423 
 fit I 
 
 :!■•• J '"■:• fM - ;'i';|v - ; ■;:::• 
 
 i 1m —iiii 
 
Glass. 
 Book 
 
 ____ 
 
 
il 
 
/ 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. P. SOULE, OF LOUISIANA, 
 
 IN REPLV TO 
 
 HON. HENRY CLAY, OF KENTUCKY, 
 
 ON 
 
 THE MEASURES OF COMPROMISE. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY 23, 1850. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the special order, being the bill to admit 
 California as a State into the Union, to establish Territorial Governments for Utah 
 and New Mexico, and making proposals to Texas for the establishment of her 
 western and northern boundaries — Mr. SOULE said . 
 
 I had not the least idea, Mr. President, that the very unpretending remarks 
 which I thought it my duty to present to the consideration of the Senate, on the 
 day before yesterday, would have been deemed worthy of the reception which they 
 met with at the hands of the honorable Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Clay,) and 
 be made the theme of the eloquent speech he delivered in reply to them. 
 
 The honorable Senator imparted to those remarks an unmerited degree ot interest, 
 by thus commending them to a notice which they could by no other means have 
 attracted. 
 
 I most cordially thank him for it. But, while I feel grateful for the attention 
 which he was pleased to bestow upon them, I owe it to myself not to let some of 
 the suggestions which he thought fit to make, with regard to the course which I 
 was pursuing, go forth to the country, under his high authority, unheeded and un- 
 answered. 
 
 The honorable Senator has inferred, from the observations I made on that occa- 
 sion, that I was to be classed among those whom no compromise or concession 
 whatever was likely to satisfy, and who might be willing rather to continue the 
 agitation which has grown out of the matters attempted to be adjusted and put to 
 rest by the bill under debate and its associated measures. The imputation was 
 neither kind to me, nor just in itself; and quite as uncalled for, as it was wholly 
 undeserved •, and meant doubtless to weaken and disarm any resistance which the 
 South might oppose to his cherished scheme. It was one of those feats of orato- 
 rical adroitness by which we sometimes seek to rid ourselves, at a dash, of stubborn 
 facts and troublesome arguments. But, sir, if the honorable Senator conceived that 
 he could deter me, by artifices as shallow as these, from the performance of what I 
 regarded as a stern, but sacred duty, 1 can tell him that, if his time was not wholly 
 thrown away, his labor was scarcely worth the pains. 
 
 Was it either fair or just, I would respectfully ask, that so courteous an opposi- 
 tion, as mine, to the section then under debate, should be put forth to the country as 
 an imposing proof that I was favorably inclined to a rupture of the Union ? I had 
 expected from the honorable Senator a fairer course of argument than the one he 
 
 TOWERS, PRINTER. 
 
 . 
 
thought proper to pursue on that occasion. He surely did not suppose that I would 
 consider myself as sufficiently answered by inferences so strained and inconsequen- 
 tial that they had no warrant whatever from anything which I had said ; and in- 
 tended evidently to forestal a favorable public opinion upon the humble merits of 
 my remarks, by imputing to me tendencies of mind to oppose, if not purposes of 
 defeating, all plans of adjustment ; while nothing could have been further from the 
 sentiments I entertained or the feelings which animated me on the occasion referred 
 to. 
 
 Sir, I entertain too exalted an opinion of, and set too great a value upon, the rights 
 and privileges of an American Senator, to suffer them on any occasion, or under any 
 circumstances, to be dealt with so ungraciously and arrogantly as the honorable 
 Senator from Kentucky has seemed disposed and willing to treat them. When the 
 Senator knows me better, perhaps he may spare me the annoyance of repeating the 
 attempt. So far, 1 think, the failure has been signal ; and the words of the poet 
 most aptly describe the shaft he aimed at me : 
 
 "Telum imbelle, sine ictu." 
 
 But, sir, the honorable Senator must be Jris own judge as to the occasions and 
 modes of assailing me, and I, of the necessity and manner of repelling them. I 
 mean not to complain (though I thought he felt inclined to handle me somewhat 
 unceremoniously) that he thus brought upon me the necessity of thrusting myself 
 once more upon the patience of the Senate, and of taking up again some of the mat- 
 ters which, in the ardor of debate, I may have overlooked when I was up before. 
 
 The Senator did me the honor to inquire whether I was prepared to proffer some- 
 thing that would be more likely, than anything which he had proposed, to heal the 
 wounds of the country and to conciliate the two great contending sections. Surely 
 the honorable Senator could not have been serious when thus propounding to me 
 such a question. Why, does he not know that the South is in the minority, and 
 that it were idle for her to think of proposing compromises, while the power to 
 carry them out depends wholly upon the disposition of those opposed to her ? 
 However, I will say to the honorable Senator, that, if becoming in me to present 
 one, J would take care that it were something that would not speak to the eye what 
 it meant not to the sense ; that would not deceive by -a mere trickery of words, 
 doubtful in import because duplex in meaning. My compromise would be such, 
 that, while healing the wounds of the country, it would blur with no stain the South's 
 honor, nor bring a blush to her cheek. Such would be characteristic of any com- 
 promise which I might tender, and no plan of adjustment without them can ever 
 have my support. 
 
