have saved a deal of trouble. This is the passage : — " The foregoing acts and considerations, which demonstrate that no offence to the United States was offered or contemplated by her jMajesty's government, may, per- haps, have weight with Mr. Marcy, if the matter at' issue is to be settled in a manner becoming the governments of Great Britain and the United States, and with a deep sense of the responsibility which weighs on them to maintain, uninterrupted and unshaken, the relations of friendship which now exist between the two countries ; and her Majesty's government, fully reciprocating the feelings of the United States government, expressed in Mr. Marcy's despatch, with regard to the many ties and sympathies which connect together the people of the two countries, do not permit themselves to doubt that such further discussions as may take place on this question will be conducted in a spirit of conciliation." ' To all of that I utter a hearty amen. To this despatch of November 16, Mr. Marcy replies on the 28th of December in one of those masterly notes which a great mind produces only on great occasions. If the American Secretary had written no- thing else, he might well rest his hopes of future fame on this letter. It is clear, distinct, and unmistakable in its positions, cogent and conclu- sive in its arguments, and powerfully overwhelming in its conclusions. The British Secretary is left not one inch of ground to stand on; and the complicity of Mr. Crampton, and other British ofiicials, with the transaction in question, is demonstrated to a mathematical certainty. If they are not guilty they are the most unfortunate men alive. Other men (worse men of course) have been convicted and punished on weaker testimony. I have not time to present the strong points of this paper, and I will not mar it by taking short extracts. No one desirous of reaching the kernel of this dispute should fail to read it carefully. It concludes as 448 " ALBERT G. BROWN. it should, with a firm demand on the British government to recall Mr. Crampton, and consuls Rowccroft, Matthew, and Barclay, her Britannic Majesty's consuls at Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and New York. I have now, Mr. President, run hastily through this correspondence, savino- only the concluding note of Mr. Buchanan, written on the 1st of February of this year, to which I need not refer for any purpose con- nected with this debate. The conclusions to which my mind has arrived are briefly these: — 1. That the United States met the proposition of the British goyem- Lient for strict neutrality in a spirit of generous confidence, promising that " no Russian privateer should be equipped, or victualled, or admitted, with its prizes, in our ports;" and the United States has rigidly kept her faith. 2. That the British government — the first to ask neutrality — was the first to violate our laws of neutrality; and while for her own safety she was quick to place us under pledges not to countenance Russia, she was just as quick to invade our soil with a recruiting force, to violate our law^s, infringe our rights of territorial sovereignty, and put at hazard our peace with a friendly power. 3. When called on for an explanation of her conduct in this regard, she denied, through her Secretary for Foreign Affairs, all complicity on the part of her officers and servaiits in these proceedings. She under- took to set our laws at defiance by asserting that her Majesty's govern- ment had " an incontestable right" to " appoint a place within her Ma- jesty's dominions, to which recruits might be drawn from the United States to fill her Majesty's armies;" knowing at the time she took this position, that our laws made it a high misdemeanor for any person to hire another to '^ go beyond the limits of the United States tvith the in- tent of being enlisted in the service of any foreign state.'' 4. That Lord Clarendon undertook the defence and justification of "her Majesty's officers and servants," for this purpose citing as authority Judge Kane's opinion on the hearing of Hertz's case on a habeas corpus ; misquoting the learned judge, and wholly omitting then, or at any other time thereafter, to mention the fact that Hertz had been convicted before, and sentenced by the same judge. The convic- tion of Hertz proved that the law had been violated ; and the justice of that conviction was placed beyond dispute by the fact that, according to Lord Clarendon, Judge Kane rightly expounded the law. The com- plicity of her Majesty's officers and servants is more clearly demon- strated by the evidence in Hertz's case, than is the guilt of Hertz. If he violated the law, they hired him to do it. 5. While Lord Clarendon asserts that he gave strict orders to British consuls " not to violate the laws," and enjoined on Mr. Crampton^'' above all to have no concealment from the United States government," he de- fends these parties, and undertakes to justify their conduct, after it is shown that the consuls at Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and New York, have violated the laws, and that Mr. Crampton was scrupulously careful to conceal all his movements from the government and people of the United States, having recourse to ciphers and cabalistic characters for this purpose in his telegraphic communications with his associates. 6. That, having obtained from Mr. Buchanan a quasi acknowledg- ment of satisfaction, on a partial understanding of the case, he under- OUR RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND. 449 toot, after its full development, to plead this acknowledgment in bar of any further inquiry, and became petulant and irascible when he failed of his purpose. 7. When Mr. Marcy, satisfied of Crampton's connection with this busi- ness, charged it upon him, he neither attempted to palliate nor deny it, but sent home for instructions, thus virtually acknowledging that he was acting under orders, and that the Home Government must take the re- sponsibility, 8. Lord Clarendon continued to maintain that our laws had not been violated, asserting that, though we had resorted to despotic means to obtain evidence, nothing had or could be elicited to establish a charge against her Majesty's servants, and this after Hertz had been convicted, and the complicity of Crampton, Barclay, Matthew, Rowecroft, and others clearly demonstrated. 9. All these and other considerations, which are developed by the testimony and the correspondence, force the mind with irresistible power to the conclusion that there has been either a deliberate purpose to in- fringe our rights and violate our laws, or else an insulting indifterence shown as to whether they were or were not infringed and violated. That their professions of friendship are not sincere ; or, if they are, that the British cabinet place so low an estimate on our dignity as a nation as to conclude that, if they are our friends, they may treat us as they please. Either position is inadmissible. 10. And, finally, that the President and Secretary have, from the commencement, manifested a proper American spirit, and have lived up to the maxim of " asking for nothing but what is right, and submittino; to nothing that is wrong." That no excuse or apology has been offered that ought to have been accepted. That they were right in asking the recall of the offending oiEcers ; and if the British cabinet refuse to recall them they ought to dismiss them forthwith. Such, sir, are the conclu- sions to which my mind has arrived. It seems to me, sir, this question may be understood by reducing it to an issue as between private gentlemen. Let us for a moment put the two governments aside, and suppose the controversy to exist between General Pierce and Lord Clarendon. His lordship has personal interests to be looked after on the estate of General Pierce, and for that purpose he sends his private and confidential servant. The General receives the servant on the implied understanding that he is to commit no trespass, nor violate in any way the domestic regulations of the estate. In a short time he is found taking unwarrantable liberties with the General's property, and inciting his domestics to acts of insubordination. The General complains to his lordship, and is answered that " stringent in- structions were given to the servant not to act improperly, and above all things not to have any concealment from General Pierce ;" and his lord- ship adds, " I am sorry if anything has been done by my servant to give offence." Willing to settle the matter on easy terms, and not under- standing fully what the servant has been doing, the General expresses a qualified satisfaction. Soon after, he finds that his lordship's servant, instead of discontinuing his objectionable practices, is still actively car- rying them on, and to assure himself against detection, has resorted to secret signs and " ciphers," with which to communicate with the servants about the premises. General Pierce calls on Lord Clarendon 29 450 ALBERT G. BROWN. a second time, communicates these facts, and assures him that he has abundant proof of the continued misconduct of his servant, and respect- fully but earnestly remonstrates against his being allowed thus to act. His lordship — instead of listening to the complaint, and at once satisfy- ing the General of his sincere friendship, by reprimanding or removing the obnoxious servant — asserts that the servant has done nothing but ■what he had the right to do ; accuses the General of resorting to despotic measures to get up testimony against him; and, finally, winds up the whole matter by broadly intimating that, as the General does not keep his own domestics in very good order, he has no right to be com- plaining of other people's servants. On this statement of the case what would any fair-minded man say ? "Would not the universal judgment of every just man be that General Pierce's conduct had been gentlemanly and forbearing, while that of Lord Clarendon had been deceptive, haughty, supercilious, insolent, and overbearing, and that a decent self-respect would require the General to send the servant home with a civil message to his master to keep him there until they both learned better manners. Now, if you will substitute the United States for General Pierce, Great Britain for Lord Clarendon, Mr. Crampton for his lordship's con- fidential servant, and the people tampered with for the domestics of General Pierce, you have this Avhole enlistment imbroglio in a nutshell. What the President means to do I am not authorized to say ; but if he does not give Mr. Crampton his passports, and revoke the exequaturs of consuls Matthew, Barclay, Rowecroft, and others complicated in this business, we had as well hang the national harp upon a willow, and cease talking about the honor and glory of our country. In what I have felt called upon to say, Mr. President, it has been my purpose to speak plainly — if you please, bluntly — for I am a plain, blunt man ; but it has been no part of my purpose to incite a war spirit in the country. Next to dishonor, I should regard a war, and a war with Great Britain especially, as the greatest calamity that could befall our country. If the British government is not seeking a quarrel with us, we shall have no war. We are right in the controversy ; and when Lord Clarendon and the British cabinet and people see that we are in earnest, and mean to be respected, they will do us justice, unless they are seek- ing war. If, on the other hand, Great Bi-itain is seeking a quarrel, we may have war. The present affords her a decent pretext for urging it on ; and in that view of the subject the sooner matters are brought to an issue the better. I know not by what spirit the British cabinet may be actuated, but on the good sense, the sound judgment, and the interested friendship of the British people, I have the firmest reliance. They will make no Avar with us if they can help it. The calamities to our country would be great indeed ; but the disasters to British trade, to British labor, and to British commerce would be incalculable. A war would stop our cotton gins, but it would also stop her spinning jennies. If she can afford to quit spinning cotton, we can afford to quit raising it. But enough of this. I hope we shall have no war ; there is not an American citizen who ought to desire it. I hope there are very few who would not avoid it so long as it can be avoided on honorable terms ; nor one Avho would not hail it as a blessing, if the honor of the country required it. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. . 451 It is to be hoped that the British government will not push this matter to the ultima ratio of war, or submission to her will, and the insolence of her servants. If she does, I choose the former : the country, in my opinion, with one voice will choose the former. It will be found that our love of peace does not carry us to the point of craven submission to insult ; and that however we may differ and wrangle among ourselves, we demand respect from strangers towards every member of the political household. As against a common foe we should, I am sure, present a broad, united front extending from Maine to California. We should vie with one another in deeds of devotion to a common and beloved country. We should show the world that, broad as our country is, diversified as are her interests, she is loved with a singleness of devotion by all her sons ; that we love her great valleys, and her high mountains ; her deep, blue lakes, and her broad, clear rivers ; her fertile soil, and her rich mines ; her great cities, and her vast commerce ; that she is ours in all her grand proportions, and that " The pedestal on -which her glory stands Is built of all our hearts and all our hands." DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 25, lS5fi, ON THE JURISDICTION OF CONGRESS OVER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Mr. President : I do not desire to occupy the attention of the Sen- ate, because it is my wish to have the District bills disposed of as soon as possible ; but after the debate which has occurred, I feel it to be my duty to say a few words. I differ from the senator from Georgia in regard to the question of jurisdiction. We start from different points. He says, that the Con- stitution gives to Congress the exclusive power over the District of Columbia. I think there is something more than that to be taken into account. The original proprietors of the soil on which the city of Washington now stands, when they ceded the soil to Congress, expressly provided that the jurisdiction over the streets and reservations should remain in Congress, for the benefit of the people of the United States. When you accepted the cession, it was, as a matter of course, upon the conditions of the deeds. According to the original authorities, accord- ing to your Presidents, your Congresses, your Attorneys-General, and all who examined the subject, it was decided that the jurisdiction was in Congress and was inalienable. That this thirty-fourth Congress has the right to give a particular party the privilege of occupying a street or reservation for the time being, I am ready to admit; but if the next Congress be dissatisfied with it, they have a right to require the party occupying it under the authority of the thirty-fourth Congress to remove from its occupancy. The ground on which the report of the committee, on which the senator from Georgia has commented, is based, is that no one Congress has a right to cede the streets and reservations in perpe- tuity either to a corporation or to an individual. 452 ALBERT G. BROWN. The report does not deny that Congress may give to this company the temporary use and occupancy of a portion of Pennsylvania avenue. What it denies clearly and distinctly is, that Congress has power to cede the occupancy of the territory in perpetuity to a corporation ; because that is a cession of the jurisdiction ^Yhich no one Congress can make, on the broad ground that the jurisdiction must be exercised equally by one Congress as by another. My friend from Georgia says that, under the act of 1854, this com- pany had the right to cross Pennsylvania avenue. I take issue with him on that point. By the first section of the law it was clearly contem- plated that the road should cross the Potomac river, above the aqueduct, at Georgetown, and then it was provided that they should not pass through or along Pennsylvania avenue. If you will take up the map of the city you will see, that if they crossed the Potomac river at that point they would have had no occasion Avhatever to pass through, along, or across Pennsylvania avenue. Congress, in enacting that section, de- signed to prevent their passing along or through the avenue from George- town to Washington. The company had not then proposed to cross Penn- sylvania avenue. They proposed to bring their road to the Potomac river, and to cross the river at a point above Georgetown, and hence they would have to go out of their way to cross Pennsylvania avenue. Their proposition, then, was to come into the avenue at its western end, and come along and through it to the Capitol, and then turn off to the Baltimore and Ohio depot. Congress was guarding against the proposition then before them. If anything which was suggested, or if anything which was before Congress, could have led, in the remotest possible degree, to the sup- position that there was a purpose to cross Pennsylvania avenue, the phrase, "you shall not cross it," would have been used. The very fact that it was then proposed to come over the Potomac above Georgetown excluded the possibility of anybody entertaining the idea that they meant to cross- Pennsylvania avenue. That would bring them into Washington at a point north of the avenue ; and why once being north of it, they should cross it to the south, and then cross it again to another point to reach the Baltimore depot, and take this zigzag course, would be unexplainable. They would have had to cross it twice, if that was their object. There would have been no sense and no reason in that. As I have stated, however, the proposition Avas, that they should have power to come along the avenue, to occupy it, to put their railroad upon it, and Congress meant to guard against that. There was no pro- position at that time to cross the Potomac at the Long Bridge. I will read the enactment. The first section of the act provided : — " That the Alexandria and Washington Railroad Company, incorporated by the legislature of Virginia on the 27th of February, 1854, to construct a railroad from Alexandria, in the state of Virginia, to the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, be, and they are hereby, authorized to extend their road from any point on the Virginia side of the Potomac river to which said road may be constructed, at or above the aqueduct of the Alexandria Canal, into the District of Columbia." Not at the Long Bridge, where they are now crossing the river. No authority was given them to cross the river at that point, but " at or above the aqueduct," which is two or three miles beyond the point where they are now crossing the river. What then ? The act goes on to provide : — I DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 453 " Connecting with the Baltimore and Washington Railroad depot by the most con- venient and practicable route or routes, passing through and along such streets and avenues, except the Pennsylvania avenue, of Washington and Georgetown, as the corporate authorities thereof may respectively approve, subject to certain conditions hereinafter expressed." The whole legislation proceeded on the idea that they were to cross the Potomac river at, or above, the aqueduct ; and that then they should not come along Pennsylvania avenue. They were not interdicted the privilege of crossing the avenue, because nobody supposed that they could ever design to do such a thing. If they had proposed to cross the Potomac river at the Long Bridge, Congress, no doubt, would have said, " You shall not cross Pennsylvania avenue ;" because then it would have occurred to everybody at once, that if the railroad reached this side of the river by way of the Long Bridge, it would be necessary to pass over Pennsylvania avenue in order to get to the Baltimore depot. Inasmuch, however, as they proposed to come across the Potomac river at a point far above the bridge, and above the termination of the ave- nue, there was no necessity for saying that they should not cross the avenue, for such a thing could not have been in contemplation. I think that it is perfectly clear. My friend from Georgia says that this whole question is one of con- venience to senators. No, sir, it is no question of convenience to sena- tors. The question is whether we shall preserve this great thoroughfare from the encroachments of private corporations ? If this were the only means of connecting Alexandria and Washington by a railroad, I would say, whatever might be the temporary inconvenience, I would grant it ; but that is not so. You have graded the streets ; you have made them convenient for laying down a railroad track ; and a private company occupies them because you have expended the public money in prepar- ing them for the track. Mr. President, the whole scheme involved in this matter is an attempt to induce Congress to build a bridge across the Potomac river for the benefit of a private company. This matter commenced by an appeal to Congress to allow this company to cross the Long Bridge with its rail- road. Congress refused, and told them, " You shall not cross there at all, but you must reach the District side of the river at or above the aqueduct." Next we ascertain that they are running a railroad toward the Long Bridge on both sides of the river, not, it is true, crossing the Long Bridge, but evidently contemplating that Congress hereafter is to build a bridge at that point, and give this company the right to run their railroad on it, which is but giving them $1,000,000, I tell you now, from the national treasury for a private company. It will cost $1,000,000 to construct a bridge across the river suited for a railroad at this point ; and this company now contemplate the erection of a bridge there by the government for their private use. If they did not so contemplate, it would be a matter of no consequence to them whether they ran the railroad where it now is, or not. I have said that, if there were no other way of connecting Alexan- dria and Washington, I should withdraw my objection, and allow this track to remain where it is ; but there is another way, a better way, a more convenient way, a more proper way in all respects ; and that is to allow the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company to cross the eastern branch of the Potomac at the Navy Yard, to go down on the north side 4 t 454 ALBERT G. BROWN. of the Potomac river, to cross the Potomac opposite Alexandria, by steam ferry-boats, thus abstaining from interference in the navigation of one of God's great highways. Sir, I esteem this whole proceeding as but an incipient step towards the erection of a bridge below George- town, which is to be permanent, and lasting, and ruinous to that ancient city. While I feel bound to protect the interests of Washington, I also feel bound to protect the interests of Georgetown. Both are within the District of Columbia ; both are subject to our care, and both should receive our protection. I tell you now, sir, that, if you permit this ob- struction to stand, the result will be that by and by this company will cross the Potomac at a point near that where the Long Bridge now stands, and on a bridge erected by the government out of the public funds. That is the scheme ; I am opposed to it. If they wish to cross the Potomac at or above the aqueduct, as the law prescribed, let them do it ; or if they wish to change their policy, and cross the eastern branch at the Navy Yard, and go down on the north side of the Poto- mac, and reach Alexandria by a steam ferry-boat from a point opposite that city, let them do that ; neither will interfere with the commerce of Georgetown, nor with any of the rights given to any portion of the people of this District by nature. I shall not go further into the question ; in fact, I did not rise to dis- cuss it ; but when the senator from Georgia attacks the report in this case as resting upon unsound principles, I beg to say to him that I have looked somewhat into the authorities, and I feel perfectly assured that on the legal proposition we are right : that this company had no authority to put the road where they have put it, and that they placed it there in violation of law. I say further that the city authorities of Washington have no jurisdiction over the streets. I do not mean to say that the corporate authorities have not the power to improve, to adorn, to beau- tify these streets. I do not mean to say that Congress may not give them the temporary jurisdiction over the streets ; but I do pretend to say, on the authorities which I have consulted, that the jurisdiction is so perfectly vested in Congress for the benefit of the people of the United States that it is inalienable, and that they have no right to part with it. Mr. Toombs. I ask the senator if we have any more jurisdiction over this District than Mississippi has w^ithin her limits ? Mr. Brown. Certainly not. Mr. Toombs. Cannot Mississippi vest the control of the streets and avenues in the city of Natchez in the corporate authorities of that city ? Mr. Brown. I stated before that you received the precise soil on which Washington City stands, not by a deed of cession from Maryland and its acceptance by the United States. I know that, by that deed, you got the general political jurisdiction under the Constitution; but in addition to that, there were special deeds from the proprietors of the soil, giving it to the United States on conditions which they expressly prescribed in the conveyance. One of these was that the jurisdiction should be in the United States or in Congress, for the benefit of the people of the United States. If you can violate the deeds under which you hold the soil, and under which you accepted the property from the original proprietors, you can cede jurisdiction in perpetuity to the cor- poration of Washington ; but I maintain that you cannot do it. If you ADMISSION OF KANSAS. . 455 can, what Congress is to do it ? This one ? Will not the next Con- gress have the same power which this has ? If the two agree, will not the third have the same power that both the others had ? I hold the doctrine to be sound, that when the jurisdiction is in Congress for the benefit of the people, you may grant the temporary use, but you cannot alienate the jurisdiction. This is the doctrine of the report. ADMISSIOlN^ OF KANSAS. SPEECH IN THE SENATE, APRIL 28, 1S56. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, having under consideration the bill to au- thorize the people of the territory of Kansas to form a constitution and state government, preparatory to their admission into the Union when they have the re- quisite population — Mr. Browx, said : — With the indulgence of the Senate, I propose to submit a thought or two on some of the points involved in this debate. I will not enter the list with those whose range is over the whole wide field which this Kansas question has opened up ; but shall confine my- self to a few points on which I think the controversy mainly rests — points which I believe lie further back than most of our speakers have yet gone. To whom docs the proprietorship of the territories belong ? How far does the legislative authority of Congress extend over the ter- ritories ? What are the political rights of the inhabitants there, and in whom does the sovereignty reside ? These are the points which I mean, not separately, but collectively, to consider. It is time we had come to an understanding on these points ; a failure to do so at the proper time has, I think, involved us in much of the embarrassment which we now suffer. It will be seen at once that the line of argument which I have marked out for myself will lead me to consider, to some extent, the doc- trine of " squatter sovereignty." This doctrine, however well designed by its authors, has, in my judgment, been the fruitful source of half our troubles. Before the people of the two sections of the Union having — as they supposed, though I think erroneously — hostile interests, and al- ready inflamed by angry passions, were invited into the country, we, who gave them laws, should have defined clearly and distinctly what were to be their rights after they got there. Nothing should have been left to construction. I believed when the Kansas bill was passed that it conferred on the inhabitants of the territories, during their territorial existence, no right to exclude, or in anywise to interfere with, slavery. I then thought, and still think, it the duty of the law-making power in a territory to treat all property alike ; to give the same protection to ouc species of property that it gives to another. But I knew at the time, and still know, that others were of a dift'ercnt opinion. Many, whose opinions I am accustomed to respect, believed that the law-makers 456 ALBERT G. BROWN. could discriminate against slave property. It is time "we had settled this delicate and perplexing question. To me it is, therefore, a source of unfeigned satisfaction that the senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] has brought forward this bill. I see in it the germs of a final and lasting settlement on a firm and a solid basis. It carries out the original design of the Kansas-Nebraska act as I understood it. It fixes the period at which the inhabitants of a territory may ask its admission into the Union as a state ; and the report by "which it is accompanied denies all sovereignty in the territory during its territorial existence. If we pass it, it will be done, I hope, on the distinct understanding that, hereafter, a territory can only ask admission into the Union as a state after it is ascertained by a census, lawfully taken, that it has the required federal population to entitle it to at least one representative in Congress, and upon the further understanding that the sovereignty is not in the territory, but that it is in abeyance, held by the states or the United States in trust for the territory until its admission as a state. The advocates of state-rights have always held that the territories are the common property of the states ; that one state has the same in- terest in them as another ; and that a citizen of one state has the same rights to go to them as a citizen of any other state. The corollary, therefore, has been, that a citizen of any one state has the same right as a citizen of any other state to go into the territories and take with him whatever is recognised as property in the state from which he goes. Thus, if a citizen of Massachusetts may go and take with him a bale of goods, a citizen of Tennessee may go and take a barrel of whiskey ; and if a citizen of New York may go and take a horse, a citizen of Mississippi may go and take a slave. It must be so, or else the equality of the parties is destroyed — Tennessee becomes inferior to Massa- chusetts, and the rights of a Mississippian are inferior to those of a New Yorker. This doctrine finds opposition nowhere but among the advocates of that uncertain theory Avhich some call territorial sovereignty, others popular sovereignty, and others again squatter sovereignty — a theory which the author of this bill so well combats in the declaration " that the sovereignty of a territory remains in abeyance, suspended in the United States, in trust for the people, until they shall be admitted into the Union as a state." To this declaration I give my assent. It would, perhaps, have been more exact to have said that the sovereignty is in the states ; but if it is in the United States as a trust, it can never be used by the trustee for his own purposes; and therefore, while it may not be so sound in theory, it will be found quite as safe in practice, to admit that it is in the United States. I have said that the states were equal and had equal rights in the territories ; and I have thereby admitted that Massachusetts is equal to Mississippi, and has all the rights in the territories which I claim for Mississippi. If this equality does not exist, why does it not ? Did it never exist, or has it been destroyed ? That it did exist, is manifest from the very nature and structure of the government under which we live. Th6 states were equal before they adopted the Constitution, and they entered the confederacy as equals. That the equality has not been de- stroyed, is proven by the organization of this body, in which the smallest ADMISSION OF KANSAS. 