 Instead of aught resembling this, what are we presented with ? Why, with a 
 batch of measures the import and bearing of which their very authors cannot agree 
 about — a scheme and compromise decisive of nothing, complex in expedients, im- 
 practicable in action — a compromise which can satisfy neither the South nor the 
 North, for want of precision as to the aims and ends it proposes in settlement of 
 the pending difficulties, and of distinctness in the disposition of the very few mat- 
 ters embraced in its enactments. 
 
 What is there that this plan really settles ? If we resort to the Senators who 
 formed the committee, to assure ourselves of the true meaning of the measures 
 which it recommends to the Senate, we find that scarcely any two members of the 
 thirteen can agree with each other as to the manner in which it is to operate and 
 may eventually affect the interests of either of the great parties at issue in the con- 
 troversy. 
 
 In my humble judgment, the South has been losing ground, and losing it rapidly, 
 from the moment of the introduction of the original resolutions of the honorable 
 Senator from Kentucky. What has resulted from the reference o( those resolutions ? 
 They all went to the committee ; but all of them did not return here either in the 
 form of bills or otherwise; and those which did, were so shorn of their propor- 
 
3 
 
 lions, and are muffled up in such disguises, that scarcely a trace of them can be re- 
 cognised in the bills ; to identify them, theie is none. 
 
 The resolution No. 2 provided that M as slavery does not exist by law, and is not 
 likely to be introduced into any of the Territories," "appropriate Territorial Gov- 
 ernments ought to be established by Congress," &c, "without the adoption of any 
 restriction or condition on the subject of slavery," that is to say, forbidding Con- 
 gress to restrict the introduction of slavery thither, and of course forbidding Con- 
 gress to confer such an authority upon the Territorial Legislature. 
 
 Now, the report by no means repudiates ihe assumption, in this resolution, 
 that the Mexican laws prohibiting slavery are now in force there; but, on the con- 
 trary, is introduced with a speech from the honorable chairman of the committee, 
 not only maintaining their existence, but avouching it as the opinion of a vast ma- 
 jority of the people and jurists of the United States. It assigns as reasons for not 
 imposing the Wilmot proviso that it was unnecessary; and so assigns them, that it 
 is impossible that any one could vote for the bill accompanying the report, without 
 admitting a power in Congress to pass the Wilmot proviso ! Hence, in these fea- 
 tures, there is nothing to choose between the resolutions and the report and bill. 
 But a vast and vital difference exists between them, in this : that while the second 
 resolution restrained both Congress and the Legislature from restricting the intro- 
 duction of slavery, the bill, under the honorable chairman's explanations, res- 
 trains the Territorial Legislature from protecting it, and, indeed, sanctions its expul- 
 sion, when there ; and, worse still : it not only reserves in Congress a power to 
 veto any law made for its protection by the local Legislature, but imposes no res- 
 triction whatsoever upon itself from passing the Wilmot proviso whenever it thinks 
 proper, though it were the day after the passage of this bill, without it. Which is 
 best for the South ? 
 
 I would ask, also, how have the matters been disposed of by the Committee that 
 were embraced in the sixth resolution, which reads as follows : 
 
 " 6. Resolved, That it is expedient to prohibit within the District the slave trade-in slaves brought 
 into it from States or places beyond the limits of the District, either to be sold therein as merchan- 
 dise, or to be transferred to other markets without the District of Columbia." 
 
 Look at the bill ! It provides that " it shall not be lawful to bring into the Dis- 
 trict any slave whatever for the purpose of being sold, or for the purpose of being 
 placed in depot," &c; f and if any slave shall be brought into the District by its 
 owner, or by the authority or consent of its owner, contrary to the provisions of this 
 act, such slave shall thereupon become liberated and free?'' How will this do ? A 
 Southerner must shut his eyes if he does not see in this, an ominous beginning 
 which can end only in the total abolition of slavery in the District — not of all the 
 slaves ; to be sure, but of some of them, and " without the consent of Maryland, the 
 people of the District, and without just compensation to the owners of the slaves," 
 which the honorable Senator from Kentucky, in his 5th resolution, exacts as a con- 
 dition precedent to any emancipation here at all. Why, this is far beyond what the 
 abolition petitions against the slave trade in the District have ever asked ; for their 
 assaults were exclusively directed against the negro traders, the parading of their 
 slave gangs in public places, and their placing them in private depots for safe-keep- 
 ing. That was all. But mark the workings of the bill. A debtor in an adjoining 
 county of Maryland or Virginia, owes debts in the District or at home beyond his 
 means of payment. His entire property is in slaves. He honestly resolves <o part* 
 with them in order to meet his liabilities. At fair prices, they might pay all ; at 
 home prices, not fifty cents in the dollar. He brings them here for the honorable 
 purpose of paying all ; but this bill converts that purpose into a heinous crime, and 
 forfeits his slaves, to his own ruin and that of his creditors. Is that just to either — 
 or to the people of the District, or the State of Maryland, or the slaveholding States? 
 Is not that discriminating against slave properly with a vengeance ? Congress could 
 not forbid his bringing any other property here to pay his debts ; and where does 
 