457 state lias two votes, and the largest has no more. The states were equals out of the Union — they are equals in it. The power which can destroy the equality of the states must he that supreme power which we call the sovereignty — the power in the states which is superior to all other powers. Where does this power reside ? Is it in Congress ? May Congress exercise the power of a sovereign in the territories ? The doctrine of congressional sovereignty I understand to be denied in the report which accompanies this bill. The eminent and distin- guished author of that report [Mr. Douglas] reposes the sovereignty in the United States in trust for the territory, until it becomes a state. I need hardly use an argument to show that a trustee cannot use a trust for his own purposes, nor for purposes not clearly embraced in the deed. A fund held in trust for an infant, to be delivered when he comes of age, must be held without waste, and delivered to him without deduction at the proper time. The same rule, I apprehend, will hold as between the United States and a territory. If Congress may, at pleasure, use a trust confided to the United States for the benefit of a territory, so as to exclude slavery from that territory, then there can be no reason why Congress may not, in the ex- ercise of the same trust, exclude spirituous liquors, foreign and domestic goods, or everytliing else that offends the prejudices or excites the pas- sions of the trustee, or, I should rather say, the representative of the trustee, for Congress is but the representative of the United States. I am not going to discuss the constitutional power of Congress to ex- clude slavery from the territories. If the argument on that point has not already been exhausted, it has at least become threadbare. It is asserted and maintained with great unanimity, by all sound Democrats, that Congress has no such power. If Congress has not the authority, who has '( Where does it reside ? Is it in the territorial legislature ? What is a territorial legislature ? It is the creature of Congress. Can Congress confer powers it does not itself possess ? Can the creature derive powers which do not belong to the creator ? Can the stream rise higher than its source ? The manifest answer to all these questions must be, NO. Congress can confer on the territories just such powers as itself possesses, and none other ; and as Congress docs not possess these powers, it cannot confer them on the territorial legislature. The excluding of slavery, or any other property, from a country, is a high act of sovereignty. If Congress, representing the party holding the sovereignty in trust, may exercise this power, then Congress ceases to be the mere agent of a trustee, and becomes the owner and para- mount title-holder. If the territorial legislature may exclude slavery, or otherwise exercise the rights of sovereignty in the territory, it must do it by virtue of a special grant from the trustee ; but if the United States invests the territory with that sovereignty, or any part of it which it holds in trust to be delivered up when the territory becomes a state, it abuses its trust — as much so as if a guardian, holding property in trust for an infant ward, to be delivered when the ward becomes of age, abuses his trust if he deliver the property during the minority of I the ward. These reflections have been produced by no disposition to carp at, or find fault with, any one's doctrines or opinions, but from an earnest 458 ALBERT G. BROWN. desire to reach wise and salutary conclusions as to what is the true theory on this troublesome point. There seems to be a certain undefined idea in the minds of some men that the sovereignty of a territory is inherent in the people of a terri- tory ; that it came to them from on high — a sort of political manna, descended from heaven on these children of the forest. This doctrine, I confess, is a little too ethereal for me ; I do not comprehend it ; but this I know — if the sovereignty is in the people of the territory, whether they obtained it from God or men, the conduct of this government towards them is most extraordinary. It is nothing short of downright usurpation and despotism. We have now seven governors appointed by the Presi- dent, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to govern the seven territories of the United States. We have seven different sets of terri- torial judges, appointed in the same way, to expound the laws for the seven territories. We have marshals to arrest, and district attorneys to prosecute, the inhabitants of these sovereignties in their own country. AVe require the territories to legislate in obedience to our acts ; and, lest they may go astray, we sometimes oblige them to send up their laws for our approval. It has happened, time and time again, that their legislation has fallen under the disapprobation of Congress, and thereby became void. What a mockery to disclaim the sovereignty yourselves, declare that it is in the people of the territory, and then send a governor to rule them, judges to expound their laws, marshals to arrest, and dis- trict attorneys to prosecute them ; and, finally, to require these sovereigns to send up their laws for your sanction ; and then, by your disapproval, to render them null ! If the sovereignty is not in Congress, and not in the territories, you ask me where is it 'i The question has been answered by the senator from Illinois in the very able report which accompanies this bill. He says " it is in abeyance, suspended in the United States in trust for the people of the territories, until they are admitted into the Union as a state." I have already indicated my entire willingness to adopt this answer, though I should have answered somewhat differently myself. I should have said it is in the states, or, if you please, in the people of the states. It may be well, in this connection, to give my own views on this point. I hold that the rights of sovereignty over the territories, never having been delegated to Congress, are, in the language of the Constitu- tion, reserved to the states, or to the people of the states. When the Constitution was framed, there were no such people as the people of the territories. The people spoken of in the Constitution must, therefore, have been the people of the states, for there was none other. The sovereignty being in the states or in the people, Massachusetts must retain her part. New York hers, Tennessee hers, Mississippi hers, and all the other states their parts respectively, to be held and exercised jointly until the territory, with the requisite population, legally and constitutionally ascertained, and with a republican form of government, asks admission into the Union as a state. As she steps into the Union, she becomes coequal with the other states, and, eo instayiti, the sover- eignty passes from the states as they now exist into the new state. It will be seen at once that I make a wide diff'erence between existing 11 ADMISSION OF KANSAS. 459 and incipie7it states. On tliis point, I believe, the practice of the government has been right. That practice has marked the difference in broad and legible characters between states and territories. The existino- states have always elected their own governors, appointed their own judges, and no man in his wildest fancies has ever dreamed of having a state send up her laws for the approval of Congress. The sovereignty of the states has been manifested in a full and unrestrained freedom with which they have acted on all these points. Exactly the contrary has been true in reference to incipient states or territories. Whenever they have acted, it has been in subordination to the authority of Con- gress — a subordination which, at once, in my judgment, destroys all idea of sovereignty. The President's annual message to Congress, I am glad to say, ig marked by a boldness and originality of thought and a frankness of ex- pression that challenges and receives the tribute of my sincere admira- tion. In that paper he declares that " the country has been awakened to a perception of the constitutional principle of leaving the matter (slavery) to the discretion of the respective existing and incipient states." I have no criticism to make on this language; I quote it only to say, that if, by an incipient state, the President means a territory with the requisite population to entitle it to one representative lawfully ascertained, and in the act of forming a constitution preparatory to ad- mission into the Union as a state, then I agree with him fully, entirely, and cordially. Such an incipient state has the right to settle the slavery question for herself. There can remain but one act necessary to the per- fection of that right, and that is, her actual admission as a state. If Con- gress, however, should exclude her, her action in regard to slavery would fall with the rest of her constitution. She would, in that case, resume her position as a territory. There can be no such thing as a state out of the Union. I take this occasion to declare before the Senate, that a territory ask- ing admission into the Union as a state ought not to be excluded on the ground that her constitution admits or prohibits slavery. If, in all other respects, she is prepared for admission, it would be a monstrous outrage to exclude her on account of the pro or a?if^slavery feature in her pro- posed constitution. I have not denied, and do not mean to deny, the right of self-govern- ment. We may differ as to Avhat constitutes self-government ; but I will go as far as any other man in maintaining the right. Do you ask me what, in my opinion, the people of a territory have a right to do ? I answer, unhesitatingly, they may do whatever is necessary to protect the public morals, or insure the public safety. Thus : the territory may require spirituous liquors taken there from Ohio to be so kept and so used as that the public morals may not suffer thereby ; and it may re- quire a vicious animal taken from another state to be impounded, or so disposed of as that the public safety may not be endangered. And, upon the same principle, I admit it to be within the competency of the territorial legislature to regulate the use of slave property. To regulate, however, is one thing ; to destroy, without cause, and in simple obedi- ence to public prejudice, is another and a very different thing. It is competent for the sovereign to say what is and what is not pro- perty within his dominions. It will require the highest attributes of 460 ALBERT G. BROWN. sovereignty, however, to determine so important a question as tliis — at- tributes, in my judgment, far above those that belong to this Congress, or to the territories — attributes which are inherent in the states, and not having been delegated are yet in the states, and nowhere else. I have spoken of slaves simply as property, because it is in that rela- tion that they will go to the territory, if they go there at all. Con- sidered as persons only, there would perhaps be no effort made to ex- clude them. The relations between master and slave, parent and child, , husband and wife, are all proper subjects of legislative regulation ; but no one of them more than another is a proper subject for legislative dis- tinction. It would be a monstrous exercise of power to dissolve all the matrimonial ties in a territory, and absolve all the children from obedi- ence to their parents ; and yet it would require no greater power to do this than it would to break what is flippantly called the fetters that bind a slave to his master. Am I asked if there is no power — no right anywhere to abolish or prohibit slavery in the territories ? I answer emphatically that there is. It is in the states. A territory is common ground. The states meet there as equals. No one has riglits superior to another. So long as the equality can be maintained and good faith preserved, no prohibitory or otber act against slavery is necessary. If divisions spring up and discord takes the place of harmony, then one of two things may be done ; and either, in my judgment, will be consistent with the obligations, rights, and duties of all the parties to the compact of our Union, I do not mean to say that either of these remedies ought to be resorted to. On the contrary, I should deprecate a resort to either ; I only say that either may he resorted to. If there shall ever be a necessity for either, the days of the Union, in my opinion, will be num- bered. If the states cannot occupy the territory jointly, the first and best remedy is to divide it. This may be done by a compact between the states. The compact, however, must be made by the states so acting in concert as to give the force and effect of a constitutional obligation to their expressed will. It cannot be done by Congress nor by the state legislatures. Congress may propose, and the states, speaking through their legislatures, may ratify an agreement, and thus give it the force and binding obligations of a compact. The states, acting through a con- vention of delegates so chosen as to represent the sovereignty, could make a compact. But as neither Congress nor the state legislatures re- present the sovereignty, neither can make a compact that would be binding on the states. The Missouri compromise, though passed by Congress and acquiesced in for a long time by the states, was never a compact, not having re- ceived at any time the sanction of the states with a view to make it so. I do not mean to say that compacts are provided for in the Constitution ; but I do mean to say that, looking to the nature . and structure of our government, it is my opinion that agreements may be entered into be- tween the states that will be of higher authority than mere legislative enactments, and yet of lower dignity than a written constitution. If a compact, such as I have mentioned, cannot be made, and discord con- tinues to reign, the next and only remaining remedy is to prohibit or abolish slavery in the territories, as you would do it in the states, by a ADMISSION OF KANSAS. 461 change of the Federal Constitution. The mode is pointed out in the fifth article of the Constitution, in these words: — "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or, on the application of the legisla- tures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amend- ments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratifica- tion may be proposed by the Congress : Provided, that no amendment, which may be made prior to the year 1808, shall in any manner aifect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article ; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal sufirage in the Senate." If it shall be said that this is a plan of impracticable execution, I reply, it is so "nominated in the bond" — the bond of our Union, the bond of our safety — and I would not demand of you the pound of flesh, I will yield nothing to your demands that is not " nominated in the bond." I utterly deny the power of Congress over slavery in the territories. The majority report of the committee, in my judgment, takes the true ground, to wit : that Congress derives its power to make laws for the territories from that clause in the Constitution which gives it the right to admit new states. If Congress has the substantive power to admit a new state, it follows, as a necessary incident, that it has the right to prepare the state for admission ; but in thus preparing a state, it will be an assumption of power not warranted by the grant, to take advantage of her weak and dependent condition, and to shape and mould her insti- tutions as to force her nolens volens, to take sides with one or the other of the parties to a sectional contest. It was to avoid all suspicion of foul injustice like this to the territory, as well as for the purpose of steering clear of an unhappy and unnatural sectional conflict, that the Kansas bill declared it to be " the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any state or territory, nor to exclude it therefrom ; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution." I concur fully with the able senator from Illinois in saying that the in- habitants of Kansas, during their territorial existence, " are entitled to enjoy and exercise all the privileges and rights of self-government, in subordination to the Constitution of the United States, and in obedience to their organic law, passed by Congress in pursuance of that instru- ment." I would leave the people there perfectly free to regulate their domestic affairs in their own way, subject to the Constitution and their organic law. But I can never admit that the power to regulate carries with it the right to destroy ; or that the people of a territory, having the right to regulate an institution within their limits, nave necessarily, ior by any fair inference, the right to exclude that institution from the territory. And in this view of the subject I am sustained, I think, by the luminous and powerful report of the senator [Mr. Douglas] who in- troduced the bill. The senator indicates in that report that Congress [has no power to exclude from the territories the domestic institutions of [the states ; and that the territories, deriving their legislative powers solely from the Constitution, through the acts of Congress, can, of course, do nothing which they are not empowered to do, either by the I 462 ALBERT G. BROWN. Constitution or by Congress. But it is better, perhaps, to take the very words of the report. It says : — " The organic act of the territory, deriving its validity from the power of Con- gress to admit new states, must contain no provision or restriction vrhich would de- stroy or impair the equality of the proposed state with the original states, or impose any limitation upon its sovereignty which the constitution has not placed on all the states. So far as the organization of a territory may be necessary and proper as a means of carrying into etfect the provision of the constitution for the admission of new states, and when exercised with reference only to that end, the power of Con- gress is clear and explicit ; but beyond that point the power cannot extend, for the reason that all 'powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.' In other words, the organic law of the territory, conforming to the spirit of the grant from which it receives its validity, must leave the people entirely free to form and regulate their domestic institutions and internal concerns in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, to the end that ivlien they attain the requisite popidation, and establish a state government in conformity to the Federal Constitution, they may be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever." This explanation is apposite and conclusive. It denies to Congress the constitutional power to go further than to give an organic law to the territory; and it places the denial on the impregnable basis of leaving the new state which is to grow out of the territory " at perfect liberty to seek admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatsoever." States have been admitted as non- slaveholding states, because they chose to exclude slavery; others have been admitted as slaveholding states, because they chose to hold slaves. Congress, in the days of their incipiency, did not undertake to mould and fashion their institutions. If other states are to be admitted on " an equal footing in all respects Avhatsoever," Congress must preserve a like course of non-intervention in their domestic affairs, in the days of their incipiency. If Congress has no other power than to give an organic law to the territory — if, in the language of the report, " the authority cannot extend beyond that point," then it is clear Congress has not, because it could not confer upon the territory the right to ex- clude slavery; and if, as is pertinently said in another part of the same report, " the rights and privileges" of the people of the territory " are all derived from the Constitution, through the acts of Congress," and "they have no inherent sovereign right to annul the laws" which Con- gress has given them, it becomes equally clear that they have no autho- rity derived from any quarter — either the Constitution, the acts of Congress, or the God of nature, during their period of territorial exist- ence, to exclude slavery. Such is my understanding of the report — such I believe to be the true intent and meaning of its author; and so understanding, and so believing, I give to the report my cordial and unqualified endorsement and approval. If, contrary to the opinions I have expressed, and contrary to the opinions so clearly indicated in the report of the committee, the people of a territory have the right to exclude slavery, or other state institutions or property, it follows, as a matter of course, that a territory is as much a sovereignty as a state. Nebraska is equal in dignity to Virginia ; and Kansas may do within her limits whatever South Carolina may do within hers. A territory may, and of right ought to, elect its own governor, appoint its own judges, make and expound its own laws, and, in short, ADMISSION OF K.\NSAS. 463 do whatever a free and independent state may, of right, do. Kansas would, in fact, be superior in many respects to South Carolina. That venerable and patriotic state, having joined the confederacy, has parted with her right to make treaties and form alliances ; but Kansas being a sovereignty out of the Union, I can conceive of nothing that is to prevent her from making treaties, contracting alliances, or doing anything else which a sovereignty may do, even to the extent of uniting her destiny with that of England or France. If an incipient state is equal to an existing state on the subject of slavery, I cannot, for the life of me, see why the equality does not extend to everything else ; but I can and do see that a state in the Union has parted with iTiany of her political rights, whereas a state out of the Union has parted with none of hers ; and, therefore, that it is better to be a state out of the Union than a state in it, I cannot close my remarks on this branch of the subject without thank- ing the honorable senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] for his powerful vindication of the constitutional rights of all sections of the country. While he deals justice to the South with a liberal hand, he deducts not one jot nor tittle from the equal rights of the North. He holds the scales of justice in equal balance between the two sections. This all fair-minded men must applaud. For myself, I ask nothing more, and will accept nothing less. A word more, Mr. President, and I have done. In passing the Kansas bill. Congress, in my opinion, committed one error ; and out of that error has grown much of the confusion and discord which have ever since distracted the inhabitants of the territory. It was just to repeal the Missouri restriction ; but it was unwise to leave the inhabitants of the territory in doubt as to the extent of their real powers. It was a griev- ous error not to have defined precisely what we meant " by leaving the people of the territory perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way." The report of the committee, and the bill under consideration, propose to correct that error. The report defines with accuracy and precision what are the rights of the territory during its territorial existence ; and the bill proposes to authorize the legislature of the territory to provide by law for the election of delegates by the people, and the assembling of a convention to form a constitution and state government, preparatory to their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, so soon as it shall appear, by a census to be taken under the direction of the governor, by the authority of the legislature, that the territory contains ninety-three thousand four hundred and twenty inhabitants — that being the number required by the present ratio of representation for a member of Congress." This is as it should be. It points to the time and circumstances under which Kansas may seek and receive admission into the Union as a state. When she seeks admission according to the terms prescribed in this bill, she shall receive it if my vote will give it to her, and I will not inquire whether her constitution sanctions or excludes slavery. I have always believed, and now declare, that whenever a census has been fairly taken, and the result has shoAvn that a territory has the fede- ral population to entitle it to one representative in Congress, it has the right to form a republican constitution, and ask admission into the Union as a state ; and I now give notice to all whom it may concern, that I will vote in all cases for the admission of states thus applying, without 464 ALBERT G. BROWN. a Avliy or a wherefore, and without stopping to inquire whether their proposed constitutions recognise or prohibit slavery. If this bill passes, as I sincerely trust it may, we shall have established a precedent that will stand, I hope, as a landmark and a guide in all time to come. It will fix a period at which the people of a territory, acting within the purview of the Constitution, in obedience to the authority of Congress rightfully exercised, and with the entire consent of all the people, may peaceably assemble and decide the slavery ques- tion for themselves. AYhen they have thus decided, there will doubtless be a universal acquiescence. Passion will subside ; reason will resume her dominion; there will be no further cause of bickering; and we shall say with one voice, to all the territories, " Go thou and do likewise." On the 12th of May, 1856, Mr. Brown continued the debate, in reply to Mr. Cass, as follows : — I have a few words to say in reference to the last allusion of the dis- tinguished senator from Michigan to a speech which I made the other day. He has alluded to what I said in reference to two distinguished gentlemen. Whatever deduction I drew from the language employed by either of them was based entirely on the papers which were before me. So far as relates to the senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas], he is a member of the body, and can say, for himself, whether or not I drew correct conclusions from his language, and therefore I shall not com- ment on that point. The President of the United States, however, is not a member of the body, and has no opportunity of being heard here ; and, so far as I deduced a conclusion from his language, it may be pro- per that I should at this stage of the discussion introduce a word of explanation. I quoted a solitary sentence from the late annual message of the Pre- sident to Congress, and from the language employed in that sentence did not draw a conclusion, but put my case hypothetically. I said, "If he means so and so, I concur with him fully." I did not say that I concurred with the President, because I did not feel quite sure that I understood him as he desired to be understood. lie said in his message that the country had been awakened to a perception of the " constitu- tional principle" — mark you, sir, "constitutional principle" — of leaving the people of existing and incipient states to regulate the slavery ques- tion for themselves. I directed attention to the words " incipient state," and I desired to know their meaning. I said that if, by an incipient state, the President means a territory, with population sufficient to entitle it to one repre- sentative in Congress, in the act of forming a state constitution prepara- tory to admission into the Union as a state, I concurred with him. I did not state the other side of the proposition ; I now understand the senator from Michigan as speaking by authority — Mr. Cass. Not at all. I have merely quoted from the message. I have never passed a word with the President on the subject in my life. Mr. Brown. Then let me ask, does my friend from Michigan under- stand him to mean that a territory at any time before or after its organi- zation is an incipient state, and has the right, as such, to settle the 1 ADMISSION OF IwVNSAS. 465 slavery question for itself? Docs lie understand the President as so meaning ? Mr. Cass. The clause -^vhich I quoted does not use the phrase " in- cipient state" at all, but speaks of territories generally. Mr, Brown. The clause which I read contained that expression, and I commented on that only. I understood it, as I am willing noAv to understand it, and as I hope the President meant to have it understood, that an incipient state is a territory in the act of forming a state consti- tution. If the President had meant a territory, he would have used the word territory, and not spoken of an incipient state. What I understand by an "incipient state" — what I am willing to understand, and what I hope the President meant when he employed the term, is a territory, with sufficient population to entitle her to one representative, in the act of forming a state constitution, preparatory to becoming a state. I said that such an incipient state had the right to settle the slavery question for itself, and when it settled it I would abide by the settlement, whether for me or against me. I am free to say, however, and 1 do say, that if by an incipient state we are to understand, as being meant, a territory without organization, or a territory with organization, but with not sufficient population to entitle her to one representative in Congress, and that such a territory has the power to settle the slavery question, or any other question of state right, or any question which does not pertain exclusively to the police of the territory, I wholly and entirely dissent from the proposition, whether it comes from the President, from my dis- tinguished friend from Michigan, or from any other quarter. Mr. Cass. I am not going to argue the point ; I have not the slight- est disposition to do so. I only desired to correct what I supposed to be a misapprehension of my honorable friend. As to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Territories, I have already put him right ; and now I will again read the words of the President — " the true prin- ciple of leaving each state and territory to regulate its own la-ws of labor, according to its own sense of right." I will merely observe, in addition, that if the President did not mean, that the people of a territory ought to possess this power, the language he uses is — to say the least of it — very unfortunate ; and, if by the expression "incipient state," — to which the senator refers, and which, I suppose, is intended to be descriptive of the territorial condition — is meant, as the senator suggests, the con- dition of one of those communities in the act of forming a state consti- tution, and becoming a state, it really seems to me very unnecessary to make the period of such an act — perhaps five or six months — a subject of special consideration ; one of the divisions of the exercise of this power. It is not worth it. Mr. Brown. It may be unnecessary to make the point; but it is always right to save a principle. I can see that, in a particular con- tingency, the point may become very important. The principle ouglit to be preserved, whether it is called into practical operation or not. There is yet another point in which this question is to be viewed. Is a territory not yet organized an incipient state ? For myself, I am free to say that, in my opinion, an unorganized community does not rise to the dignity of a territory, much less to the dignity of a state of any kind. I know we used to speak of the territories of California, of Utah, and of New Mexico, before we had given them governments at all : but 30 466 ALBERT G. BROWN. that was a loose mode of expression. Is it meant that such a territory may exclude slavery ? Then, there is another state of territorial existence. It is the period that intervenes between the organization of a particular territory into a political society, and its admission into the Union as a state. For in- stance, we have now Minnesota, Utah, and New Mexico, organized poli- tical communities. Formerly there was the territory of Michigan. It was I believe, seventeen years after she was organized into a territory before she was admitted into the Union. Mr. Cass. Thirty years. Mr. Brown. I hold, free from all other embarrassing questions, taking Michigan as an example, that the people of that territory at no time from the passage of the act organizing them into a territory to the period when a convention assembled to form a state constitution, had the right to settle the slavery question for themselves. During the whole thirty years this right was in abeyance. That is my position. I state it frankly. If the President means to assert that the people then had this right, as an inherent or constitutional prerogative, I simply say that I dissent from his conclusion. I do not quarrel with anybody about it, but I do not believe in such doctrines. Mr. Cass. The honorable senator puts me in a wrong position. I think the same ground was taken six or seven years ago. L never con- tended that the people of a territory had the right to legislate on the subject of slavery before they had a recognised government ; I never dreamed of it. They have no right in such a condition to pass any laws ; but, as I said in the California case, they have a right, if Congress unnecessarily delays action so that there is danger to the internal peace of the country — they have a right by the laws of God and man to form a government for themselves, and until there is a regularly organized government. They have no power to legislate upon this or upon any other subject. Mr. Brown. My friend from Michigan says that, up to the time when you give them a government by act of Congress, he does not con- tend that they have a right to interfere with slavery ; but, when you give them a government, I understand him to assert they have the right. ^ Now, from whom do they derive their right ? If they get it from God Almighty, why do they not have it before they receive a government from Congress as well as afterwards ? [Laughter.] Mr. Cass. Gentlemen need not laugh so soon ; I have a very simple answer to make. I have said that there is no government legally speaking until you have organized one. "When you give it to them, the right of leo-islation attaches, and is brought into exercise. It will not do to refer to°God Almighty or to any other power; the question is, what rights have they after you organize them ? You organize a legislature in the territory ; that legislature, then, has power of legislation. Wliere do they get it from ? They get it through the act of Congress ; but upon what subjects they shall exercise their powers of legislation, after they have organized, is a different question. I believe it is a question which we cannot control. The moment you authorize them as a legislature to legislate, they have rights. I have not contended that God Almighty: gave them a right to pass laws before a government was organized ; but I do contend that nature gives them rights which they can enforce if ADMISSION OF KANSAS. 467 you put them in danger of anarchy, without law or civil government. I suppose the senator will not deny, that men have certain rights, given by God, which none but tyrants can take away. Mr. Brown. Well, sir, I do not feel disposed to pursue this matter, as I perceive that my friend from Michigan and myself will never be able to agree upon the question. On the 26th of August, 1856, Mr. Brown again addressed the Senate as follows : — When this section was moved as an amendment to the last Kansas bill, reported from the Committee on Territories, I was one of three who voted against it. I was opposed to it then ; I am opposed to it now ; and mean to vote against it in any form in which it can be presented. When we passed the original Kansas act, we declared to all the world that the people of the territories had the right to make laws for them- selves, subject only to the limitations of the Constitution. When we were asked what is meant by the limitations of the Constitution, and who is to determine what are those limitations, we answered on all sides that is a question to be determined by the courts. Never once by any living man was it asserted that Congress was to be the judge as to what the limitations of the Constitution were. Now, gentlemen come in and tell us that because, in their judgment, the laws of Kansas do not con- form to the Constitution, we are called upon, and needs must obey the call, to overturn those laws. Now, sir, I do not pretend to say that I would vote for such laws. I would not. I do not pretend to say that I approve of the laws as they stand. I do not approve of them. What I contend for, is simply that that is none of my business. The people of Kansas have passed those laws. If any portion of the citizens there are dissatisfied with them, they have precisely the same remedy which you and I, if we had gone to the territory, would have had if laws had been passed obnoxious to us. They have their right to appeal to the Supreme Court ; and if that right is not amply secured by the present legislation of the country, I am ready to secure it in the amplest manner possible. I stand prepared to guaranty any sort of appeal which the people of Kansas, or any por- tion of them, may desire to prosecute. I would even go to the extent of piitting these appeal cases at the head of the docket and requiring the Supreme Court to hear and determine them in advance of all other cases ; but I am not willing, and will not, on my responsibility as a legis- lator, interpose with a declaration that these laws are unconstitutional, and that, therefore, I am not only called upon, but imperatively bound, to blot them from the statute-book. The senator from California says these laws are disgraceful to the age in which we live, and that he is ready to wipe them from the statute-book. Sir, if the Wilmot proviso had been passed, if they had laws excluding slavery from the territory, I should have regarded such laws as unconstitutional ; but if I had come here and asked senators to help me to repeal such legislation, would they have done it ? Would they not have told me, " according to the original bill you are remitted to the courts for your remedy ; if any con- stitutional right of yours has been invaded, appeal to the courts ; seek your remedy there, and if you obtain it, we acquiesce ; if you fail, you 408 ALBERT G. BROWN. must submit." That measure of justice which you would mete out to me or my people, mete out to others and their people. That measure of justice which you would mete out to the South, mete out to the North, and then there will be no just ground of complaint anywhere. I ask you whether you are going to say to the Southern States, "if the legis- lation be against you, you must abide by it until you can have overturned it in court ;" and to the people of the Northern States, " if the legislation be against your prejudices or your principles, you have but to appeal to Congress, and Congress will set the matter right for you?" Sir, I regard this as flagrantly unjust — as one of the most unjust propositions, all things considered, that has ever been brought before this body. It is not only yielding to a wild spirit which is threatening to overturn the institutions of the country, thereby encouraging that spirit to go on to still further aggression, but it is, in my judgment, a palpable, downright, outrageous disregard of the rights of one half of the Union. There is but one point, in my judgment, upon which this proceeding can be justified ; and that is the point taken by the Free-soil portion of this body. If they are right that this Avhole legislation is the work of usurpation and tyranny — if they are right in the supposition that persons thrust themselves into the territory and arbitrarily made laws under which they do not mean to live and under which they are not living, — then it is your duty to interpose and Avipe all the laws from the statute-book ; not only those which are obnoxious, but those which would otherwise be acceptable, upon the broad ground that it was a usurpation and a tyranny. I hold that you have no right to discriminate. One senator rises and says, "this law is obnoxious to me," and forthwith the Senate blots it out. Another rises and says, "this is obnoxious to me," and you blot that out. And when you have blotted out enough to obtain a majority of the Senate, there you stop. There are still complaining senators, still senators, representatives from states, who say "there are other laws obnoxious." Why not listen to their complaints, and wipe out those laws also ? Sir, if I believed, with the sena,tors on the other side of the chamber, that unauthorized persons had made these laws, and now refused to live under them, I should go with the senator from Massachusetts, not only for blotting out the obnoxious portion, but all the other, and giving a new start to the government; but I believe no such thing; I have seen no evidence of it. I believe that the legislature which made those laws was as fair a legislature as ever represented so new a people anywhere. That there were irregularities in the election is true beyond all doubt. These irregularities happen in old, and well-settled, and well-organized com- munities. Can you expect more regularity in a territory, situated as Kansas is, than in a state ? It was the legislature of the territory. Some of its members doubtlessly were irregularly chosen, but it represented the people of Kansas, and it was their only representative. It passed these laws. The next election comes off in October — only a little more than a month from to-day. If the people of Kansas are not satisfied with these laws, let them repeal them, as a dissatisfied party in a state repeals their laws. What I maintain is, that you have no right to inter- fere. Under your grant to the territory, it had the same right to pass laws for itself which a state had to pass laws for itself. It has the same ADMISSION OF KANSAS. 409 right to pass laws for itself which Massachusetts, or Virginia, or any other state, has to pass laws to govern people within their own limits, I dare say the gentlemen on the other side of the chamber think there are many statutes on the Virginia statute-book that are outrageous ; but would you call upon the Senate to wipe them out ? Would you call upon Congress to interfere ? Massachusetts complained of certain legis- lation of South Carolina, and the imprisonment of what she chose to call her colored citizens, but she never asked Congress to repeal the act of South Carolina. Why ? Because South Carolina had a right to pass outrageous laws, if she chose to do so, and govern her people by them. Congress had no business to interpose. Now, if the principle upon which you passed your Kansas bill was the correct principle, that the people had the right to pass such laws as they chose to pass, subject only to the limitations of the Constitution ; and if it was true, as you said, that the limitations of the Constitution were to be determined by the courts, and not by Congress, under what pre- tence do you bring this bill here, and ask for action upon it ? The people have legislated ; you think they have legislated erroneously ; but there is no appeal but to the court to overturn their legislation. I do not care to pursue this subject. It opens a wide field for debate. It opens up all the principles on which the territories are governed. It involves all our ideas of the powers of government. I am not going to run off into this branch of the subject. I plant myself upon the contract which we entered into in passing the original Kansas bill. Sir, the people of the territory have no right to legislate for themselves, if you exercise a supervisory control to overturn their legislation whenever you are dissatisfied with it. My venerable friend from Michigan maintained this morning, as he has always maintained, that the people have a right — I understand him to say it is a sovereign right of the people — to make laws for themselves ; but when they make the laws, and they do not meet the approbation of my friend from Michigan, he throws them over- board. Mr. Cass. I never said that. Mr. Brown. But you act it. . Mr Cass. I never acted it. Mr. Brown. Does not my friend from Michigan admit that the peo- ple of Kansas have a right to pass laws for themselves ? Mr. Cass. I am not going to discuss this matter, as I am rather a point of attack to-day. I wish to observe, that I maintain, as I have always done, that the people of Kansas have certain inalienable rights Becured by the Constitution. I maintain that, in a territory, American citizens have no right to institute a government of themselves, unless driven to it by your neglect. I maintain that, when you do institute a government, they may then go on and exercise governmental powers, which powers they do not derive from you, but from the Constitution. You give them the means to exercise them. That has been my doctrine. Now, Mr. President, I am not going to touch the point of the honor- able senator from Mississippi, but merely to vindicate myself. I believe that the people of the territory of Kansas have the right to exercise their domestic privileges, if I may so term them, for themselves, and you have no right to interfere ; but I believe that if the Congress of the United States pass a law, they have the same right to see that that law 470 ALBERT G. BROWN. is faithfully executed which they had to pass it. Whether you derive your power from one clause of the Constitution or another to establish a territorial government, you have the same right to take care that that government is faithfully executed. Then, if the territorial legislature pass laws which are in the very face of the Constitution and in the face of your organic act, it is my opinion that Congress has a right to correct their error. Mr. Brown. I so understood my friend. I do not think there is any difference at all between his understanding of himself and my un- derstanding of his opinions. I am not quarrelling with him about it ; but my own mind is so obtuse that it fails or refuses to perceive the difference between the position of my friend as stated by himself and as stated by me. The people of the territory either have the right to make laws for themselves or they have not. If they have the right to do it, I maintain that you have no right to overturn their laws ; because, if, whenever they run counter to your views, and make laws which you do not approve, you have the right to overturn them, that very right, it appears to me, involves the other right of making the laws for them in the be- ginning. If you have the right to say that their laws are either good or bad, according to your judgment, and to be maintained or not main- tained, as you choose, it certainly embraces the inferior right of saying, in the beginning, what sort of laws they shall have. It would be a shorter way to tell them, in advance, " here are our notions of what laws you ought to have ; take them and be content." I do not know what becomes of squatter sovereignty, popular sovereignty, and all that. When we act thus, it seems to me that all goes by the board. INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. SPEECH IN THE SENATE, MAY 6, 1856, ON THE SUBJECT OF INTERNAL IM- PROVEMENTS BY THE GENERAL GOVE.RNMENT. Mr. President : It seems to me that we of the Democratic faith have gone sadly astray on this subject of internal improvements. We have either passed resolutions which we do not understand, or having passed them we deliberately trample them under foot. It is high time, I think, that we strike those resolutions from the book of our principles, or else resolve to adhere to them. In 1848, when our venerable friend from Michigan was made the standard-bearer of the Democratic party, we resolved against a general system of internal improvements. The Whigs in my part of the country charged precisely what we have before us in the Senate to-day. They said, " You mean to have no general system of improvement, but you mean to have it in detail." When I was ap- pealed to I said, with that frankness which I trust has always been and always will be a part of my character, " We contemplate no such thing ; we are incapable of declaring against a general system which shall bear equally in its burdens upon all parts of the country, and which shall I INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 471 dispense its blessings on all parts of the country, and then go for a special system of legislation which shall benefit one section at the ex- pense of another." I believed then, that my party was sincere on this question, and that, in declaring against a general system, it declared against the system in the aggregate and in detail. It seems, however, that I am to learn from the Senate now a different lesson. Individual members of the party — I do not say that it is the action of the party in the aggregate — indi- viduals representing its interests and the interests of the country here, do support these measures of special legislation. I am free to say now, as I have said at home, that, if we are to have internal improvements at all by the general government, I am for a general system — a system which shall dispense its blessings alike on every section, and the burdens of which shall be borne equally by all parts of the Union. I am opposed to sectional legislation, to class legislation, to legislation for the benefit of particular neighborhoods, states, or sections of the confederacy. Two years ago we passed a bill distributing about $5,000,000 of the public money among the several states for the improvement of rivers and harbors. We sent it to the President of the United States ; and whatever other faults may be found with him, it stands, in my judgment, to his eternal credit that he vetoed that bill. Now, sir, what have we here ? The items of that bill are taken up, one by one, and each is incorporated into a separate bill. That which he could not gulp down at one draught, he is expected to take by piecemeal. You do not pro- pose to physic the President on the good old plan of the allopathists, but you approach him with your homeopathic doses, and you give them to him in infinitesimal parts, dividing them up as though you expected that, when he could not take the whole pill at once, he would take it at a thousand different swallows if it were divided. I do not know what he will do, but I know what he ought to do. When you send him the first of these infinitesimal parts, these homeopathic doses, he ought to treat it precisely as he did treat the whole dose, and throw it back upon you. If we are to have these improvements made at all by the money of the federal government, I say again, let us have a system. When we declared as a great party against a general system of internal improve- ments, I understood that we were declaring against it in the aggregate ; and as the major always includes the minor, when we declared against the greater evil, I supposed that we declared against all the little evils which lay beneath it. As a member of the Democratic party, speaking what I conceived to be its interests, maintaining what I believed to be its principles, I repelled the imputation, that while we were opposed to a general system of internal improvements we were for doing the same thing in detail. - ■ Sir, this must stop. You must either cease to pass these bills, or strike opposition to internal improvements from the platform of your party. This kind of cheatery and humbuggery on the country cannot be long tolerated. When you say that you cannot improve rivers and harbors — that it is against the principles of the party to do so, and then take up a harbor in this state, and a river somewhere else, and go on scattering your improvements all over the Union, taxing one man's con- stituents for the benefit of another's, you cannot expect the people to believe that you are acting fairly. Such an idea may pass current here ; 472 ALBERT G. BROAVN. but when you get out before the straight-forward, the honest-hearted, the wool-hatted, and homespun-breeched farmers of the country, they Avill not understand it. They will say that there is an attempt among the politicians to cheat them on this question. Mr. PuGii. Allow me to say to my friend that he will not find " rivers and harbors" in the platform. Mr. Brown. " Rivers and harbors" is not there, but " a system of internal improvements" is there ; and in the name of all that is righteous and just, is not this a part of that system ? Why, sir, I was talking to a friend the other day on the subject of the Pacific Railroad, and he under- took to prove its constitutionality to me in a new way. He asked me, " Do you not admit that we have the right to open a wagon-road if we find it necessary for military purposes?" After some hesitation, I admitted that it was possible we might do it. " Well," said he, " if you have a right to cut down trees for that purpose, have you not a right to smooth over the service of the ground ?" I thought that was reasonable. ''Then," said he, "if you can smooth the surface of the ground, can you not dig it down to a level where it is a little too high in one place, and pile it up where it is a little too low in another ?" It seemed to be possible that we might do it. "Now," said he, " if you come to a swampy place, can you not lay a stick of wood across it and make a causeway, so that wagons can pass over it?" "Perhaps you can," I responded. " Then, if you can do that — if you can lay down sticks of wood in swampy places — can you not lay them down in places which are not swampy ; and if it be necessary, can you not put down the wood close together, two and a half feet or three feet apart, and when you get the timbers down, can you not lay iron rails across them, if that be necessary to keep them together ; and when you get them down can you not run a wagon upon them, drawn by steam, just as well as a wagon drawn by horses ?" I found that he was making me admit myself clear out of court — that he was fixing down a Pacific Railroad on me, starting with a plain little wagon road for military purposes. Thus we commence in these matters. Some little scheme is started by which you improve a particular harbor, because there is a great deal of shipping there, and then you assimilate something else to that, and something else again to that. Thus you go on, deducing one conclusion from another, until you arrive at the point to which you have resolved that you would never go, violating all your principles. Sir, we have got to sea upon this subject ; we have broken our rud- der ; we have lost our compass ; the pilot is overboard ; and the ship is at the mercy of the winds and the waves. It is high time that we got to a harbor — one not made by men by appropriations from the treasury, but one made by God Almighty. I trust that we shall have a test vote on this question. I know of no better occasion on which to have a direct, up-and-down, straight-out test vote, and see how we stand. The Democratic Convention is soon to assemble ; and if we, as a party, do not mean to stand up against inter- nal improvements by the money of the federal government, let us say so like men. I am opposed to these appropriations, and I have been from the beginning, and as an individual I expect to remain so ; but I desire to know where I am to stand as a party man. I do not want to go home and be humbugging my constituents with the idea that my INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 473 party is opposed to internal improvements when it is not. If we are opposed to them let us say so, and stand by our declarations. If, as a party, we mean to give up our position, let us do it at once and be done with it. Of all parties in the world tlie Democratic party is the last that ought to practise humbuggery. It never has done it upon any question, and ought not to do it upon this. Let us have an open, plain, straightforward, honest course to pursue on the subject of internal im- provements, as on all others. If w^e find that we do not agree — that it is not a sound principle, let us abandon it openly. My constituents are opposed to these appropriations on principle. They are opposed to them on interest. They have been taught to be- lieve that they are wrong — that they lead to monstrous abuses, to enor- mous corruption, and to a prodigal waste of the public money. But, sir, if we are to make these appropriations — if they are to become a part of the permanent policy of the government, let us all understand it, and let us have a fair start. If there is to be a scramble for the public treasury of the country, I want to know it ; I want my state, which contributed its proportion to the national treasury, to have a fair share in the division when it comes to be divided out. In the bill which the President vetoed two years ago I believe there was a small appro- priation of $5000 to remove the bar at the mouth of the Pascagoula river. I suppose the sum was so small that my friend from Michigan, and the other members of the committee, overlooked it this year, and reported no bill for it. It is a matter of very little consequence. I presented it here at a late hour one night, because I knew that it was infinitely more meritorious than a great many appropriations in the bill. j Sir, you may talk about your harbors, but the best harbor on your I 'Atlantic and Gulf coast is in the state of Mississippi, where you have \ from seventeen and a half to nineteen feet of water — where there has I never been a dredging machine placed — where there has never been one ji sixpence of money appropriated for the purposes of improvement. That is a harbor in which the whole British fleet in the war of 1812 and 1815 rode with safety during the winter preceding the battle of the 8th of January, 1815. We have asked for no money from the national treasury to improve it. We have been standing on the principle of opposition to these appropriations. We have failed to build up a city there ; our commerce has languished ; our agriculture to some extent has languished, simply because we opposed these measures on principle, even to our own disadvantage. If this opposition is to be abandoned, I desire to have the harbors in my state improved. We have rivers penetrating the state which are not improved. Our agriculture languishes in consequence. We have not asked for your bounty to improve them, because we understood that that party with which my state has always acted was opposed to it ; but if you are going to depart from your principle, if you are going to abandon it, let us understand you, so that all of us may have an equal and a fair chance. I shall want an appropriation to improve the harbor at Cat Island and at Pascagoula. I shall want to improve the navigation of the magnifi- cent Pearl, of the Yazoo, and of other rivers penetrating my state. I have asked for no such appropriations, because I have been standing on a principle. If, however, we are simply opposed to a general system of internal improvements, and can make any amount of them in detail, 474 ALBERT G. BROWN. I shall bring in my part of the detail. If we can improve this harbor and that, this river and that, in other states, I shall expect you to vote appropriations to improve harbors and rivers in my state ; but I desire to know where we stand ? On the 30th of July, 1856, Mr. Brown again spoke on the same sub- ject as follows : — Mr. President, I have taken very little part in the discussion of these (jills, contenting myself, as regularly as they came up, with recording myself against them; but, since the discussion has taken the turn it has within the last few minutes, I feel not only justified, but to some extent called upon, to express my concurrence, to a very great extent, in the views so ably expressed by the honorable senator from Georgia. I do believe (and what I believe I am not afraid to say in the Senate or anywhere else) that these appropriations have a corrupting tendency on the politics of the country. I do not mean to say, nor did I under- stand the senator from Georgia as saying, that they corrupt individual senators ; but upon what principle do all these appropriations proceed ? If Michigan gets no more than she pays into the treasury, why does she seek these appropriations at all? If she pays in $300,000 and only gets $300,000 back, why does she ask for it ? If no other state gets back any more than she contributes to the national treasury, if there were no inequality in these appropriations, I undertake to say they would not be sought for. Mr. PuGH. Does the senator from Mississippi pretend that the appro- priation made to the state of Ohio equals her taxation ? Does he pre- tend it? Mr. Brown. I pretend to say that, in all the amounts which have been appropriated by these several bills, not one solitary sixpence^ has been appropriated for the great agricultural state of Mississippi. Why ? Because, with our notions of our constitutional obligation, we could not ask for it, and the committee say they cannot give it to us. You tax us without our asking to be taxed. You levy duties and get the money into the treasury without our consent, and even against our protesta- tions ; but when you come to paying it out, you take it all to yourselves, and say you cannot give us any because we do not ask for it. If our will is to be consulted in appropriating the money, I beg gentlemen to consider our will when they come to raising the money. If you cannot make appropriations for us until we ask for them, do not lay tribute upon us until we ask it. Mr. President, if it were possible to distribute this money among the states, in the exact proportion in which it is paid into the treasury of the nation, not a solitary one of these bills would pass ; there would cease to be an effort to pass them through Congress. They are urged upon us because more is obtained than is contributed — because it is a tribute levied upon the labor and wealth of one part of the country for the benefit of the other, and, I think, no more worthy parts of the country. Now, sir, we have harbors in our state ; we have rivers in our state. For certain improvements upon the southern coast of the state which I have the honor to represent, items were inserted in the general bill which was vetoed by the President ; and, when members of the com- THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 475 mittee were searching out the various items for the lake shores, it could not have escaped their attention that there were items there for the benefit of the shores of Mississippi — one item for the improvement of the mouth of the Pascagoula river — a river I dare say quite as important to the commerce of the country as many of those little points on the northern lakes ; yet it was entirely overlooked. Then there was the proposition to purchase a pass lying between New Orleans and Mobile, which, in my opinion, was more constitutional than any other item in the bill ; and why ? The government pays annually ^10,000 for the privilege of running its mail-boats through that pass. It is a pass be- longing to a private person — his individual property ; and the govern- ment has to use it ; private commercial men have to use it ; all the shipping that passes between those two important southern commercial points goes through that pass, or else outside the island, where vessels of a smaller class, especially steamers, are exceedingly insecure. For the privilege of going through them, I repeat again, the government pays §10,000 annually. As incidental to the post office power, I think the appropriation might be made. The committee seem not to have thought so. They have reported no item — no bill for it ; but have over- looked the matter entirely. Why ? The senator from Michigan [Mr. Stuart] says, and other members of the committee say, because the members from Mississippi did not ask for it. Too much respect, I beg leave to say, is given to our constitutional scruples when you come to appropriate money, and too little when you come to levy taxes. THE SLAVERY QUESTION. SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, DECEMBER 22, 1856. The Senate having under consideration the motion of Mr. Rusk to refer so much of the President's message as relates to foreign affairs to the Committee on Foreign Relations — Mr. Brown said : — Mr. President: "When the President's messagecameinto the Senate, and was read by the secretary, the first proceeding that followed was the rising of the senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Hale] to make a violent attack on the President and on the sentiments of his message. He based that attack chiefly on the ground that the President had intimated a purpose in certain quarters to attack slavery in the states. This speech of the senator from New Hampshire was quickly followed by speeches of a similar character from the senator from New York [Mr. Seward], and others on that side of the chamber who sympathize with them. These assaults have fallen here as they will fall elsewhere — harm- less shafts. They have inflicted no injury on the President, and they will inflict none on the great cause which he so manfully defended. While assailing the President in coarse and unseemly phrase, these gentlemen have not failed to cover their own positions. In all they have said, from the hour that the message was read to this, the mos^. 476 ALBERT G. BROWN. casual observer will not have failed to perceive that, on some account, their tactics have been changed. The bold and defiant air of the con- quering hero has given place to the subdued manner of defeated soldiers. Senators now read us long speeches, indignantly denying what I had supposed, up to within fhe last few days, was an admitted proposition everywhere, to wit : that when the proper time came, slavery was to be assaulted in the states. There seems, however, to have been a falling back from this position ; why, I certainly do not know, but I have a strong suspicion that gentlemen have found themselves, even at the north, in advance of public sentiment, and it has been found prudent at least to fall back on more tenable ground. While we have witnessed this exhibition in the Senate, elsewhere an exhibition not less remarkable has been going on. Politicians who cer- tainly express no open sympathy with these gentlemen, seem to have been advancing from a position which they occupied heretofore, and taking one in closer proximity to the gentlemen on the other side of the chamber. My reading of these counter-movements, the falling back of the one party and the advancing of the other, is this : that they mean for the time being to camp in sight of each other, and during the next four years to make forays on joint account against the National Democ- racy ; and when the presidential contest of 1860 comes on, they will go into battle under the same leader, and fight under banners so nearly alike that a soldier belonging under one being found fighting under the other, will subject himself to no charge of desertion. I was not prepared at first for the indignant denials which we have heard from the other side of the chamber, that there was a purpose to assail slavery in the states. I was not, because at first I did not under- stand this change of tactics; I had supposed that gentlemen were more than half inclined to have it known that such an attack was in contem- plation, and that at the proper time their purposes would be made mani- fest. I knew very well it had been quite the custom at all times when these purposes were directly charged on gentlemen, for them to throw them aside with a sort of " Oh no — no we don't — no such thing." But the burning indignation which has been lately manifested has struck me with surprise. My surprise was manifested in the beginning of this debate. I ventured to quote from memory certain passages from the speeches of gentlemen, manifesting as I then thought, and still think, purposes altogether diiferent from those avowed in this debate. I spoke from memory alone ; but since then I have given more critical attention to the recorded speeches of gentlemen, and can now speak with more accuracy, and with greater confidence. I do not mean to say that senators deliberately disavow their real sentiments — that would violate the decorum of this body. But I will say that if they have never con- templated an attack on slavery in the states, they have been singularly unfortunate in the use of language. I intend to-day to call particular attention to certain expressions heretofore used by them in the discus- sion of this question. But before I do so, let me set not only myself right, but let me set those right for whom I speak. I recur very briefly to a speech delivered by myself on the 30th of January, 1850, and shall read two or three short sentences from that speech. The party with whom I acted at that day, like the party with whom I act now, had been accused of a THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 477 direct and deliberate purpose to bring about such a state of publjc affairs as must necessarily result in a dissolution of the Union. Deny- ing that charge, speaking for myself, speaking for those who acted with me, speaking, as I then believed, and as I now believe, for the great mass of the southern people, I used this language : — " I repeat, Tve deprecate disunion. Devoted to the Constitution — reverencing the Union — hokling in sacred remembrance the names, the deeds, and the glories of our common and illustrious ancestry — there is no ordinary ill to which we ■would not bow sooner than dissolve the political association of these states. If there was any point short of absolute ruin to ourselves and desolation to our country, at which these aggressive measures would certainly stop, we would say at once, go to that point and give us peace." So I say to-day, sir. Speaking for myself and for those in whose name I am authorized to speak, I declare before the Senate and the world, that this Union has nowhere more devoted friends than they and I. And when I have spoken for those for whom I am authorized by election to speak, I feel that I may safely go further and say that nine- teen-twentieths of the whole people of the Southern States agree with us. Point out any spot short of absolute ruin to ourselves, and desola- tion to our section of the country, and give us the guarantee that when you have gone to that point, these aggressive and perplexing measures, legislative and others, shall certainly cease, and we will say to you at once, go to that point. But, sir, I went on that occasion, as I do now, a step further ; I said : — " Does any man desire to know at what time, and for what cause, I would dissolve the Union ? I will tell him. At the first moment after you consummate your first act of aggression upon slave property, I would declare the Union dissolved ; and for this reason : such an act, perpetrated after the warning we have given you, would evince a settled purpose to interpose your authority in the management of our domestic affairs, thus degrading us from our rightful position as equals to a state of depen- dence and subordination. Do not mistake me ; I do not say that such an act would, 2)er se, justify disunion; I do not say that our exclusion from the territories would alone justify it ; I do not say that the destruction of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, nor even its abolition here, nor yet the prohibition of the slave trade among the states, would justify it. It may be that not one, nor two, nor all of these combined, would justify disunion. These .are but the initiative steps — they lead you on to the mastery over us, and you shall not take these steps." I meant then, Mr. President, to say what I say now, that no man in the South has ever taken the ground that the mere act of our exclusion from the territories would dissolve the Union, if that could be the end of agita- tion. No southern man has ever taken the ground, and no one takes it now, that the abolition of slavery in this district might not be sub- mitted to, if that was to be the end. But we have looked, and are looking for the day, and have a right, in consequence of the declara- tions constantly emanating from high quarters, to anticipate the hour when the whole northern free-soil phalanx will be turned loose in one mighty assault upon slavery in the states. I have taught my people, as I would teach them to-day, to prepare for this assault. Defend the out posts. Yield not an inch of ground. It is better to die defending the door-sill than admit the enemy and then see the hearth-stone bathed in blood. On the occasion to which I have referred, I drew a picture of what must be our condition if these schemes of emancipation shoukl ever be carried out. Then, as now, gentlemen denied that there was any inten- 478 ALBERT G. BROWN. tion to interfere with slavery in the states ; then, as now, we had assur- ances of fraternal feelings on the part of our northern brothers. I replied then as I do now : — " You tell us, sir, there is no intention of pushing; us to extremities like these. I do not doubt the sincerity of gentlemen who make this avowal. If there was fixed- ness in their positions, I would believe them — I would trust them. If members of Cono-ress were to the political, what stars are to the planetary system, I would take their solemn, and, I hope, sincere declarations, and be satisfied. I should feel secure. But a few days, a brief space, and you will pass away, and your places will be filled by men more hostile than you, as you are more hostile than your predecessors, and the" next who come after your successors will be more hostile than they." I then thought, as we all know now, that the abolition sentiment at the North was fearfully on the increase ; that, bursting the fetters that bound it to a handful of despised fanatics, it was invading all ranks of society, and taking captive thousands and hundreds of thousands who a few years ago spurned it as a viper and shunned it as they would a pestilence. What have we not seen and heard ? Within the last few days we have heard sentiments avowed on this floor which, a few years ago, would have found no sponsor anywhere outside of an abolition con- vention. Now they are responded to by a large minority here, and by a much larger minority, if not indeed a majority, in the other house of Congress. We cannot close our eyes to the light that is before us. We have seen this party rise from a little, despised band, and grow stronger and stronger, until it marches in triumph through twelve northern states, and is defeated in the remaining four by a vote so close as to make our victory over it almost a defeat. Was I not right, then, in refusing to take the promises of these men ? Where are the men of that day ? Gone, sir, gone. Go to the other house, and you will find their places filled by the men whose coming I predicted five years ago. ^ Mr. President, it is not my purpose to charge senators with falsehood, and certainly I shall not assume the privilege of counselling those opposed to me ; but there can be no harm in my saying to the free-soil portion of the Senate, your supporters at home do not believe you are sincere in declaring your opposition to any interference with slavery in the states. They know that, without such interference, there will never be one bondman less ; and whenever you convince them that you are sincere, they will turn you out, and send others here more hostile to slavery than you, as you are more hostile than those who went before you. And, to tell the truth, I think they will serve you right in turning you out. If you did not mean to attack slavery in the states, you ought not to have taught others to believe you did ; and this you did, as I shall now proceed to show. I take the first in age among you, as he is certainly first in talent and position, the senator from New York [Mr. Seward]. When the other day I had occasion to quote by memory from a very remarkable speech of that senator, he did not deny the accuracy of my quotation, but, as senators will recollect, he referred me to Redfield's edition of lus speeches, and avowed his willingness to abide by anything found m those volumes. I called at the library and failed to obtain the books. Communicating that fact to the senator, I do him the justice in this public manner to say that he was so kind as to present me with a copy of his speeches, a volume of which I now hold in my hand. Unlike my THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 470 friend from Tennessee [Mr. Jones], I mean to take these volumes home. I mean to show my constituents, from an authorized edition of the senator's speeches, how much of venom against them and their institu- tions he has managed to compress within the narrow limits of a little volume like this, and if the Senate will indulge me, I will give a speci- men now, not only for the edification of the Senate, but for the infor- mation of all independent outsiders. In a speech delivered by the senator from New York, at Cleveland in 1848, he used this language, (I read from the third volume of Kedfield's edition of the speeches of William H. Seward) : — " ' What then !' you say, ' can nothing be done for freedom, because the public con- science is inert? Yes, much can be done — everything can be done. Slavery can be limited to its present bounds ; it can be ameliorated ; it can he, and must he, abo- lished ; and you and 1 can and mnst do it. The task is as simple and easy as its consummation will be beneficent and its rewards glorious." Sir, I asked the senator the other day, speaking from memory, as I ask him now, speaking from an authorized edition of his speeches, what did he mean by that language ? When addressing himself to a northern audience, he said "slavery can and must be abolished, and you and I can and must do it !" What did he mean, if he did not contemplate an attack upon slavery in the states ? Was it to be done by the concur- rence of the Southern States, as the senator would now persuade us he means to have it done if it shall be done at all ? If so, why did not the senator so declare it at the time ? Why, addressing an audience hostile to slavery, and whom he was persuading to become still more hostile, did he say " slavery can and must be abolished, and you and I can and must do it ?" Did the senator anticipate the concurrence of the South? Then why no allusion to the South ? Did he anticipate that the South was to do the work unaided by the North ? Then why appeal to the North ? But I go on with his speech : — " Wherein do the strength and security of slavery lie ? You answer that they lie in the Constitution of the United States, and the constitution and laws of all slave- holding states. Not at all. They lie in the erroneous sentiment of the American people. Constitution's and laws can no more rise above the virtue of the peo- ple than the limpid stream can climb above its native spring. Inculcate, then, the love of freedom and the equal rights of man under the paternal roof; see to it that they are taught in the schools and in the churches ; reform your own code ; extend a cordial welcome to the fugitive who lays his weary limbs at your door, and defend him as you would your paternal gods ; correct your own error, that slavery has any constitutional guarantee which may not be released, and ought not to be relinquished." Here we have it, sir. The senator from New York meditates no attack on slavery in the states. Oh, no — not he ! He only desires the northern people to understand how much they are at liberty to hate slavery. Their indignation need not be restrained by any vulgar fancy that slavery is protected by the Constitution or the laws, either state or national. Their virtue can rise above the Constitution and the laws. The way is pointed out: inculcate the love o^ freedom — that is, hostility to slavery — under the paternal roof. Y"es, teach your children to lisp with their earliest breath anathemas against the South. Teach it in the schools. Let the schoolmaster understand that he has a higher duty to perform than merely to educate his pupils. He may teach them to read and write, instruct them in geography, and point them to the great 480 ALBERT G. BROWN. moral laws that govern the universe, and yet there is a higher duty for hira to perform ; he must teach them to hate slavery, so that when they are grown up men and women, the Constitution and laws shall not rise above their virtue. The servant of God, as he ascends the sacred desk, is told by the senator from New York to preach, not Christ and him crucified, but freedom — freedom to all mankind, and freedom especially to the poor down-trodden slave. And yet the senator has no purpose now, or at any time to come, to attack slavery in the states. Then why this teaching ? Why teach children under the paternal roof to hate slavery ? Why teach it in the schools and in the churches ? Why reverse the scriptural admonition to love your neighbors as yourselves, and thus teach all mankind to hate the South and despise its people ? If there is no purpose to interfere with the South, its people, or its in- stitutions, to what end does the senator direct all this advice ? Mr. President, the senator gives us the key to his motive. He says, on page 302 of the volume in my hand, " Whenever" — yes, sir, mark it well — " whenever the public mind shall will the abolition of slavery, the way will open for it." There it is, sir — whenever the public mind shall will the abolition of slavery ; and then he says, in plain Saxon : " Pre- pare the public mind under the paternal roof — prepare it in the schools and in the churches — when it is ready the way will open for it." But the senator has no purpose to interfere with slavery in the states — good, easy man ! — he only wants to prove that the Constitution and laws cannot rise above the virtue of the people. Mr. President, I give the senator credit for all the talents he possesses, but he has no right to assume that all the rest of mankind are fools. " Say to slavery," says the senator, " when it shows its bond and de- mauds the pound of flesh, that if it draws one drop of blood its life shall pay the forfeit." What does that mean? What is the bond here alluded to but the Federal Constitution ? When the master cOmes with that Constitution in one had, and the laws enacted in pursuance of it in the other, and demands the return of his fugitive slave, who perchance has taken shelter under the very roof of the senator from New York, that senator says, like Shylock's judge, " Yes, I award you the return of the slave ; but I impose conditions — such conditions as must for ever render my judgment inoperative and void. You have a right, under the Constitution, to your slave; the law doth give it, and I award it; take your pound of flesh, but spill not one drop of blood ; take your slave, but be cautious that you touch not even the hem of the garments of freedom ; for if you do, your life shall pay the forfeit." Such, sir, are the teachings of the senator; such his ethics; such that moral law of the people over which the Constitution can no more climb than the stream can rise above its native spring ! But again : " Extend a cordial welcome to the fugitive who lays his weary limbs at your door, and defend him as you would your paternal gods." True, the Constitution declares that fugitives shall be delivered up ; but I tell you, says the senator, that " slavery has no constitutional guarantee that may not be released." Disobey the Constitution ; give a cordial welcome to the fugitive ; defend hira as you would your pater- nal gods; strike down the master, and set the bondman free. The Constitution may sanction slavery — the Bible may tolerate it — God may have ordained it ; but what of all that ? We must have a higher law. THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 481 If it shall be shown that the Constitution sanctions slavery, wc "will demand an anti-slavery Constitution ; if the Bible tolerates slavery, -we will demand an anti-slavery Bible ; let it be proven that God ordains slavery, and we will shriek for an anti-slavery God. Thus is the Con- stitution denounced, the Bible derided, and God insulted on his throne by men who impiously endeavor to prove what the Constitution, the Bible, and God himself deny — that a negro is the white man's equal. But there is no intention to interfere with slavery in the states. We mean to abolish it ; we mean to teach abolition in the schools and in the churches, and under the paternal roof; we must defend runaway ne- groes as we would our paternal gods; we must correct our error that the Constitution gives any protection to slavery which we may not re- lease ; and above all, we must teach the people that their virtue is not to be overcome by the Constitution ; only let their minds be prepared for abolition, and the way will open. But we must not interfere with slavery in the states. Will the senator tell us what slavery it is he means to abolish, if it is not slavery in the states ? Does he know of any slavery anywhere else but in the states ? We have had intimations that the enemies of domestic slavery expect their final triumph through the action of the Southern States — that by a sort of "moral suasion" the owners of slaves will be induced finally to give them up. On this precise point I shall have something to say presently. Before I proceed to that point, however, let me make a pass- ing allusion to the higher law doctrine of the senator from New York. From the first volume of Redfield's authorized edition of the senator's speeches I read the following : — "We hold no arbitrary authority over anything, whether acquired lawfully or seized by usurpation. The Constitution regulates our stewardship ; the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to justice, to defence, to Avelfare, and to liljorty. But THERE IS A HIGHER LAW THAN THE CONSTITUTION which reguhxtcs our authority over the domain." ^ ' A higher law ! The senator, by universal admission, has the honor, if it be an honor, of having first taught in the political schools of our country this doctrine of a higher law. I want to show how apt some of his scholars are. Some of the pupils of the distinguished senator from Kew York assembled in convention in the state of Ohio for the purpose of nominating a candidate for governor, and resolved as follows : — " Eesolved, That we cannot reajyecf, nor can we confide in, those ' lower Jaiv' doctors of divinity who hold human laws above the laws of God ; nor can we concur in their teachings, that the Divine law is subject to congressional compromise. " Eesolved, That we hereby give it to be distinctly understood by this nation and |; the world that, as abolitionists, considering that the strength of our cause lies in its ! righteousness, and our hopes for it in our conformity to the laws of God, and our i support for the rights of man, we owe to the Sovereign lluler of tli-e tiniverse, as a J proof of our allegiance to him in all our civil relations and officers, whether as ' friends, citizens, or as public functionaries, sworn to support the Constitution of the United States, to regard and treat the third clause of the instrument, whenever ap- plied in the case of a fugitive slave, as utterly null and void, and consequently as forming no part of the Constitution of the United States, whenever we arc called upon or sworn to support it." There is the result of the senator's teachings. He uses the influence of his great name and his high position to declare, before the Senate and to the world, that there is a law higher than the Constitution. His pupils, taking up the doctrine, declare that, when they are sworn to sup^ 31 482 ALBERT G. BROWN. port the Constitution, they are at liberty to treat as null and void that clause which requires the return of a fugitive slave. Whether the pupils understand precisely as the instructor intended to teach, it is not my business to determine. That is a duty which devolves on the senator him- self. It is sufficient for me to know that he has taught them to believe there is a law higher than the Constitution, and that they, following his teachings, repudiate the Constitution, and spurn the obligations of the oath that binds them to support it. One set of his admiring friends march right home to victory by planting their feet on the neck_ of the Constitution, and another part cry out for an anti-slavery Constitution, anti-slavery Bible, and anti-slavery God. But, sir, I have other speeches not contained in an authorized edition of the senator's works, but I suppose from the title page not less en- titled to credit. I read from a pamphlet entitled " The Dangers of Ex- tending Slavery, and the Contest and the Crisis ; two speeches of Wil- liam H. Seward, published by the Republican Association : the tenth English edition ; Buell & Blanchard, printers, Washington, D. C." The speeches must have been published in very small editions, or have re- ceived great favor in certain quarters. Now, I beg to call attention to a few passages from the speech delivered at Albany, October 12, 1855. j I do so for several reasons, and, among them, for this reason : I want " to show how little was thought of the idea of moral suasion, of abolish- ing slavery through the consent of the masters, when this speech was made. This idea of moral suasion — of bringing up the owners of slaves to the great work of emancipation — was not thought of when this speech was delivered. The senator is too well acquainted with the springs of human action to suppose that he could ever induce slave- holders to adopt his ideas by language such as I shall now read : — " All agree that in every case, and throughout all hazards, aristocracy must be abhorred and avoided, and republican institutions must be defended and preserved. " Think it not strange or extravagant when I say that an aristocracy has already arisen here, and that it is already undermining the republic. An aristocracy could not arise in any country where there was no privileged class, and no special founda- tion on which such a class could permanently stand. On the contrary, every state, however republican its constitution may be, is sure to become an aristocracy, sooner or later, if it has a, privileged class standing firmly on an enduring special foundation ; and if that class is continually growing stronger and stronger, and the unprivileged classes are continually growing weaker and weaker. " A privileged class has existed in this country from an early period of its settle- ment. Slaveholders constitute that class. They have special foundation on which to stand — namely, p)6rsonal dominion over slaves." Was it by language such as this that the senator hoped to bring the slaveholders to the point of joining in his great scheme of emancipation? Was there ever an attack more insidious, or one better calculated to bring the slaveholder into discredit ? A little further on the senator exclaims: " Oh, how blessed a thing it is for brethren to dwell together in unity P' He comes to bury Csesar, not to praise him. W^hile he speaks of his brethren of the South, he teaches others to regard them as enemies. He says they are the enemies of liberty, already engaged in undermining the republic. The senator's audience, on the occasion referred to, were told plainly that the slaveholders of the South constituted a privileged class — an aristocracy — and that an aristocracy was dangerous to the existence of THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 483 the republic. Why did he thus teach, unless he meant to brinjT this privileged class into reproach ? If there be in the South a privileged class — an aristocracy, in the language of the senator — and that aristoc- racy is dangerous to the existence of the republic, does the senator pro- pose no remedy ? Does he mean simply to complain of the existence of the evil, without attempting, in any capacity whatever, to remedy that evil ? He goes on : — " The spirit of the revolutionary age was adverse to that privileged class. America and J^urope were firmly engaged then in prosecuting what was expected to be a speedy, complete, and utiiverscd abolition of African slavery." Here, again, the universal abolition of African slavery is spoken of as an act necessary to place the government in harmony with the spirit of the revolutionary age. Still there was no design to interfere with slavery in the states. The great scheme of universal abolition was to be carried out through the influence of moral suasion, and that influence was to be effectually exerted by calling the slaveholders a privileged class, an aristocracy whose special privileges were dangerous to the re- public, and the liberties of the people. " shame ! where is thy blush V See how the senator lays down one proposition after another, dove- tailing each into its predecessor in a manner to draw the public mind to a particular conclusion, that conclusion being that by all the memo- ries of their revolutionary sires, by ail their hopes of preserving repub- licanism in this country, they are called upon to wage a ceaseless, unrelenting, and never-dying warfare on slavery wherever it exists ; and yet the senator comes here to-day and says: "No; I indignantly repu- diate the idea that either I or my friends ever dreamed of assailing slavery in the states." After going on through a long argument, which I have no time to read, nor the Senate patience to hear, the senator says ; I read again from the Albany speech : — " I will only ask, in concluding this humiliating rehearsal, whether there is not in this favored country a privileged class ; whether it does not stand on an enduring foundation ; whether it is not growing stronger and stronger, while the unprivileged class grows weaker and weaker ; whether its further growth and extent would not be, not merely detrimental, but dangei'ous ; and whether there is any hope to arrest that growth and extension hereafter, if the attempt shall not be made now ? " The change that has become at last so necessary is as easy to be made as It is necessary. The whole number of slaveholders is only three hundred andfftij thousand — one hundredth part of the entire population of the country. If you add their pa- rents, children, immediate relatives, and dependants, they are two millions — one- fifteenth part of the American people." What, sir, is the object — the purpose of the senator in making these declarations ? Why does he proclaim that this privileged class in the ' South is dangerous to republican institutions — that it exists there in violation of the great principle for which the revolutionary battles were ' fought, and that those who uphold it are only three hundred and fifty thousand ? For what purpose, let me ask you, did the senator from New York present the case in this form to the mind of his audience at Albany ? That senator never speaks without a purpose. He does not ^explain; and if he will not, I needs must be left to the resources of my own mind for an answer. The senator knew that no chord in the heart of our people was so 484 ALBERT G. BROWN. easily touched, or responded so promptly, as that one which binds it to the memories of the Revolution, and he rightly concluded that our people everywhere, north and south, were deeply imbued with republi- can sentiments. If, then, he could persuade them that there was a little handful of three hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders at the South, warring against the great principles established in our Revolution, and breaking down republican institutions in the country, why, then, the twenty-five millions who do not belong to this privileged class — to this aristocracy — would rise up, and will the abolition of slavery ; and then, in his own language, there being " a will, '^Ae ivay would opeii for it.'" It is not my business to explore the recesses of any man's heart ; but I apprehend the object of the senator in making the speech to which I have alluded, was to persuade the mighty North that it ought to ivill the abolition of slavery. He told them of its dangerous tendencies. He pointed to the feeble prop by which it is sustained. It is upheld, said he, by only three hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders ; and you who are not slaveholders are more than twenty-five millions of people ; only have the will to overthrow this great monstrosity, and the way will immediately open to you ! Such, if not the language, is at least the teaching of the senator from New York ; and yet he comes to the Senate to-day to tell us he never contemplated, never counselled, and never believed anybody else contemplated, or counselled, an attack on slavery in the states ! But, Mr. President, there is a deeper meaning — a larger significance to this speech of the senator. There are three hundred and fifty thou- sand slaveholding aristocrats in the South, says the senator — men at war with liberty, and dangerous to the republic. They are only one in one hundred of the entire population ; or if you add, he says, " the children, relatives, and dependants, they are one in fifteen;" conse- quently fourteen parts out of every fifteen of the entire population have no interest in slavery. They are, as he seems to conclude, mere hewers of wood and drawers of water to the slaveholding aristocrats. These suggestions come from no friendly spirit, Mr. President. They open a wild field for speculation; and if I did not feel there was a neces- sity for my being brief, I would ask the senator to join me in a ramble through that field. To him it is not a field of treasures, as he supposes. If he expects, by appeals like these, to turn the hearts of the non-slave- holders of the South against slavery, he will miss his aim. They may have no pecuniary interest in slavery, but they have a social interest at stake that is worth more to them than all the wealth of all the Indies. Suppose the senator shall succeed in his ideas of universal abolition — what is to be the social condition of the races in the South ? Can they live together in peace ? No one pretends to think they can. Will the white man be allowed to maintain his superiority there ? Let us examine this proposition. There are in my state about three hundred and fifty thousand whites, and about an equal number of blacks. Suppose the negroes were all set free. What would be the immediate and necessary consequence? A struggle for the supremacy would instantly ensue. White immigration to the state would cease of course. The Avhites already there would have but little motive to struggle in the mainte- nance of the unequal contest between the blacks and their millions of sympathizing friends in the free states. The consequence would be that THE SLAVERY QUESTION. • 485 tlie men of fortune would gather up their transferable property, and seek a home in some other country. The poor men — those of little means — the very men on whom the senator relies to aid him in carrying out his great scheme of emancipation, would alone be compelled to remain : their poverty, and not their will, would compel them to remain. In the course of a few years, with no one going to the state, and thousands on thousands leaving it in one constant stream, the present equilibrium between the races would be lost. In a few years, the disparity would probably be some three, four, or five to one in favor of the blacks. In this state of things, it is not difficult to see what would be the white man's condition. If he should be allowed to maintain his equality he might think himself fortunate ; superiority would be a thing not to be dreamed of. The negroes being vastly in the majority, would probably claim the ascendency in the social, and in all other circles. If the white man, reduced to such a condition, were allowed to marry his sons to negro wives, or his daughters to negro husbands, he might bless his stars. If the senator from New York expects the aid of non-slaveholders in the South in bringing about this state of social relations, let me tell him he is greatly mistaken. If I had to take my choice to-day between an army of large slaveholders and an army of non-slaveholders to defend the institutions of the South, I would take the latter. The first would fight to defend their property, the last to maintain their social supe- riority; the one would see an outlet after defeat, the other would see themselves degraded below the level of the negroes, their sons married to negro wives, and their dauo-hters consigned to the embraces of neo;ro husbands. I tell the senator that his philosophy has failed — his fine- spun theories will all explode, when submitted to the test of the plain, common sense of the non-slaveholding population of the Southern States. The senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] was equally particular with the senator from New York, to assure us that he contemplated no attack on slavery in the states. Indeed he became somewhat indignant at the idea that any one should intimate that he had ever contemplated any such thing. I have no authorized edition of the senator's speeches ; and if I read him incorrectly, he is present, I am glad to see, and will no doubt correct me. The senator knows what the Anti-slavery party mean to do — I mean the Garrison and Wendell Phillips party. Did the (senator from Massachusetts use this language : — " The Anti-slavery party alone is too weak. They are few in numbers, though their policy, I believe, will yet be impressed upon the country, but the time is not -yet." The senator, I repeat, knows who the Anti-slavery party are, and he knows their purposes. Did he use that language ? If he did, the infer- ence is irresistible that he believed in the soundness of the Anti-slavery theories, and was ready to embrace them at the right time. If he did not so believe, and was not so ready, why did he declare, " but the time is not yet?" Mr. Wilson. Will the senator allow me to make an explanation ? Mr. Brown. Certainly. Mr. Wilson. I beg leave to assure the senator from Mississippi that 'ihe object of my making that statement was not to refer to the Garrison libolitionists as the Anti-slavery men, or the radical or Gerrit Smith -bolitionists ; but to speak of the Anti-slavery men of the country, whose I 480 ALBERT G. BROWN. sentiments were embodied in the Buffalo platform of 1848, and the Pitts- burgh platform of 1852. The doctrines of the Free-soil party were the doctrines to which I referred. I said that those who agreed in those platforms were in a small minority. I believed the sentiments embodied in those platforms were correct, and would yet be impressed on the country. Nothing in those platforms contemplates any action by the Congress of the United States, or any interference whatever with slavery in the slaveholding states in the Union. I never entertained the thought that we had that power, and I never proposed to usurp or exercise it. Mr. Brown. Mr. President, the senator admits that he used the language, but avoids its force by saying, in effect, that it was addressed to parties other than those I have named. The language was aidressed to some one who was in advance of the senator ; and whether it was Garrison or Gerrit Smith, or some one of less ultra views, makes but little difference. It is the language of entreaty, addressed to some one imploring him not to go so fast. He says. Your sentiments are all right, but the time has not come for impressing them on the country. I sub- mit to the Senate how far any party must have gone when the senator from Massachusetts had to call on them to stop ; and I submit to the senator himself, whether he did not contemplate an advance movement when he said, " the time is not yet." The senator will pardon me if I say these are significant declarations; and when coupled with remarks such as those I have quoted from the speeches of his friend from New York, they become too potential to be passed by in silence. Mr. Seward. Mr. President, I am interested very much in this argument of the honorable senator, and I think it is a very fair and senatorial mode of proceeding. I have not the least objection whatever to his analysis of the arguments and speeches which I have made. It is not my purpose to answer ; but I know the honorable senator is pro- ceeding in a manner which indicates what I might expect from him, fairness. I beg leave to say now, rather than at some other time in the debate, that I appeal to him, in the revision of his remarks, not to over- state, as I think he has erroneously done, disclaimers and denials which he assumes I have made here in tliis debate. On referring to the few remarks which I addressed to the Senate, on the first day that this question arose, he will see the precise extent to which I did go ; and I would not have him present me to the people of the country as denying or disclaiming anything more than I have actually done, and I know he does not wish it. I hope the honorable senator will excuse me for inter- rupting him on this particular point, as I have no wish to interfere with his argument. Mr. Brown. Certainly ; I do not wish, at this particular point, to review what I have said in regard to the senator from New York, my present dealing being with the senator from Massachusetts. I turn over to another production of the honorable senator. When I stated the other day that there had been a sort of billing and cooing, a sort of caressing, a sort of old-fashioned courtship, between certain gentlemen here and the ultra-Abolition party, the senator and his friends came forward and very indignantly denied it. Denials have come upon us thick and fast from that day to this, not only through the senators, but through their newspaper journals all over the country. I have had a perfect shower THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 487 of newspapers rained on me from every part of the country, all indig- nantly denying that I was at all right in assuming that there was any sort of attempt to get up a political marriage between the Abolitionists of the Garrison and Wendell Phillips school and the Black Republican party. I ask the senator from Massachusetts whether he did not, on the 20th of June, 1855, address this letter to Wendell Phillips? I need not say to the Senate who Wendell Phillips is. It is sufficient to say that he " out-Herods Ilerod," he " out-Garrisons Garrison," he " out- Parkers Parker." lie ^oes further than the renowned Beecher himself. This I understand to be the letter of the senator : — " I hope, my dear sir, that we shall all strive to imile and comhiiie all the friends of freedom ; that we shall forget each other's faults and shortcomings ia the past; and all labor to secure that co-operation by which alone tde slave is to be emanci- FATED, and the domination of his master broken. Let us remember that more than three millions of bondmen, groaning under nameless woes, demand that we shall cease to reproach each other, and that we labor for their deliverance." Did the senator write that letter ? Mr. Wilson. Will the senator allow me a word on that subject? He has put a categorical question. I am ready to answer the question ; but I would like to put my own construction on that letter. Mr. Brown. Any construction the senator pleases. I cannot say that I will adopt his construction, but I will hear it. Mr. Wilson. Well, ]Mr< President, I received an invitation from Wendell Phillips to attend a meeting, and to address that meeting. I wrote that letter. - , Mr. Brown. So I thought. Mr. Wilson. I agree to every word of it now, as I did then ; and there is nothing in that letter inconsistent with anything I have uttered upon this floor. I am opposed to slavery. I am in favor of its abolition everywhere where I have the power. Mr. Phillips, as the senator says, takes extreme views. I difl'er from him altogether in regard to them. He is a gentleman of great talent and character — in my opinion the greatest living orator on this continent. I have heard no man in the country during the last twenty years — and I have heard the foremost orators of the country — that I consider his equal. My idea is this : I want all men who are opposed to slavei'y to take a moderate and reasonable position, to abandon the extreme notions which those men entertain, to oppose the extension of slavery, separate the federal government from its connection with it, banish the negro discussions that we are having in these halls, and leave slavery in the slave states, where the Constitution leaves it, to the care of the people of those several states. I believe that when that is done, the liberal, high-minded, just men of the South will, in their own time and in their own way, bring about a safe emancipation. That is my view of the matter. It was so then, and is so now. Mr. Brown. Well, Mr. President, the senator admits that he wrote the letter. My charge was, that there was an attempt, on the part of these Republican senators, to get up a political marriage with the Abo- litionists, and the denial was to that charge. The senator from Massa- chusetts denied the charge, and was at great pains, in his speech the other day, to complain that I had made certain remarks in reference to Garrison and his friends, and had coupled them with the senator and 488 ALBERT G. BROWN. his friends ; in all of which he intended to discard the idea that there was any kind of affiliation or political association between the Republi- can senators here and these ultra- Abolitionists out of doors ; and yet, when I introduce a letter which comes precisely to the point, showing that the senator himself had addressed one of the extremest of these men, saying : " You and I ought to act together ; you and I must act together ; three millions of bondmen groan, and you and I must come to their deliverance ;" when I show that the senator addressed this appeal to the most ultra of the Abolitionists, the senator comes forward to palliate. But, sir, what becomes of his denial that he ever courted the support or co-operation of these people — Mr. Wilson. Will the senator allow me a word ? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir ; certainly. Mr. Wilson. I made the denial ; I make it now. The Garrison Abolitionists do not vote. I believe them to be sincerely opposed to slavery, but they do not vote. They have taken positions which, in ray judgment, are wrong. What I wished was this : to have the men who act with them abandon their extreme notions, and take a moderate posi- tion, and stand where we stand — upon a purely constitutional and national basis. Mr. Brown. Then, sir, why did the senator say to Mr. Phillips, '' Let us all labor together to secure the co-operation by which alone the slave is to be emancipated, and the domination of his master broken ?" Mr. Wilson. I explained that. Mr. Brown. Is not that the precise point to which Phillips is fight- ing — to emancipate the slave and break the domination of his master ? Where ? In the states. Is there slavery anywhere else but in the states ? When you emancipate the slave, you must emancipate the slave in the states ; and when you break the domination of the master, there is no domination to be broken anywhere but in the states. Then, when the senator said to Phillips, "Let us all labor together to this end," was he not inviting Phillips on to his own platform, or was he saying to Phillips, " My dear Phillips, let me go on to your platform." [Laughter.] Mr. Wilson. Mr. President, I think the senator is entirely mistaken, and is pushing that point further than it can be legitimately carried. My idea is, and was then, that the way to break the domination of the master over the government of the country and over the slave is, so far as we are a nation, to prevent the extension or existence of slavery out- side of the slave states, and then to leave the matter with them to settle, because it is the only constitutional way, and the only way in which I believe it can ever be done peaceably. In my judgment, this federal government cannot interfere for the abolition of slavery in the states without endangering the safety of the country, and bringing about a state of affairs that will be detrimental to the interests of both master and slave. Mr. Brown. If that was the idea of the senator from Massachusetts when he wrote the letter, he is certainly the most unfortunate man that ever took up a pen to express an idea. While I certainly shall not undertake to say that the senator's interpretation of his own language is not the true interpretation, I do undertake to say, and appeal to the intelligence of the Senate and the world, whether any other man THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 489 would put that interpretation on it. When the senator declared : " Three millions of bondmen, groaning under nameless ayocs, demand that avo shall cease to reproach one another, and that we labor for their deliver- ance," he used language which would teach every man who read it to believe that he was ready for any scheme which looked to the emanci- pation of the slaves in the states. There are no three millions of slaves anywhere else groaning under nameless woes, nor enjoying the highest degree of human felicity, or any intermediate state of misery or haj)pi- ness between the two ; the only slaves on this continent to which the senator could have alluded, were the three millions of slaves in the states ; and when he said to Wendell Phillips : " You and I, your friends and my friends, must labor unceasingly for the deliverance of those three millions of bondmen," he must have meant — at least the human mind will conclude, in the absence of his own denial, that he meant — the slaves in the states. He says he did not so mean, and I am bound to believe him ; but I am sorry to trust his candor at the expense of his understanding. Mr. Wilson. Without interrupting the speaker too much, I wish to say that Mr. Phillips and Mr. Phillips's friends did not so understand it. They know my precise and exact position. The letter Avas probably hastily and carelessly written to a friend; but the construction the senator puts on it, no man in Massachusetts ever put on it. Mr. Brown. I expect the senator has been explaining it there as he has here. [Laughter.] ]Mr. Wilson. The question was never raised there at all. Mr. Brown. When he wrote the letter to Wendell Phillips, the Abo- litionist no doubt expected the co-operation of the senator and his friends ; but when he became startled at his own position, and com- menced, as he is doing now, to fall back on what he considered to be a more impregnable position, I dare say Wendell Phillips said, " Well, my dear Wilson, you have not spoken as candidly as I thought you did." If, however, the language had been left without explanation in speeches here or elsewhere, I venture to say Mr. Wendell Phillips, and all other men, would have put the same construction on it that I do. Mr. President, I have already noticed the speeches of the two sena- tors at o;reater length than I had intended. The material before me is not half exhausted; but if I go on I shall be compelled to overlook some of their associates — I have a word for each of them. The sena- tor from New York I regard as the very Ajax Telamon of his party ; and the senator from Massachusetts may, I think, be fairly considered their Jupiter Tonans. I had, therefore, to devote some time to them ; but I beg the others not to consider themselves slighted ; I will come to them after a while. I must, before leaving the senator from Massachusetts, even at the risk of being tedious, say a word in reply to the speech pronounced by him the other day. Almost in the outset of his speech he pronounced in measured, studied phrase, " those twin sisters of barbarism, slavery and polygamy." Mr. Wilson. That was a quotation. Mr. Brown. Well, sir, quotation or original thought, for what pur- pose was it introduced into the senator's speech ? If he means, as he isays he does, to accomplish his ends by moral suasion, by finally raising 490 ALBERT G. BROWN. up a party in the South to co-operate with him in the great work of overturning slavery, let me ask, are men pursuaded by this sort of de- nunciation ? Is the southern slaveholder to be persuaded by being told that he is the confrere of the citizens of Utah — that the man in Missis- sippi who owns his fifty slaves is as morally corrupt as he of Utah who has his fifty wives ? If the senator meant anything, he meant precisely that. If the senator expects to make converts by that species of preach- ing, he will have to preach to some other people than those whom I re- present. Let me say now to the senator and all who sympathize with him, that I love this Union ; those whom I have the honor here to re- present, and in whose name I speak to-day, love it ; but if we are to live together in peace, this sort of denunciation must cease. This species of reviling, these taunts, these insults levelled at every slaveholding family in fifteen states of the Union, must come to an end, or we can- not live together in peace and quietude. I say no more. The senator denies all association Avith Garrison, and politicians of that school ; but when I allude to what Garrison said, the senator is quick to spring to his feet for the purpose of putting in a vindication. I am always quick, I hope, to vindicate my friends, but very slow to vindi- cate my enemies. If they have no sympathizing friends here, they can send their vindication through some other channel than myself. But in the very act of vindicating his friend, Garrison, from the charges which I made, the senator admitted all that I said. My declaration was, that Garrison had declared, in the last canvass, that if he had a million of votes to dispose of, he would give them all to Fremont — of course I meant to say in the contest then going on ; in the contest as between Buchanan, Fillmore, and Fremont. I did not say that he preferred Fremont to all other men ; but that, as against the other two, he would give his million of votes for Fremont. My object was to show the bond of sympathy existing between the Republican senators here, and the Garrison, Fred. Douglas, and Wendell Phillips school elsewhere. I think I made my point clear at the time ; but, if I failed to do so then, I trust the senator appreciates it now. It was, and is, that such was Garrison's partiality, such the partiality of his extreme Abolition crew, that if they had millions of votes to give, they would, in that contest, give them all to the Republican candidate. Garrison would give a mil- lion of votes to Fremont, and, in return, Frdmont would no doubt give a million of votes to Garrison ; and the senator, I suspect, would give his million to either of the two, or to Gerrit Smith, or to his friend Wendell Phillips ; and I half suspect if Fred. Douglas was on the ticket it would make no serious difference with him. [Laughter.] I made the charge the other day, and to it there has been no denial from the other side of the chamber, that in the very height of the con- flict for the presidency, Fred. Douglas, the free negro editor and orator, took down the name of Gerrit Smith and put up the name of John Charles Fremont. Why was not that denied ? My point, as all must have seen, was to show the tie that binds the Republicans on this floor to the extreme Abolition party out of doors. I wanted to show how they Avere being knit together — how, being drawn into close companionship, they will, by and by, constitute but one party — and then if the extreme Abo- lition element prevails, as it most likely will, the party must become, par excellence, the Abolition party. I believe that thousands of good THE SLAVERY QUESTIOxN. 491 men, now In the Republican ranks, will abandon them if tboy come to understand the designs of the leaders. I meant to expose these designs — to show that there was a plan on foot to Garrisonize the wliole party ; and if I have done anything towards accomplishing this end I am sat- isfied. There are other points in the senator's speech, to which I will reply briefly. He and others have denied that there was anything of section- alism in the late contest ; and their denial is based, if I understand them correctly, on the ground that the mere fact of their candidates for President and Vice President being from the same section of the Union, did not establish sectionalism in the ticket. The senator cited the fact that Mr. Calhoun was upon the same ticket with General Jackson, and yet, he said, there was no charge of sectionalism then. Let me say to the senator, none but the feeblest mind could ever have pretended that the mere fact of both candidates being from the same section afforded evidence of sectionalism. I can select a ticket from Vermont and Mas- sachusetts to-day — and surely it would be as hard to get it there as any- where else — which would be purely national ; and so I could select one from the South which would be purely sectional as against the South. Why, sir, suppose Cassius M. Clay, of Kentucky, were nominated for the Presidency, and Francis P. Blair, of Maryland, for the Vice Presi- dency : does any one doubt that such a ticket would be a sectional ticket ? It would be a ticket hostile to the South, although both the nominees reside in slaveholding states. Surely I need not say to the senator that it is the sentiment of the party, and of its candidates, that constitute its sectionality, and not the residence of one or both its nominees. ... Are your sentiments national ? Were not the sentiments which you avowed in the late canvass confined exclusively to the favor of one sec- tion ? Were they not uniformly hostility to the other ? Does not the country so recognise them ? The senator himself, in the progress of his speech, and while uttering his complaint that we of the South did not tolerate speakers who entertain his opinion, gave us the best evidence of the sectionalism of his party. " Why," said he, " did we not have advocates in the South?" " Because," he answered, "you would not let the friends of our ticket speak there." Why did we not let them speak? Was it because they were nationaJl in their sentiments ? Was it because they came to advocate sentiments equally acceptable to the North and to the South, equally favorable to the one section as to the other ? No, sir, the senator knows this was not the reason. The senator knew per- fectly well that the reason why orators of his party were not allowed to speak in the South was simply this : that they came to speak against our institutions, against our domestic peace, against our domestic quie- tude, against our domestic safety — at least against what we believe to be our domestic peace, safety, and quietude ; and of this we simply claimed to be the best judges. The charge that we have stifled debate or attacked the freedom of speech is not true, and those who make it know it is not true. But, sir, the object of the senator in introducing this point was to complain of the want of liberality in the South. "Why," said he, " your southern people will not permit northern men to go there and express their honest sentiments. When they do go, you get up mobs *92 ALBERT G. BROWN. and drive them out." Let me say to the senator, that when he or his friends come to the South to utter national sentiments, they will be heard with attention and listened to with deference. But when they come to preach such sentiments as a senator on this floor has been heard to utter within the last week, they may deem it fortunate if they escape the fury of an outraged people. When any man, whether he be a sena-* tor or a private citizen, comes to tell our slaves " that they have a right to murder their masters, and that he will not advise them not to do it," we consider it no breach of hospitality, no violation of the freedom of speech, to say that such sentiments shall not be expressed in our midst. If the senator shall ever come to Mississippi and say there what I un- derstand he has said recently in this city, he will be ejected, if, indeed, no severer punishment shall be inflicted on him. Mr. Wilson. Do I understand the senator from Mississippi to state that I have said in this city anything of that kind — that I would ad- vise the. slaves to cut their master's throats, or in any way whatever commit any violence ? Mr. Brown. I undertake to say, not what the senator has said, but what I understand he has said, from gentlemen who come to me avouched as men of character, namely : that he did say, in a public hotel in this city, in the last five days, that the slaves had a right to kill their masters, and that he would not advise them not to cut their masters' throats. Mr. Wilson. Mr. President, I desire to say here now, that in this city, or out of this city, I never harbored a thought of that character, and never gave it utterance — never at any time, or upon any occasion. If I could speak to the slaves of the South I would utter no voice of that character ; I would advise no violence whatever. I do not believe in it ; I would not advise it ; on the contrary, I believe that any insur- rections, any acts of violence on their part, can only end in one way, and that is to their own injury. Mr. Brown. Mr. President, I certainly shall make no question as to the veracity of the senator. I have repeated what I have heard. I have repeated what I have in writing from a man whom gentlemen of the very highest character assure me is a man of respectability and honor. He told me that he heard the senator say so ; and he asserts, likewise, that there were other witnesses present, whose names he gave me. If the senator denies the charge, of course his denial ends the controversy. I am not to stand up in the face of the Senate and on any proof insist that a senator has spoken falsely. It is not my duty to do so. I will have no question of that sort with the senator from Massachusetts or any one else ; but if he desires to know upon what authority I made the statement, I am prepared here, or upon a private call, to produce the evidence. Much has been said, Mr. President, of an irritating character, on both sides of this slavery question. I do not know that the breach be- tween the North and the South can ever be healed. But it is very certain that those who desire peace should throw their oil on the water and not into the fire. While, therefore, I shall, as always heretofoi-e, refuse to make unmanly concessions, I will abstain from saying anything that is irritating or unnecessarily severe. I am not ashamed to say that I want peace. THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 493 Senators on the other side of the chamber, and their sympathizing friends all over the country, deplore the condition of the black man in the South. I shall not pause now to contrast his condition there with what it is in his native country. If the Christian religion be a reality — and in its sublime truths I am a firm believer — I am at a loss to un- derstand how any man can pretend that the barbarian and cannibal, standing on the shores of Africa, and blessed with freedom, is better off than the civilized and evangelized slave on a southern plantation, cursed with bondage. Allowing all you say of the horrors of slavery to bo true, they are more than compensated by the moral and religious eleva- tion of the African in this country. But what you say is not true, and all the world knows it is not. One thing I may mention that is true be- yond all controversy, and that is, that those most familiar with slavery see the least of its horrors. I speak not alone of those who live in the South, and who see it every day in all its forms ; but of those in the free states most contiguous to it. The people in southern Illinois and the eastern part of Indiana live almost in sight of slavery, and mingle with it almost every day in Kentucky and Missouri. The people in these localities, more than any others in the free states, trade to the South ; they visit the plantations and mingle freely with the slaves and with their masters. The result is that they discard the sickly sentimen- tality so freely indulged in by those who know nothing of slavery except as they see it in Abolition newspapers and Black Republican speeches. Fourteen counties in southern Illinois gave Buchanan four- teen thousand votes, and Fremont less than four hundred. I suppose the mob did not drive the Republican orators out of that country, as they did from the Southern States ; or if they did, I hope it is not to be charged to the account of the slaveocracy. The simple truth is, Mr. President, there is not one man in a thousand, Avho knows anything of slavery practically, that does not believe it to be the normal condition of the negro race. Seen through the interstices of Uncle Tom's Cabin, Garrison's Liberator, or one of the senator's speeches, it is, I grant you, a frightful outrage on humanity. The senator alluded, the other day, to certain speeches made by lead- ing statesmen in Virginia, which he assured us were more or less favora- ble to his side of this question. Does the senator know why such speeches are not made now ? Does he know why the ameliorating pro- cess in the condition of the slave, then going on, has ceased ? Does he know why there are thousands of slaves in bondage to-day who might otherwise have been free ? Does he know why the slaves are not edu- cated ? why their liberty is restricted, and their bondage made to sit more heavily upon them ? If he does not, I will tell him. It is because of the impertinent intermeddling of himself and his friends with matters that did not concern them. The senator told us, the other day, on what terms we could get his sympathy. Let me tell him on what terms he can get our respect and the gratitude of the slave. He can get both by simply minding his own business. His present policy is annoying to us and detrimental to the slave. I use those words in their proper sense. He may annoy and vex the master ; but if he lets slavery alone in the states, as he says he will, he will do him no harm. He may damage the slave by vexing the master ; but if he leaves the slave in bondage, he will do him no good. 494 ALBERT G. BROWN. If you do not mean to overthrow slavery in the states, quit talking about it, quit exciting the fears of the master without a cause, and quit arousing the hopes of the slave without a purpose. That is my advice, and I charge nothing for it. There is one point of attack against slavery which seems to be a favorite with all its assailants in the Senate and out of it — and that is, its enervating and destroying effect on the people and states where it exists. The senator from Massachusetts went out of his way, the other day, to tell us that slavery had converted Mount Vernon into a jungle. While these charges are made and dwelt on with peculiar unction by the senator from Massachusetts, it is curious to read and ponder the speeches of the senator from New York, appealing to twenty-five millions of free- men to rise in their majesty and put doAvn the three hundred and fifty thousand slaveholding aristocrats, who are ruling the country, sapping the foundations of liberty, and establishing an aristocracy in our midst. If slavery blights as with a mildew everything that it touches ; if it converts cultivated fields into wild jungles, and stately mansions into bat-roosts ; if it renders the people imbecile in morals and mentally im- potent ; is it not a little strange that three hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders should so have got the start of all the world, that twenty- five millions of free men are called into action to curb their growincr power ? The truth is felt, Mr. President, though it is not acknowledged, that slavery has an elevating and ennobling effect on the white man. It is not true that the intellectual giants of the South, who have guided the destiny of the nation through so many years, are but the feeble progeny of an imbecile race, rendered morally oblique and intellectually impo- tent by the existence of slavery in the Southern States. It is not true that three hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders, living in jungles, with no activity of mind, and no energy of body, have so excited the fears of the senator from New York. When we compare our Washing- tons, Jeffersons, Madisons, Henrys, Marshalls, Jacksons, and Calhouns, with your greatest and best men, no one can say, with truth, that we have cause to blush. But you tell us that your people are more progressive than ours. In the mechanic arts I grant that they are. Your work-shops are more numerous, and on a larger scale than ours. The work-shop is the home of vast numbers of your people. In its arts they excel, and we rejoice at their success. We rejoice, because it is for our mutual advantage that they succeed. We rejoice still more, because their success is a part of the common inheritance of the whole people. On the other hand, our home is in the cotton, sugar, rice, and tobacco fields of the South. In our department who will deny that we have succeeded as well as you? Nowhere on the habitable globe has the culture of cotton been brought to such perfection as in the Southern States of this Union. If gentle- men would only reflect that a proper division of labor, and the highest degree of success in every department, is the best evidence of na- tional prosperity, these ill-natured flings at the South would cease at once. I have no time to pursue this train of thought, though it might be done with profit both to the North and to the South. Whatever the northern people may say of us, we shall never cease to rejoice in their prosperity. THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 495 I must pass on, Mr. President, because I find that my voice is failing me, and even my physical strength is giving way. The senator from Maine [Mr. Fessenden] the other day told us that the South was con- stantly making demands ; that the South demanded that such and such things should be done by Congress ; and upon the failure of compli- ance we threatened a dissolution of the Union. If the senator has so understood us, allow me to say to him that he has understood us amiss. In making that declaration he did us grievous wrong. The South has de- manded nothing. She never came to your doors with a petition for favor at your hands. She never asked affirmative legislation from this government, on the subject of slavery, since it has had an existence, save in the pursuit of a clear and admitted constitutional right. Her position has been one of opposition to your action. Not being a peti- tioner, she has uniformly come here to remonstrate against your action. Her whole demand, her whole policy, might at any moment have been summed up, and it is now, in these three short words: "Let us alone.'' As some evidence that I am right on that question, I beg to read for the information of the senator from Maine the positions taken by my own state, not through her legislature, not through any informal convention, not through any primary mass meeting called by a newspaper, but through a convention of her people lawfully called to express her sovereign will in reference to this whole matter in controversy. So far as she is concerned, she demands nothing ; and I believe I can appeal :| with perfect confidence to senators from all the Southern States to bear me witness that her position is substantially the position of their states. First, she says there shall be no interference by congressional legisla- tion with the institution of slavery in the states. She certainly asks ^ nothing in that but your forbearance. She then says, second, the slave trade between the states shall not be interfered with by action of Con- gress. Then she says, third, there shall be no action of Congress on the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia, or any place subject to the jurisdiction of Congress, incompatible with the safety and domes- ji tic tranquillity, or the rights and honor of the slaveholding states. Then ' ' she says, fourth, that the refusal of Congress to admit a new state, on the grmmd of her tolerating slavery within her limits, would be subject -I I for complaint ; and declares, fifth, that Congress shall pass no law pro- hibiting slavery in any of the territories; and, sixth, that the repeal of the fugitive slave law, or the neglect or refusal of the general govern- ment to enforce the constitutional provision for the recovery of fugitive slaves, would be ground of complaint. , ^ . ■ ■ These are six positions taken in convention, and neither one of them looks to affirmative action on the part of the government ; neither of them demands anything but your forbearance ; neither of them demands ■ anything except what may be summed up in three words — let us alone. Beyond that I undertake to say there is not now, has not been, and, in my opinion, never will be, any considerable number of southern people demanding anything. Let us alone ; leave us where we were left by the Constitution of the United States ; cease to interfere with us ; cease to make war upon us and our institutions, and our domestic safety, and we ' shall move on harmoniously together as our fathers did before us. I feel, Mr. President, that I ought to say a word in reference to our position as regards the territories. There seems to me to have been a 496 ALBERT G. BROWN. most persevering attempt commenced, and pertinaciously kept up, throughout all the Northern States, to misrepresent the position of the Southern States and people on this point. What have we asked ? What do •we ask now ? Simply to be treated as equals — to be allowed our equal rights and our equal position in the territories. The soil, all must admit, is the common property of all the people or of all the states. We have asked that Congress shall so treat it, and make no insulting discrimina- tion between the people of IMississippi and the people of Massachusetts — between the people of New York and the people of Virginia ; but that all alike shall be allowed to go to the territories, and take with them whatever is recognised as property by the laws of the state from which they go. We have insisted, and do yet insist, that whoever makes laws for the territories is as much bound to give protection to us and our property, as to give protection to the northern man and his property. No right exists to discriminate against us, and we ask no discrimination in our favor. I appeal to the plain common sense of every man, if in this there has been anything unreasonable. In the name of all that is just, has not the citizen of Virginia the same right to go to Kansas or any other territory, and take with him that which is recognised as property by the laAvs of Virginia, as a New Yorker has to go and take with him that which is recognised as property by the laws of New York ? Have citizens of Massachusetts, let me ask, any higher privileges in the territory than citizens of Mississippi ? And if so, where did they obtain them ? How did they derive them ? By what authority do they undertake to claim for themselves exclusive privileges in the territories? If gentlemen are prepared to meet us on this ground of equality, the whole matter in controversy, as regards the ter- ritories, is settled at once. If any Mississippian shall attempt to set up authority through Congress, the territories, the people, or the states, to exclude citizens of Massachusetts, Maine, New York, New Hampshire, or of any other state, from the common territory, he will find himself opposed by the whole mass of southern people. We have always said, as I say to-day, that the citizens of the New England states, the citi- zens of all the free states, have the same right to go to the territories and take with them that which is recognised as property by the laws of their states, as we claim for ourselves, to go and take that which is re- cognised as property by the laws of the states from which we go. Then as to the protection of property after it gets there — whoever makes laws for the protection of the property of citizens of Maine, New York, New Hampshire, or Massachusetts, is, in my judgment — and I stand on that claim — equally bound to make laws for the protection of the pro- perty of Mississippians, Virginians, and Tennesseeans. If you ask no protection for your property through congressional legislation or through territorial legislation, we shall ask none for ours. If you ask protection for your property, we say we are equally entitled to protection for ours. We say that neither Congress nor the territorial legislature shall, with our consent, make any insulting discrimination between the people and property of one section of the Union, and the people and property of any other section — between the property of a citizen of New Hampshire or Massachusetts, and the property of a citizen of Maryland or Missis- sippi. Can we maintain ourselves on the soundness of this position ? And if not, why ? THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 497 Do gentlemen claim that v,'q are under the ban of the Constitution ? Do gentlemen pretend that the Constitution which gives us our uutliority to be here, which authorizes me to address this august body to-day, which brings us into this council-house, discriminates against the pro- perty of the fifteen Southern States of this Union ? Do they pretend that there is anything in that Constitution which denies to our pro- perty equal protection in the territories with the property of the other sixteen states of the Union? I undertake to say that it is the only article of property which is clearly and distinctly recognised by the Constitution. Take anything else, merchandise, live-stock, anything you please, and you can find nothing in the Constitution which specially and specifically looks to its recognition as property. The Constitution does recognise persons held to service (slaves) as property, and it recog- nises nothing else by name. Every other kind of property is left to the protection of local or state legislation. Not a word is found in the Con- stitution about merchandise, live-stock, or money as property. Persons bound to service (slaves) alone are mentioned. Then with what pretence of justice is it said, that this property is under the ban of the Constitu- tion, or that it is not equally entitled to protection with any other kind of property ? The Southern States, Mr. President, have been accused of violence in the maintenance of their rights under the Constitution, as they under- stand them. Our people are set down as lawless, and are constantly charged with attempts to carry their points by force. A stranger would be very apt to conclude from the accounts given of us, that every southern man was a walking citadel. I shall make no defence against charcres like this — our states and our people stand on the defensive. Never, sir, never since the government was founded, has the North had reason to complain that either the Southern States or the southern people have interfered with their domestic concerns. I have no reproaches to utter ; but can our northern friends say as much ? Can they say that they have never interfered with our domestic affairs ? When the Kansas bill was passed, we hoped there would be an end of this controversy. It was intended to take the question of slavery out of Congress, and transfer it to the people of the territory where it properly belonged, and Avho, as we all agreed, had the right, at tJie p'oper time, to settle it for themselves. What the proper time may be was a subject left open for discussion ; and to this point I v\'ill recur presently. It certainly was not contemplated by any of us that violence was to be used by any party to coerce a decision in Kansas. The people there, those who were bona fide citizens of the territory, were to be left per- fectly free to settle their domestic affairs in their own way, subject to )ut one influence, and that the benign and peaceful influence of the Constitution. No sooner had this bill passed than a concerted and powerful effort was set on foot here, and rapidly taken up in the New England States, to colonize the territory with a vagrant population. ilen were enlisted and sent there, not to cultivate the soil, not to erect rork-shops and carry on the mechanic arts — no, not for these purposes. Chey went not with the artisan's tools or the implements of husbandry n their hands, but with rifles, bowie knives, and other deadly weapons. ?heir object could not be mistaken. Instead of colonizing the country, 498 ALBERT G. BROWN. and making for themselves beneficent and wholesome laws — laws under which they meant themselves to live — people went to Kansas for no hio-her purpose than to fan the flames of discord, and to make laws from which they meant themselves to flee. They went for mischief, and they got it ; they sowed the whirlwind, and reaped the storm. They were sent to Kansas to make Kansas a free state, nolens volens, and the Missourians were inflamed to madness by their conduct. It was not, sir, that these men went, or the states from which they went, that stirred the blood of Missourians, but it was the purpose for which they went. When the Kansas bill passed, very few of us expected Kansas to become a slave state, and very few of us cared much whether it did or not. But when we saw an attempt made by the enemies of slavery to plant on the borders of a slave state a free-soil colony, with no higher purpose than to harass that state — when we saw an attempt made by strangers to enslave the bona fide white settlers in Kansas, by forcing on them, not a Kansas but a New England government, our people rose en masse, and swore, by the God that made them, these things should not be. The senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Hale] the other day paraded before the Senate a handbill — and he did it with a flourish of trumpets that would have done honor to the fat knight when he claimed the credit of killing Hotspur. The handbill spoke of Buchanan, and Breckenridge, and free' Kansas. The senator evidently thought he had made a grand discovery. I certainly do not mean to approve of that handbill. It probably suggested an erroneous idea to many who saw it. It may have suggested that the Democratic party was for Kansas free, as the senator from New Hampshire understood the word " free ;" and if it did, it sug- gested a falsehood. The Democratic party, as a party, is neither for free Kansas nor slave Kansas, as the Free-soilers understand thejfvords "free" and "slave." The Democratic party is for leaving Kansas perfectly /reg, at the right time, to settle the slavery question for herself, restrained only, as we all are in our action, by the provisions of the Federal Constitution. In this sense the Democrats are for free Kansas. The senator's idea, if I understand him, is to make Kansas free by releasing the black man from the authority of his master, and then force a government on the white people in the territory, through the agency of New England emigrant aid societies. His free Kansas makes the negro free by enslaving the white man ; but my free Kansas makes the white man free, and leaves the negro where the Constitution left him— subject to the authority of his master. I was somewhat surprised, Mr. President, the other day, to hear the senator from Illinois [Mr. Trumbull], in catechising the senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Bigler], who was then addressing the Senate, raise the question as to how far we, on the Democratic side of the house, con- curred in opinion upon the mooted point of squatter sovereignty. I Euppose the object of the senator in introducing that point was to make mischief — to stir up strife between senators on this side of the chamber. If that was his purpose, let me say to him that he fell, as he will con- tinue to fall, very far short of his mark. That there may be shades of diiference in our opinions is very likely ; that I do not, on every pomt, concur with my distinguished and venerable friend from Michigan is probable ; but that there is any difference between us which can by pos- sibility prevent our acting in harmony for the accomplishment of certam THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 499 great purposes which the national Democracy have in view, I utterly deny. I should prefer to have my friend agree with me, as he may prefer to have me agree with him ; but our difference is not such, as I shall presently show, that we may not, without sacrifice on either side, act together on practical issues. But, sir, how comes it that the senator from Illinois, how comes it that other senators on his side have, all of a sudden, found something so monstrous in this doctrine of squatter sovereignty ? When had we the first evidence exhibited to us of the power of squatter sovereignty on this continent ? Excuse me, sir, but I undertake to say, that the first exhibition of it was in the state which j^ou have the honor solely at this moment to represent on the floor of the Senate [Mr. Weller in the chair]. When the people of California assembled in convention, and undertook to frame a state constitution for themselves, they were all squatters ; they were in the country without authority of law ; there was no law authorizing them to be there. When they assembled in convention on the high mission of making a state constitution, they assembled there to perform an act of sovereignty ; when they made the constitution and set up a state government in all its forms, it was an act of sovereignty performed by squatters and by nobody else. Now, sir, I ask senators on the other side of the chamber, whether they did not sanction that proceeding? I pray you, gentlemen, were you not, one and all, in favor of admitting California under her squatter- sovereignty constitution ? Was not the senator from Illinois the advo- cate for the admission of California under the constitution thus formed ? Was not the senator from New York, and he from Massachusetts, and he from Ohio, all around the chamber, wherever they are, were they not friends of the admission of California under her squatter-sovereignty constitution ? Then what right have they to complain of squatter sover- eignty ? And then who was the first representative of squatter sovereignty on this floor ? When California was admitted, there were already at the door of the Senate two gentlemen asking for admission. One of them was John Charles Fremont. He came here as a senator, the first who presented himself fi'om California, and he was the very embodiment of squatter soveieignty. He had no constituency but a squatter-sovereignty constituency. He came from no state but a state brought into being by squatter sovereigns. These gentlemen, to a man, advocated his admis- sion. They not only went for the admission of the state, but for the admission of her senators. Thus they endorsed the whole proceeding up to that time. I suspect that they, and all their class of politicians, are very much like one I heard speaking lately. He said he was for squatter sovereignty if it worked out in his favor, and against it if it did not. In my opinion, squatter sovereignty is a misnomer, and territorial sovereignty a humbug. I understand, sir, what is meant by state sover- eignty, and, in my opinion, there is no other kind of sovereignty existing in this country. Squatter sovereignty, territorial sovereignty, and popu- lar sovereignty (when applied to the territories), all belong to the same category, and they are all political absurdities in my opinion. But I am not going to bore the Senate by giving the reasons why I think so. We agreed to let Kansas and all the other territories manajce their own affairs in their own way, subject only to the Constitution. We differed 500 ALBERT G. BROWN. as to -what a territory might rightfully do under the Constitution. My friend from Michigan [Mr. Cass] thought, and still thinks, a territorial legislature, such as that in Kansas, has the right, under the Constitu- tion, to exclude slavery. I think diiFerently. He is not seeking to have his ideas enacted into a law by Congress ; nor am I. He admits that if the legislature of Kansas has not the right, under the Constitu- tion, to exclude slavery. Congress cannot confer it ; and I know, if the legislature has the right Congress cannot take it away. Therefore, neither of us propose that Congress shall do anything. We voted together on the Kansas bill, and agreed then to refer all our difference of opinion to the Supreme Court of the United States — the only tribunal on earth competent to decide between us. When that decision is ren- dered, we both stand solemnly pledged to abide by it. I speak not now of what a sovereign state, in the exercise of her reserved rights, may do — that is a subject for future consideration and decision. Now, sir, the diiierence between my honorable friend and myself is precisely the difference between Democrats who believe in squatter sovereignty and Democrats who do not believe in it. If an unorganized territory, such as California was in 1849, such as Kansas was in 1853, such as the Indian Territory outside of Arkansas now is, shall undertake to exclude slavery, the senator from Michigan and myself agree that it undertakes to do what it has no right to do. But if an organized territory, like Kansas or Nebraska, undertakes, through its legislative council, to exclude slavery, the senator thinks they have the right to do it. I do not think so. This he calls popular sovereignty. I call it the assumption of a right not conferred by the Constitution, and therefore not existing in the territory. He may be right. I think he is not. But neither of us desires or expects Congress to decide between us. The senator from Illinois [Mr. Trumbull], the other day, interrogated the senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Bigler], as to what Mr. Buchanan's views were on this point. My friend from Pennsylvania declined to reply, because he had no authority to do so. The friends of Mr. Bu chanan were satisfied with his position on this point before they nomi- nated and elected him, and they are not likely to fall out with him now on account of any suggestions coming from his enemies, secret or open. That he will hold the scales of justice in equal balance, between the North and the South, I have no doubt ; and if he does, his friends North and South will adhere to him. They were strong enough to elect him ; and if he fulfils their hopes, as I am sure he will, they will show them- selves strong enough to carry his administration through in triumph. Mr. Buchanan may laugh his enemies to scorn. He has only to feel the inspiration that moved the hearts of his friends at Cincinnati, and stand firmly on the platform laid down by them, and they will throw over him their arms, and build around him a rampart that will defy the power of the Black Republicans and all their allies. But, to return to the territories : We of the Democratic faith all agree that they may, at the proper time, settle the slavery question for them- selves. Some think it may be done sooner ; but we all agree that when the people of a territory meet in convention to frame a state constitu- tion, they may, in that constitution, admit or exclude slavery, as they please ; and we agree, further, that their decision is final. If Kansas THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 601 comes here with a constitution made by her hona fide people, free from all outside influences, excluding slavery, there is not a Democrat in either House of Congress who will not vote for her admission ; and if, on the other hand, she comes with a constitution similarly made tolerat- ing slavery, there is not a Democrat who will not vote for her admission. Break up your emigrant aid societies at the North, and all interference from the South will cease. Then Kansas, being left perfectly free to regulate her domestic affairs in her own way, may assemble her people in convention, frame her constitution to suit herself, admit or exclude slavery as she pleases, and she will be welcomed into the Union with open arms by every friend of free institutions, from the Aroostook to the to the Rio Grande, and from the Atlantic to the far-off Pacific. Sir, the Democracy has stood for fifty years, like our own ocean-bound republic. The waves of faction have beaten upon it, and they have broken, in harmless ripples, at its feet. It stands to-day a fit type of our glorious country — the hope of the oppressed in every land, and a beacon-light to the sons of freedom throughout the world It will uphold the Constitution. It will preserve the Union. It will disappoint the tyrants of the Old World, and the enemies of liberty in the New. Democracy will go on conquering and to conquer, until all parties shall confess its dominion, and the whole world be converted to the sublime truths which it teaches. This is its mission. We mean, Mr. President, to settle this slavery question on a firm and lasting, because on a just, liberal, and constitutional basis. We mean to stop agitation ; we mean to give repose to the South, and quiet to the whole country; we mean to rout the Abolitionists and bury Black Republicanism so low that the sound of Gabriel's trumpet will not reach it on the day of judgment ! This is our hope ; this our prayer ; this our confident expectation ; but if we shall be deceived in this — if it shall please God to prosper our enemies — if there shall be no settlement — if agitation is kept up — if the South can have no peace — if our enemies have the power, and are resolved to use it in breaking up the Union, and trampling the Constitution under foot — then we will turn to the senator from New York, the great chieftain of his party, and the author of all our woes, and we will say to him and his infatuated allies, as Abram said to Lot : " Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen, for we are brethren. Is not the whole land before thee ? Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me : if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right ; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left." If this appeal shall fail to reach the heart of the senator and his allies, there will be but one alternative left us, and that an appeal to the God of battles. May Heaven, in its mercy, avert such a calamity ! 502 ALBERT G. BROWN. THE RHODE ISLAND RESOLUTIONS ON THE SUMNER ASSAULT. SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JUNE 16, 1856, ON THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF RHODE ISLAND, RELATIVE TO THE ASSAULT ON MR. SUMNER. Mr. Brown. I object to the printing of these resolutions ; and I know the responsibility which I assume in objecting to printing resolu- tions coming from a sovereign state of this Union. I make the objection without expecting to succeed in it. Mr. Weller. I believe the rule of the Senate requires the printing of resolutions coming from state legislatures. I present the point of order, that the rule requires the printing of memorials and resolutions of state legislatures, and you cannot abrogate or change that rule with- out presenting a proposition for that purpose, which requires one day's notice. Mr. Brown. I suppose it at least admits of debate, whether we shall print the resolutions or not. Mr. Seward. Freedom of debate requires that. Mr. Brown. As I have already said, I do not expect to succeed in my opposition. I am aware of the rule to which the senator from Cali- fornia alludes. When the legislature of Massachusetts thought proper to send us resolutions in reference to what she conceived to be an out- rage on one of her senators, I thought it well enough to let the matter pass without discussion ; but when another state conceives it to be her duty to take up the question, and come in with her resolves, denouncing the transaction which took place here as a cowardly and brutal outrage, and as an attempt to stifle debate, it strikes me as presenting the subject altogether in a new light. I have seen nothing in this matter which struck me as an attempt, on the part of any one, to stifle or check the utmost freedom of debate, here or elsewhere. A senator from Massachusetts, in the exercise of his privilege, delivered himself, with the utmost freedom, of his opinions upon certain very delicate questions ; and in the progress of his remarks, took occasion to reflect severely upon the historic character of one of the states of this Union, and to reprobate, in strong and pointed per- sonal terms, the conduct and bearing of one of the senators from that state, who was then absent. A representative from South Carolina felt it to be his privilege to call that senator to personal account for what he said on that occasion. Now, sir, I know what are the guarantees of the Constitution ; but in the wildest flights of my imagination, I never dreamt that the Constitu- tion guarantied, or undertook to guaranty, to me, or to any other mem- ber of the American Senate, the unrestrained privilege of denouncing states, and senators, and private citizens, in such terms as I might think proper to employ, and yet of claiming under the Constitution immunity from all account, out of doors, for what I might say. I had supposed, and I do yet suppose, that if, in the exercise of my privilege as a sena- RHODE ISLAND RESOLUTIONS ON THE SUMNER ASSAULT. 503 tor, I denounce any gentleman in terms to him personally ofTensive, I am, as a gentleman, accountable to him for what I say ; and the Con- stitution never undertook to shield and protect me against that. Mr. James. The honorable senator and myself perfectly agree in that respect. Mr. Brown. I dare say that I perfectly agree Avith my gallant friend from Rhode Island; but do I agree with "little Rhody?" Does Rhode Island agree to this ? If she does, why comes she here with these reso- lutions ? Why does she, in her sovereign capacity, as a member of this confederacy, undertake to interpose in a mere personal quarrel — in a mere personal controversy between two individuals? I take it for granted that the honored state from which my friend comes, believes that a great outrage has been committed on the Constitution ; tliat there has been a bona fide attempt here to restrain, the freedom of debate: that the South, in the person of the representative from South Carolina, has undertaken the grave task of restraining the North, in the person of the senator from Massachusetts, in the full exercise of that freedom of speech Avhich is guarantied by the Constitution. That is the light in which I am to suppose Rhode Island views the case, judging by the resolutions which she has sent here, and Avhich are now on your table. I do not regard the transaction in any such view. Il\ as I said at the outset, a senator has made a gross personal assauk by words upon any senator, or upon a representative, or upon anybody out of doors, then, in his person, not as a senator, but as an individual, I hold that he is accountable for such insult and outrage. Heaven forbid that I should ever undertake to protect myself under the panoply of the Constitution for words spoken here. So long as I confine myself to the legitimate discussion of questions fairly before the Senate, avoiding personalities, it would be an outrage on the freedom of debate if any one here or elsewhere should undertake to call me to account, or prevent me saying Avhat I choose to say in respect to questions before this body ; but if I go outside of the line to offer a personal affront to a brother senator, a personal indignity to a member of the House of Representa- tives, to a state of the Union, or to any private citizen, I must be ac- countable for it ; and the Constitution, I apprehend, never undertook to guaranty me against being called to account if I thus trespass on the rights of others. Rhode Island must either be mistaken as to what are the facts of the case, or understands the Constitution of our country in a different light from that in which I understand it. I rose, sir, to object to the printing of the resolutions, simply that I might have an oppor- tunity of presenting my humble protest against their doctrines. In reply to Mr. Seward Mr. Brown said : — If the senator from New York will allow me, I will state what I meant. He will understand me as saying that neither the senator from Massa- chusetts, nor an}'- other senator, is responsible in a court of justice, as for a libel, for anything uttered on this floor; but he will also understand me as taking the ground distinctly, that, as a man and as a gentleman, he is responsible out of doors for what he says here personally offensive to other people. In other words, if I choose, on the floor of the Senate, to offer to the senator from New York a gross personal insult, as a man and as a gentleman, I am responsible to him. The Constitution has never undertaken to shield me from that responsibility. While I saj 504 ALBERT G. BROWN. nothing of the conduct of other gentlemen, I say for myself, that, if I offered such an affront and the senator demanded of me satisfaction, and I undertook to shield myself behind the Constitution, all Christendom ^Y0uld say that I had acted meanly and cowardly. Mr. Seward. I do not misunderstand the honorable senator from Mis- sissippi ; at all events, I am sure I do not intentionally misunderstand him. I understand him to say that the state of Rhode Island takes alarm unnecessarily, and unwisely, and unjustly, for the freedom of debate in the Senate of the United States, under the circumstances presented on this occasion. Those circumstances are simply these — that a senator, for words spoken in debate, has been assailed, beaten, and brought to the floor of the Senate Chamber, by the hand of a member of the House of Representatives. Mr. Brown. Allow me to say to the senator that I treat the trans- action which chanced to happen in the Senate Chamber precisely as if it had happened anywhere else. I attach no special sanctity to this chamber, except when the body is in session. I prefer, as a mere matter of taste, that this transaction should have occurred elsewhere ; but I say, I attach no special importance to its happening here. If Mr. Brooks committed any outrage upon Mr. Sumner, if his conduct was cowardly, if he crept upon him and struck him unawares, and thereby got the advan- tage, Mr. Sumner yet survives ;• he has a right to demand personal satisfaction. If he demands it, and Mr. Brooks refuses it, I shall then know where to put my denunciation. But this, I say again, is a matter of controversy between two persons, with which I think the states of the Union have no sort of connection. Mr. Seward rejoined, and Mr. Brown replied as follows: — There is only one point in the speech of the senator from New York on w"hich I care to comment. He agrees with me that senators and representatives are not to be called to account by libel suits for words spoken in debate ; but he goes further, and takes the ground that they are not to be called to account in any manner, no odds what they may say. He thinks that a senator may get up here, and offer any sort of affront which he may choose to offer to a brother senator — may denounce in any manner, no matter how broad, a member of the House of Repre- sentatives — may utter every sort of denunciation against a private citizen, may belie, libel, and traduce a sovereign state of this Union ; and yet for all this is protected by the Constitution, and that to call him to account outside of the Senate is a grave offence against the Constitution. So I understand the senator. He nods assent. Against all that doctrine I enter here, in the American Senate, my most solemn and emphatic protest. I am willing that it shall go to the country that, if I offend the senator from New York in debate, I am responsible to him, not as a senator, but as a man and as a gentleman ; I am responsible to him out of doors, and the Constitution has thrown around me no protection in that regard. If I say of any man out of doors, who is entitled to be recognised as a gentleman, an offensive thing, I am responsible for having said so, in my personal character as a gentleman. If I choose to denounce the state of Massachusetts in gross and offensive terms, or the state of New York, and one of her citizens calls me to account for it, as a man, as a gentleman, I am responsible, and the Constitution has given me no immunity against RHODE ISLAND RESOLUTIONS ON THE SUMNER ASSAULT, 505 sucli responsibility. The Constitution has guarantied to mo the right to say what I choose in this chamber. Though it may be libellous, though it may be grossly scandalous, though it may be in the higliest possible degree oflfensive, I am not to be called to account in a court of justice, as a senator, for what I say here ; but the Constitution has given me no license to libel " all the world and the rest of mankind ;" it has not guarantied to me the privilege of saying to the senator from New York that he is a black-hearted Abolitionist, or anything else that may be personally oftensive to that senator, and then given me an immunity, a protection, a guarantee, against responsibility outside of this chamber. The Constitution, in my opinion, has given me no such guarantee ; there- fore, I say, as I did at the outset, without meaning to protract this debate, that the senator from New York and myself are pointedly at issue as to what are our constitutional rights on this floor. I mean, as a senator, so long as I occupy a position here, to be respon- sible out of doors for whatever I say — not in any libel suit — I Avill protect myself against that if I choose to do so, because that is my constitutional right ; but for whatever I say here, as a man, as a citizen, and as a gentleman, I will be responsible out of doors. I believe the Constitution gives me no protection, nor did it ever design to give me protection against such responsibility. If it had undertaken to do it, the undertaking would be futile. There is no use in discussing this question. If men will give gross personal affronts to others, they must be responsible in their own proper persons ; and no laws, no constitution, until our whole nature is changed, can alter this feeling of our common humanity. We must either be base, beneath the dignity of men, or elevated to the dignity of angels, before you can enforce any other rule, whether it be in the Constitution, in the law, or elsewhere. A person must be less than a man, and, from the very nature of his degradation, too low to resent a personal aflront, or else he must be akin to the angels, and, therefore, so much above man, that there can be no occasion for his resenting personal injuries, before you can enforce that rule. The men who made the Constitution were human. They were like the senator from New York and myself. They never undertook to debase us below the dignity of men, or elevate us to the dignity of angels or demi-gods. They regarded us, I conceive, as mere mortals ; took us as they found us, and made a Constitution which suited our condition as men — I trust, as dignified men. They protected us against vexatious suits for libel and damages for what, in the discharge of our duties, we choose to say here. They never gave us, in my opinion, an unlimited privilege of libelling all the world, and then saying to all the world, " Hands off; we are a privileged class; we are clothed with the panoply of the Constitution ; here we stand in all cur majesty and in all our dignity; we say to you that you are rogues, thieves, liars, scoundrels, cowards, and everything which can make you infamous, and yet we are not responsible because we are senators." I believe no such thing, and will maintain no such doctrine here or else- where ; and this I say independent of the fracas which occurred on the i floor of the Senate Chamber — not in the Senate. 506 ALBERT G. BROWN. PERSONAL EXPLANATION. On the 20th of March, 1858, Mr. Brown made the following remarks :— I HAVE a very small matter of account to settle with the senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson], and as it only concerns myself, it is not material that anybody but himself should be present. In a speech pro- nounced by him on the 4th of February — which I did not hear at the time — he made certain quotations from a speech of mine delivered some years ago, and he did me (unintentionally, I have no doubt) very marked injustice. I did not reply at the time, because I did not chance to be in my seat. He quoted two paragraphs from my speech, and quoted them correctly. He then quoted what purports to be a third paragraph from the same speech ; but I never should have known that it was taken from the same speech if he had not so stated ; because, having read the whole speech over since, I find no such paragraph as the third one in it. It is only by that landmark that I was enabled to trace out in what speech of mine it was intended to locate that third paragraph, to which I now call the attention of the senator and of the Senate. He says — attributing the language which he quotes as being used by me in the speech alluded to : — " The senator makes professions of devotion to the Union. In the very speech from which I have before quoted, the senator says that — " 'Our people have been calculating the value of the Union.' * * * _ 'I tell you candidly we have calculated the value of the Union. Love for the Union will not keep us in the Union.' " The whole tone, temper, and sentiment look not to the support of the Union as our fathers made it, but to the triumph of a sectional southern policy, to the expan- sion of slavery, or to the ultimate overthrow of the government of this country." Now, sir, no such paragraph as is here quoted appears in the speech in which the first two paragraphs, quoted by the senator from Massa- chusetts, appear. It is a speech delivered by me on the 30th of Jan- uary, 1850, in the House of Representatives, and reported at pages 250-258, and along there generally, of the Congressional Globe of that year. The three sentences embodied in that paragraph may possibly be found in the whole body of the speech. I believe they may be, by dividing sentences, and taking detached portions of paragraphs, and putting them together. What I assert is, that no such paragraph ap- pears in the speech, and that the three sentences put together make up a paragraph which wholly distorts the meaning of the speech ; and that I may set myself right before the Senate and the country, I shall send to the secretary's desk, and ask to have three paragraphs, which I have marked, read from that speech, in which, if any three sentences bear- ing the meaning of the three I have read appear at all in the whole speech, they will be found. I ask the clerk to read the three short par- agraphs which I have marked, to show what was the general character of the speech, and to show that the senator from Massachusetts, in at- tributing that language to it, and saying that it contained such a para- graph, wholly misconceived the general scope and design of that speech. It was not, as he assumed, a disunion speech; it was not a speech PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS. 507 showing that I was seeking the disruption of the Union ; but, on the contrary, in all its amplitude, so far as my feeble ability could make it, it was emphatically a Union speech. I do not come here now, nor did I stand in the House of Representatives in 1850, as the especial and particular defender or eulogist of the Union. I am content to feel and know, in my heart of hearts, that I am for the Union ; but I never was one of those who believed that the Union was to be saved by singing pteans to its fame or to its glory. It is to be saved by other means, if it is to be preserved at all. I do not care to detain the Senate. I want to set myself right ; and I ask that those three paragraphs be read. The secretary read as follows : — " Throw an impartial eye over the history of the last twenty years, and answer me if there is anything there which challenges our devotion? Who does not know that time after time we have turned away in sorrow from your oppressions, and yet have come back clinging to the Union, and proclaiming that, ' with all her faults we loved her still.' And you expect us to do so now, again and again ; you expect us to re- turn, and, on bended knees, crave your forbearance. No, you do not ; you cannot think so meanly of us. There is nothing in our past history which justifies the con- clusion that we will thus abase ourselves. You know how much a high-toned people ought to bear ; and you know full well that we have borne to the last extremity. You know that we ought not to submit any longer. There is not a man of lofty soul among you all who, in his secret heart, does not feel that we ought not to submit. If you fancy that our devotion to the Union will keep us in the Union, you are mis- taken. Our love for the Union ceases with the justice of the Union. We cannot love oppression, nor hug tyranny to our bosoms." ******* " I tell you candidly, we have calculated the value of the Union. Your injustice has driven us to it. Your oppression justifies me to-day in discussing the value of the Union, and I do so freely and fearlessly. Your press, your people, and your pulpit may denounce this as treason — be it so. You may sing hosannas to the Union — it is well. British lords called it treason in our fathers, when they resisted British tyranny. British orators were eloquent in their eulogies on the British crown. Our fathers felt the oppression, they saw the hand that aimed the blow, and they resolved to resist. The result is before the world. AVe will resist, and trust to God and our own stout hearts for the consequences." * * * * * * " I repeat, we deprecate disunion. Devoted to the Constitution — reverencing the Union — holding in sacred remembrance the names, the deeds, and the glories of our common and illustrious ancestry, there is no ordinary ill to which we would not bow sooner than dissolve the political associations of these new states. If there was any point short of absolute ruin to ourselves, and desolation to our country, at which these aggressive measures would certainly stop, we would say at once, go to that point and give us peace. But we know full well, that when all is obtained that you now ask, the cormorant appetite for power and plunder will not be satisfied. The tiger may be driven from his prey, but when once he dips his tongue in blood, ho will not relinquish his victim without a struggle." — Congressional Globe, Thirty-Firsi Congress, Jii'st session, Tpage 259. Mr. Brown. In a single word, I want to say that that speech was pronounced in 1850, calmly, deliberately, upon full consideration. It has been extensively criticised since, in my own state and in the papers. North and South. I stand in the presence of the American Senate to- nio-ht to say that I endorse every word and syllable of it, and am pre- pared to vindicate it ; but I do not stand prepared to be charged with having uttered alone and without connection the language quoted by the senator from Massachusetts. All of us know how easy it is to snatch out a sentence here and a sentence there, from a speech, and put them together and make up precisely what the speaker never intended to enunciate. Take the speech in all its amplitude, and I see nothing in it of which I feel ashamed ; nothing which I am not prepared to endorse in this or any other presence. 608 ALBERT G. BROWN. I stand here to-night prepared to say, in the connection in which I then used the hmguage, that we have calculated the value of the Union. We calculated it, as I then said, to ascertain how much oppression we could bear before we threw it oiF. I do not belong to that school of politicians who believe that the Union is paramount to everything else. I put the rights of the states above the Union ; I put the sovereignty of the states above the Union ; I put the liberty of this people under the Constitution above the Union. All these were above it in the be- ginning ; to all these the Union in the beginning was subordinate ; and, so far as I have power, it shall remain subordinate. I can feel a proper degree of devotion to the Union without feeling that all power is concen- trated in the Union, that it is paramount, that the states must succumb to it, that the sovereignty of the states must pale in its presence, that the liberty of the people must bow down in the august presence of this Union. I believe no such thing, and will act upon no such principle. The Union was made by the states ; it is subordinate to the states ; and, within its proper sphere, I will stand by it and make as many sacrifices as anybody else to maintain it. But I will sing no pseans to the Union. I do not stand here as its especial and particular eulogist. The rights of my state, the rights of my oppressed section, are worth more to me than the Union. I have said so before, here and at home. I say so now ; and, if that is to be disunion, let it be so. COMMODORE PAULDING'S ARREST OF WALKER. SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 7, 1858, ON THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE RELATIVE TO THE ARREST OF WILLIAM WALKER. This question, Mr. President, stands where I have apprehended for the last three or four days it would stand. The President of the United States disapproves of the arrest of Walker, and excuses it. He disap- proves of it on the ground that the arrest was in violation of law ; and if it was, I hold that he has no right to excuse it. If Commodore Pauld- ing had the right to arrest Walker in Nicaragua, his conduct ought not only to be excused, but it ought to be applauded. If, however, he had no legal right to do that act, the President of the republic owes it to the people, whose president he is, to condemn it. If Walker has been guilty of any violation of law, and has been arrested and brought back to our shores as a fugitive from justice, why is he not put in the clutches of the law ? Why is he brought to New York, placed in the hands of the marshal, brought here, and offered to the government, and then set at liberty ? Why is he not carried to Louisiana by the same authority which arrested him, and there put upon his trial on this charge of violating the law ? Sir, this is a farce being played out before the American people, disreputable to all who aie engaged in it. There has been no violation of law. Those who have COMMODORE PAULDING'S ARREST OF WALKER. 509 trumped up the charge against Walker know that there has been no violation of law. If they believe that he has violated the law, then they are grossly derelict in duty in not returning him to Louisiana, that be may be tried under the law and convicted of the oifence whereof he stands charged. But he is not sent there, and that is an admission that he is not guilty, and that a conviction cannot be procured. Then he has not been brought here to answer to any indictment ; for if he has, I charge again that those who brought him here are not discharging their duty. Now, sir, I hold this to be true : that the fitting out of an expedition in violation of the neutrality laws, is one thing ; that the voluntary expatriation of a citizen, is altogether another and a different thing. If Walker has fitted out an expedition against Nicaragua, or any other country at peace with the United States, he has violated the law ; but if he has girt his arms about him and voluntarily gone aboard a ship going to the coast of Nicaragua, avowing to all the world that he was going there to wage war against the government, I hold he had the right to do so. In that there is no fitting out of an expedition. I hold it to be my right under the law, to-day, to take my musket upon my shoulder, go and tell the President and his Secretary of War, his dis- trict attorneys, and his marshals, everywhere, that I mean, thus accoutred, to go and take part against Nicaragua, and they have no power to arrest me. If one has the right to go, two, three, four, five, or even five hundred have the right in the same manner, each going upon his individual account. I will tell you, sir, where I think the mistake in this whole matter lies. The government is attempting to punish what the law never con- templated should be punished — the intention to fit an expedition be^'ond the limits of the United States made of materials gathered within the limits of the United States. The expedition must be fitted out here ; it must be fitted upon your soil ; it must be an entirety, before the law takes cognisance of it. I hold that each individual has the right to go away, and that you have no power to arrest him. The intention to go beyond the limits of the United States, there to fit and equip an expe- dition, is not a violation of the law. You have in this District a law punishing the intention to go beyond the limits of the District of Columbia to fight a duel ; but, until you had that law, parties did go beyond the limits of the District, and did fight duels, without being amenable to your anti-duelling law. It is your last anti-duelling law that takes cognisance of the intention, and punishes it. So, sir, if you had a law to punish the intention to take the material from the United States to fit an expedition beyond the limits of the Union, you might get hold of Walker — for that is all that he has done. He has gathered his material in New York, New Orleans, and Mobile, and perhaps other points ; he has taken them man by man beyond the limits of the Union, and there fitted out his expedition, and gone to Nicaragua. In that, there has been no violation of law, because there is nothing in the laAv to punish the intention to fit an expedition, if the expedition was fitted beyond the Union. I have a word to say, now, as to the conduct of these naval officers. I have as high a regard for the navy, I think, as any other citizen ; I honor its exploits in every conflict in which we have been engaged ; but 510 ALBERT G. BROWN. if anything can bring reproach, eternal disgrace, upon the navy, it seems to me that it is this precise transaction. First, we have Commander Chatard, who lets Walker pass him ; and then, seeming to have a glim- mering of an idea that he had mistaken his duty, he undertakes to recover his lost ground by resorting to all the little, petty, low, dirty, mean attempts that could be invented, to insult him in his camp ; evidently, by his own letter, trying to provoke Walker into a conflict, that he might have an excuse to fire upon him. Then Commodore Pauld- ing comes up ; and he, a man of ripe years, who might be supposed to know something of his duty under the law, does what all the world knows, and what I need not repeat here, and does it in the most ungracious way. He writes to the government, admitting that he had no instructions to do what he did ; but, assuming that Walker and his men were pirates and outlaws, he writes such a letter as ought eternally to fix the seal of disgrace and condemnation on him. His letter, in my judgment, is a disgrace to the epaulets which he wears upon his shoulders. • While I am on this point, I may as well say what I feel and think ; that it is high time our naval officers should be confined within the dis- charge of their duties according to law. There is too much disposition to exceed the law, by one and all of them. In my opinion, the Presi- dent — and no man knows better than he how reluctantly I say so ; but I will say what I think, let the consequences be to myself, or anybody else, what they may — would better have discharged his duty to the law, and to the best interests of the country, by pointedly rebuking the law- less act of Commodore Paulding, than by excusing it. Looking every- where, I see naval officers disposed to exceed their authority. You can- not send one of them abroad to perform the slightest commission, but he gets beyond his instructions, launches into the open sea of extrava- gance, and entails upon you any amount of expense and trouble. I am not going into that question ; but I could point out instance after instance where this has been the case. It is high time that naval officers should be restrained within the letter of their instructions, and made to feel and know that they must obey the law. The way to make them do it, is not to follow out the advice of the President, and say that the act of Paulding was in violation of the law and then wink at it. That will but encourage a still further violation of the law. I would prefer seeing it punished — summarily and properly punished. It is one of those oftences against the laws of the country which demand punish- ment. The President cannot excuse it on the ground that Nicaragua does not complain. It is not for us to violate our laws when Nicaragua does not complain, and to excuse them when she does complain. Our duty is to the law. If Paulding has discharged his duty according to the law, let him be applauded; and if he has not, let him be con- demned. It is no excuse to me, to say that Nicaragua does not complain. That suggestion opens up a wide field for investigation. I might reply that Walker had been invited into that country to take part in a civil war, that the party with whom he acted had triumphed, that he was lawfully elected president of the republic of Nicaragua, that his government de facto had been recognised by the United States ; and that, by the inter- ference of another naval officer, he had been brought out of the country. COMMODORE PAULDING'S ARREST OP WALKER. 511 True, it was said then that it was a matter of grace to him. How that was, I am not now going to inquire. But he was here chiiming to be the rightful president of the republic of Nicaragua. Patriotic men — not lawless and piratical men, as is now charged, but patriotic men — in the Southern and Southwestern States, in the Western and the Northern States, said : " We will join you, and go and help you to snatch back again the rights which have been lawlessly taken from you." I might go into all that, and show that Walker, the recognised de facto President of Nicaragua, was but pursuing, as he had a legal right to do, the recovery of that which had been lawlessly taken from him when he was thus arrested. But all that is unnecessary in this stage of the investi- gation, the present point being as to whether the President ought to say that Commodore Paulding had violated the law, and then undertake to excuse him for violating it. If this principle is to be carried out, the execution of the law is to depend on the outside opinion of the executors of the law. If the Ex- ecutive thinks the violation of the law, in that particular instance, was right, he is to wink at it and let it go unwhipped of punishment. He is only to punish the offender when, in his judgment, the thing was wrong intrinsically. I do not understand that to be the proper obedience to law, nor a proper execution of law. If it can be shown that Paulding acted withhi the law, either written or unwritten, then let him be excused ; but if not, then let him be condemned, whether we applaud his conduct or not. I might think it a very good thing to have some fellow killed that I thought better out of the world than in it ; but suppose the assassin goes and puts the dagger in his heart ; am I, as judge on the bench, to say to him, "My dear fellow, I cannot exactly say you did right in killing him, because you violated the law ; but, inasmuch as I think the rascal ought to have been killed, I will let you go." That will not do. Such logic as that brings us to the end of all law. For these and other reasons which I may take occasion to assign hereafter, I cannot endorse this message. I am exceedingly reluctant to dissent from any views expressed by the President, and especially so in the present condition of our public affairs ; but I care not who is president ; when doctrines are promulgated in antagonism to what I believe to be right, I will express the conviction of my own mind. Upon this point I will do the senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] a little justice. While I did not agree with him in anything that he said, I did admire his spunk in standing up and saying plump out what he thought on the Kansas question. On the same day Mr. Brown continued the debate as follows: — Mr. BroWjST. On the subject of Captain Paulding's ancestry I desire to say a word. He is said to be the son of the Paulding who took part in the arrest of Andre. Mr. Mallory. I did not say he was the son. Mr. Brown. I have seen it stated elsewhere that he claimed to be the son. I do not know what other illustrious ancestors he may have had to which the senator alluded. Mr. Mallory. He is descended from the Paulding that captured Andre. What relation he is I do not pretend to say. 512 ALBERT G. BROWN. Mr. Brown. Whether he be a son or grandson, a nephew or grand- nephew, has, in my judgment, nothing on earth to do with this inquiry. Ilis ancestor did well, did nobly. The question we have to inquire into now, is as to what Paulding himself has done. Has he acted within the limits of law ? I understand the senator from Florida to admit that he has not ; and yet he undertakes to excuse him on the ground of his illustrious ancestry. Mr. Mallory. My friend will excuse me for interrupting him. In the few remarks he addressed to the Senate he said that in making the arrest Commodore Paulding had acted in a most ungracious manner, and that he had entailed disgrace on his epaulets in doing so. That he had performed the arrest in an ungracious manner, which I presume to mean an ungentlemanly, or unhandsome, or rude manner. Mr. Brown. I would ask my friend from Florida whether he has carefully read the letter of Commodore Paulding to the government, in which he charges piracy, lawlessness, buccaneering, and everything else in the whole catalogue of naval offences against Walker and his men. Now, sir, I have the same authority for saying that the men who were under General Walker's command had rendered distinguished services to this country, which the senator has for saying that the ancestors of Paulding had rendered essential service. I undertake to say that there were men in that command who not only risked their lives, but shed their blood in defence of the American flag, in the late war with Mexico ; and yet this man Paulding, whose highest claim seems to be that he has descended from illustrious ancestors, has the audacity, in an official com- munication to the government, to charge these men with piracy, with buccaneering, with lawlessness, and with all the offences in the whole catalogue of crimes. Upon what evidence ? Where is the authority upon which these charges are based ? Is there any indictment against Walker for piracy ? Is there any charge against him for piracy ? Does it rest upon anything else than the mere declaration of Commodore Paulding, in an official communication which has been sent to Congress by the President, thus to be incorporated into the everlasting archives of the government, to live through all time to come ? I say that when Commodore Paulding so far forgets his duty as thus lightly to charge piracy, and buccaneering, and lawlessness, and other high offences, against men who have distinguished themselves in the military service of the country, he does disgrace his epaulets, and ought to have them torn from his shoulders. If there be any indictment against Walker or any man under his command, show it, point to the court where it is ; but if there be not, upon what authority does this man Paulding dare to arraign him before the American people and the world as a pirate ? I know not how far my judgment may weigh against that of the descendant of the Paulding who captured Andr^, but what- ever it is worth, I venture it here, that Walker is not only not a pirate, not a buccaneer, but that he is a man that has violated no law. Put him upon his trial before a fair jury of the country, and my life upon it he will be acquitted. He will be acquitted in Louisiana ; he will be acquitted in Florida ; he will be acquitted in New York ; wherever he can get a fair and impartial trial according to the laws of the country, he will be set at liberty. My complaint against Paulding is, that he makes the charge without proof; and my complaint against the Presi- COMMODORE PAULDING'S ARREST OF WALKER. 513 dent is, that he sends it to the Senate and gives to it the high endorse- ment of the chief magistrate of this great nation. The senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Doolittle] says tliat Walker ia charged with levying war against a foreign government. By whom is he so charged ? Where is the evidence of it ? Is there an indictment pending? Is there a well-established charge anywhere but by public rumor ? I meet the charge by saying that Walker was but endeavoring, as others have done, to recapture his lost rights. After Louis Philippe was expelled from France, if he had undertaken to regain his throne, this government would have had the same right to interpose and arrest him that it had to interpose and arrest Walker. Louis Philippe was driven out by violence. If he had attempted to go back to France to regain his lost privileges, no one would have pretended that the govern- ment of the United States had a right, by military force, to arrest him ; yet, for the life of me, I cannot see the dilFerence between an arrest in that case and the one before us. But, says the senator from Wisconsin, Walker was a citizen of the United States. That he was a native of the United States, I grant ; but did he claim the protection of your flag — did he claim to be a citizen of the United States ? So far from it, he was arrested under the flag- of Nicaragua. If he had been arrested under the flag of the United States — under the banner of the stars and stripes — there would have been some excuse for it ; the, excuse might have been based on the ground that he was abusing the flag ; but he was under a foreign flag, and claimed its protection. Putting himself under that flag, proclaimed to all the world that he had expatriated himself, as he had a right to do. He was not then a citizen of the United States, nor did he claim to be. I understand that while I was temporarily absent from the Senate some time ago, the senator from New York expressed some very errone- ous views in reference to the positions I took in the fcAV remarks which I had the honor to submit in the early part of this discussion. What I said, if not with entire distinctness, I had hoped with sufficient clearness to be understood, was, that a citizen of the United States has a right to expatriate himself, that there was no power in the executive government to prevent his doing so, and that in leaving the country ho had the right to bear arms. These propositions being true, I illustrated them in my own person by saying that I had the right to shoulder my musket and shake hands with the President, telling him I was going to Nicaragua, or any other country, to take part in a civil w^ar, and that he had no right to molest me. I said every other citizen of the republic had pre- cisely the same right. I have supposed heretofore it was one of the chief glories of this 1 country, that our people did take part in these contests for liberty. The earliest and most brilliant efi"orts of "the great commoner," the illustri- ous Clay, were the powerful orations which he pronounced in the House of Representatives in favor of the South American states, then strug- ling to throw off" the despotism of Spain. His speeches in defence of Grrecian liberty were no less distinguished for eloquence and intensity of patriotism. What did all those speeches mean if they were not an ippeal to the young and ardent patriotism of Americans to go and help ■0 fight those battles for liberty ? Yv^ho does not recollect the struggle n Texas, when the illustrious sage of the hermitage, obeying the laws 514 ALBERT G. BROWN. of his country forbidding the fitting out of expeditions, issued his pro- clamations ? He determined to enforce the law, but he never dreamed, and, with all his heroism, never dared to arrest any citizen who had armed himself with a view to go and join my venerable friend [Mr. Houston], then fighting the battle of liberty in Texas. Did Jackson ever dare to usurp power ? I appeal to you, sir, and to senators around me, what would have been thought of the " old usurper," as his enemies called him — Andrew Jackson — if he had dared to send a naval force to arrest Sam Houston, President of Texas, and bring him back to the United States ? Would there not have been a universal burst of indig- nation throughout the republic ? If it might not have been done under Jackson, I want to know by what warrant the same thing is done under the rule of James Buchanan. Mr. Mallory. I did not rise to enter into the debate, as I before observed, and expressed no opinion on any question involved, except the remarks of my friend from Mississippi. His remarks now show that I have vindicated Commodore Paulding from his assertion that he did not make this arrest ungraciously, and that he did not, by the arrest or its manner, entail disgrace on his epaulets. I do not defend the assertions of his letter. I concede it is bad taste in any ofiicial to use epithets towards others ; it will not strengthen his case. But my friend from Mississippi will recollect that there is a high example in the authority of the Commander-in-Chief of the armies and navies of the United States, the President himself, a few years ago. Mr. Brown. I beg to correct my friend. I hope I was not under- stood as speaking of the ungracious conduct, in that particular, of Com- modore Paulding. I spoke of the ungracious conduct of Commander Chatard, who wrote insulting, taunting, insolent notes to Walker, meaning nothing but to provoke him into a conflict ; but I did not, in that connection, charge like conduct on Commodore Paulding. When I came to speak of his note, or of his official communication to the government, in which he spoke of Walker and his men as being pirates and outlaws, marauders, buccaneers, and all that, then I characterized him as having done an act, the character of which I mentioned. In reply to Mr. Pearce of Maryland Mr. Brown said : — My friend from Maryland seems to assume the whole matter in controversy, that Walker came to the United States to set up an expedition. That I deny. I deny that he set up any expedition within the limits of the United States ; and if there be proof of it, I call for the proof from those who charge the fact. What I admit is, that Walker came here, complained, as any foreigner had a right to do — as Kossuth did, and as other men have done — of their wrongs, and that I those who sympathize with him, as they had the right to do, joined his standard and went beyond the limits of the United States, without get- ting out an expedition, each man acting upon his own responsibility, and each one avoiding for himself any infraction of the law. If there was an expedition fitted out in the United States, I admit there was a viola- tion of the laws ; but if my friend from Maryland charges it, I ask for the proof — not that I would demand any proof of any charge of his ; but, technically, I ask on what ground he bases the charge. COMMODORE PAULDING'S ARREST OF WALKER. 615 On the 21st of January, 1858, Mr. Brown continued the debate in reply to Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, as follows : — I have listened to the speech of the honorable senator from Wisconsin with some pleasure and some profit. I gave notice the other day of my purpose to move an amendment to his resolution. That amendment will indicate distinctly to the Senate how far I differ from the senator who has just resumed his seat. I send it to the table, and ask to have it read. The secretary read the proposed amendment, which is to strike out all after the resolving clause, and insert the following : — That Congress has heard with surprise of the arrest of William Walker, and about one hundred and fifty other prisoners, at Punta Arenas, in Nicaragua, by Ilirani Paulding, commanding United States naval squadron, on the 8th day of December, 1857 ; and seeing that said act was in violation of the territorial sovereignty of a friendly power, and not sanctioned by any existing law. Congress disavows it ; and being officially notified that said Paulding acted without instructions from the Presi- dent or the Secretary of the Navy, Congress expresses its condemnation of his con- duct in this regard. . Mr. Brown. Mr. President, if I had any prepared, set speech to make, I should, of course, prefer making it on some other day than this ; but I have not. What I have to say can as well be expressed in five or ten minutes as in as many hours. It will be seen that the proposition which I submit contains very few and very plain suggestions. I first assert, in the amendment, that Congress has heard with surprise of the arrest of William Walker and his associates, about one hundred and fifty in number, without giving to Mr, Walker any style. I do not even call him General Walker. I do not give to the people who were with him a habitation anywhere, but speak of them as they were — as persons. I claim that that is a truism in point of fact, that when the intelligence reached us, Congress was surprised. Is there a man who hears me now that does not respond to that declaration, that he was surprised by the intelligence that this arrest had been made ? When I take the ground that it was done in violation of the territorial sovereignty of Nicaragua, I do not undertake to locate the sovereignty, or to give it any particular designation or direction. I simply take the '' ground that the sovereignty is somewhere ; that it does not belong to us ; ' that by invading it we violated it. Nicaragua is, beyond all question, no part of the United States. It is a foreign territory. Commodore Paulding, with an armed force, landed on the shores and made arrests, in violation of the sovereignty of that territory. I care not whether the sovereignty be in William Walker, as its legitimate President, or in the party who now claim it, or anybody else. It is a discovered country ; the sovereignty rests somewhere, but beyond all dispute it is not in the United States. When we landed there with an armed force, and made arrests, we violated the sovereignty. I care not in whose person it may exist, or who has the right to control it for the time being. The next proposition is, that the act was not sanctioned by any exist- ing law. I listened to the speech of the honorable senator from Wis- consin, to hear under what law this act of Commodore Paulding was to be justified. The President tells us, in the very outset of his message, that it was a "grave error" on the part of Commodore Paulding. He does not pretend, in his message, to justify it on any legal grounds — 510 ALBERT G. BROWN. although ho undertakes to palliate the oifence, as I conceive it to be, of the commodore. I have listened, but I have listened in vain, for a sug- gestion from some quarter, which would show that there was lawful authority for this act. The senator, it is true, has read to us from Vattel and Puffendorf, and other writers on international law, but all his authorities point to cases not at all like this. He has read us no authority from Puffendorf, or Vattel, or any other writer on international law, nor can he, which shows that you have the power to land on the shores of a friendly country and make arrests ; to arrest the man who has been recognised as the president of the country by your own govern- ment, and bring him away. William Walker was recognised as the de facto President of the Republic of Nicaragua. If there has been a legitimate and fair election in the country, it was in the case of Mr. Walker. At an election fairly conducted he was chosen president of the republic ; but he is arrested by a military force from the United States, violently dragged from his country, brought here, and then set at liberty. I am glad that the senator, in his anxiety to give a medal to Com- modore Paulding, has not undertaken to justify the use of such violent expressions as that Walker and his men are pirates, and outlaws, and buccaneers. These expressions interlard the whole of the despatches from Commodore Paulding ; and he puts his own defence on the ground that these men were pirates. He who perhaps understands, and has studied most deeply the ground on which he stands, undertakes to defend himself on the hypothesis that Walker was a pirate, and that his fol- lowers were pirates. If they were, I demand to know by what authority the President of the nation turned loose a pirate in the city of Washing- ton ? I demand to know by what authority one hundred and fifty pirates were turned loose in the peaceful streets of Norfolk ? The defence has failed — wretchedly failed. The President tells Congress in his message that he had no authority to hold Walker and his associates ; that they were amenable, if at all, to the judiciary of the country, and to nobody else. Great God ! sir, has the President no power to order a pirate to be held in custody? Shall it be set up here in the Senate that the President can send an armed ship, or an armed fleet, to Nicaragua, arrest a pirate upon a foreign friendly soil, bring him to the United States, and when he gets him here, just at that point his power ceases ? This is a wretched, miserable pretext. I am glad to see that the pretext that Walker was a pirate, that his followers were pirates, is not defended in the Senate. The President has rightfully enough ignored the charge. He thinks Walker has violated the law ; that he has committed a misdemeanor ; that he is responsible to the judiciary of the country, to whom he quietly hands him over. But all this does not come to the point sug- gested in my amendment, that this arrest was not sanctioned by any existing law. If it was in violation of the territorial sovereignty of a friendly power, and was not sanctioned by any existing law, then does not my conclusion follow as a matter of course, that Congress must disavow it ? That is ?.ll I ask you to do, up to that point ; to disavow that which is in viola- tion of the territorial sovereignty of a friendly power which is not pre- COMMODORE PAULDING'S ARREST OF WALKER. 517 tended to be sustained by any existing law of your own country. ' I continue : — And being ofSeially notified that said Paulding acted vrithout instructions from the President or the Secretary of the Navy, Congress expresses its condemnation of his conduct in this regard. I put the condemnation expressly on the ground that his lawless act is disavowed by the President and the Secretary of the Navy. If they ^had avowed it, I would have directed my censure to a higher mark. If they had avowed it as an act of the government, I should have asked Congress to pass a vote of censure against the Secretary or the Presi- dent, or whoeve,r gave the order. We have fallen, sir, upon strange times, and, in my judgment, have sadly departed from the lessons taught us in the earlier, and, I might add, better days of the republic. In 1822, Commodore Porter, who wore his epaulets and bore his sword with distinguished credit, was sent in the command of a squadron to the Gulf of Mexico, and ordered to cruise in the West Indies and the waters of the Gulf, in search of pirates. He was told, as the authority before me shows, clearly and distinctly, that he might pursue the pirates on land ; that they were the enemies of the human race; that all civilized men were combined against them; but he was told, at the same time, that he must not pursue them in violation of the local authorities of any country. He might continue the pursuit until he should be bidden to give it up, and then he must cease. In 1824, it was ascertained by Lieutenant Piatt, one of the subordinate officers in that squadron, that a large quantity of goods had been stolen from Saint Thomas, and probably carried to Foxardo, in the island of Porto Rico. Lieutenant Piatt pursued, and having accumu- lated such evidence as satisfied him that the goods were secreted at Foxardo, he landed with a view of finding them. Some persons not authorized to arrest his progress, forbade his pursuing them ; but being informed by others that these were not persons in authority, and seeing, therefore, that he was not violating the letter of his instructions, he went forward. He found the officer of the port, who received him cordially. He found the alcalde, who received him cordially, and promised him assistance. ^Vhile he was actually engaged in a search for the stolen goods — goods stolen, not by imaginary, but real pirates — the alcalde suddenly changed his mind, seized the lieutenant, thrust him into prison, and heaped divers insults and outrages upon him. Commo- dore Porter, receiving intelligence of these events, went to Foxardo and landed a military force, with a view of demanding reparation for the insult offered to the American flag, borne by Lieutenant Piatt, under the circumstances which I have named. It became necessary to spike some guns ; but no blood was shed, no gun was fired. The alcalde, on a sort of promise from Commodore Porter, that he should be protected in the exercise of his lawful authority, and that there was no purpose to subjugate him, at once came out and said frankly, " I have committed this outrage under compulsion, by orders." Commodore Porter was acting strictly within the letter of his instruc- tions, as he claimed, and as I believe, from very recent investigations of all the papers ; but it suited the Spanish authorities to complain of him. He was at once relieved from his command, and ordered home to be put upon trial. After being detained here for weeks and weeks, the Admi- 518 ALBERT G. BROWN. nistration in the mean time having undergone a change, Mr. Monroe having gone out and Mr. John Quincy Adams having come in, Commo- dore Porter complained of the delay. He filed a letter with the Presi- lent, and perhaps two or three with the Secretary of the Navy, com- plaining of the delay which had occurred in his trial. Finally, he was )ut on his trial before a naval court-martial. He was convicted and entenced to six months' dismissal from the service of the United States. lere was a gallant officer, covered over with scars, entitled to stars, :arters, and medals, arrested by the order of his government because e had landed upon a friendly soil, and undertaken to make arrests, not of imaginary, but real pirates — people who were confessed to be so ; not only relieved of his command, but brought back to the United States in disgrace, put upon his trial, convicted, and sentenced. While I do not stand here to defend the harsh proceedings in that case, I instance it for the purpose of showing what measure of justice was meted out in the earlier days of the republic, in comparison with that which the senator from Wisconsin proposes to mete out to Commo- dore Paulding. Here was a man acting within the letter of his instruc- tions ; but the Administration had undergone a change. He had been told that these people were the enemies of all mankind. President Monroe had two or three times complained in his communications to Congress of the want of efficiency in the Spanish authorities. He had called on Congress to nerve the arm of the Executive to chastise these depredations on our commerce in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Mr. Monroe had declared to Commodore Porter, through Mr. Smith Thompson, then Secretary of the Navy, in express terms, that in pur- suing the pirate he might land upon any soil, but that he must not — mark you — continue the pursuit after persons in authority should forbid his doing so. Lieutenant Piatt claimed that he had not violated that instruction ; that he had lived up precisely to the very letter of it ; that when told by persons not in authority to cease the pursuit, he had determined to do it until he was informed that these people were not authorized to give any such command ; that he then proceeded, that he was received cordially by the commander of the port and by the alcalde, persons in authority, who promised him their assistance ; and then in the midst of all that he was thrown into prison, charged himself with being a pirate, his flag insulted, and himself derided. Then Commodore Porter landed, as I have said before, for the purpose of chastising this insolence, and was promptly met by an apology. On these general facts, I say again, he was arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced, and the sentence was carried into execution. Now, with a case before us, where a commodore, according to the Secretary of the Navy and the President, is acting clearly beyond his instructions, without authority, landing upon a foreign soil, without any sort of shadow of authority from the President or Secretary, making important arrests, we are called upon to vote him a medal. There is another point in this transaction : Commodore Porter was tried, among other things, for insubordination in writing insolent lettei'S to the President and Secretary of the Navy. I have the letters before me, but do not care to weary the Senate by reading them ; but let senators take the letters of Commodore Porter in 1824 and 1825, and COMMODORE PAULDING'S ARREST OF WALIvER. 519 compare them with the insolent productions of Commodore Pimldint* addressed to the present Secretary of the Navy ; and answer me whether, if Porter was tried, convicted, and sentenced for writing such letters as he wrote, what ought to be done with Commodore Pauldino; for writin