the Constitution confer a power on Congress to legislate upon one species of pro- 
 perty more than upon another ? Such a discrimination saps the foundation of all 
 equality in the rights of property as well as of its protection, and, of course, of all 
 equality in the rights of the States, and opens widely the way to all further aggres- 
 sions upon the rights of slaveholders any where and every where. As 1 said on 
 another occasion, after Congress has decided that slaves shall not be brought into 
 the District, even for the honorable purpose of paying the owner's debts, what could 
 prove more tempting to Abolitionists than to insist upon, and press to accomplish- 
 ment, the passage of a law to forbid their being brought here for any other purpose? 
 The next step in the march of aggression would naturally be to forbid the slaves 
 now here from being sold out of the District and removed to the South ; and next, 
 and last, and most surely, would follow, and promptly, too, the emancipation of 
 those who are here ; for, after the South had assented to the exclusion of slaves from 
 the District for the payment of debts, none would dread or respect her resistance to 
 that progressive emancipation which would inevitably flow from it. 
 
 This leads, me naturally to another matter, which 1 hold as of the highest import- 
 ance — I mean the action of the Committee upon the most disturbing and perilous 
 question that has menaced the country — the Wilmot proviso ; or, in other words, 
 whether Congress possesses a constitutional power to abolish or exclude slavery in 
 and from the Territories of the United States ? A large majority of the North, it 
 is believed, affirm and maintain such a power in Congress. The entire South, with 
 rare exceptions, wholly disaffirm it The whole country .feels and knows that the 
 question cannot be safely deferred longer. There can be no peace until it is decided. 
 It must be settled somehow : if not settled congressionally, or judicially, it may be 
 settled by a rupture of this glorious Union. 
 
 Such being the state of public opinion and the impending dangers, it is no wonder 
 that great anxiety should have prevailed in all the sections of the country to have 
 had the opinions of the Committee of Thirteen upon the power of Congress over 
 slavery in the Territories. There was hardly a doubt on the public mind, from the 
 verv constitution of the committee, and the well-known opinions of its members, 
 that the decision must have been against the power of Congress Such a conclusion 
 was easily arrived at. The committee consisted of thirteen members — seven from 
 the slave, and six from the free States. Of the seven? the chairman, (Mr. Clay,) I 
 believe, affirms the power of Congress, but contests the expediency of using it. But 
 the other six, it was well understood, explicitly denied the povver. It was equally 
 well understood that at least two of the other Senators who composed the Commit- 
 tee (Mr. Cass and Mr. Dickinson) concurred in this last opinion. The committee, 
 then, must have stood eight to five against the constitutionality of the Wilmot 
 proviso- If such was the opinion of a majority of the committee, Mr. President, 
 was not the South entitled to have that opinion made known to the Senate and to 
 the country ? I do not say but that there might be cases where, under special cir- 
 cumstances, a committee might not withhold its opinions from the Senate and be 
 justified. But I do maintain with great confidence that if a committee undertake to 
 state any opinion at all about a matter referred to them, or to make any statement 
 from which its opinion may be fairly and clearly inferred, that it is bound to take care 
 that what is to be inferred is the opinion of the majority of the committee. Now, sir, 
 I insist that the report of the committee does express an opinion upon the constitutio- 
 nality of the Wilmot proviso, and in support of its constitutionality, through the irre- 
 sistible inference and infallible implication which arise from the reasons it assigns why 
 the committee refrained from engrafting the proviso upon the bill under debate. The 
 report, then, if the computation which I have just made be a correct one, represents 
 the sentiments of the minority,&nd that too upon a question of constitutional power ! 
 It is almost trite to say, what any one knows, that the report of the committee, 
 without a precedent to the contrary, not only represents, but is the only official 
 evidence of the sentiments of the majority. Yet, to all seeming, the report contains 
 not their opinions, but just the reverse of it. 
 
But the South has not only a just eause of complaint, that the decided opinion of 
 a majority of the committee on so vital a question as the constitutionality of the Wil- 
 mot proviso was suppressed, but that the committee have not brought back to the 
 Senate, for their solemn deliberation and vote, the only two of the original resolu- 
 tions of the honorable Senator from Kentucky which bore the least semblance of 
 protection and immunity for the institution of slavery in the District and at the 
 South. These two resolutions were as follows : 
 
 " 5th. Resolved, That it is expedient to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, whilst that 
 institution continues to exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent of that State, without 
 the consent of the people of the District, and without just compensation to the owners of slaves 
 within the District." 
 
 " 8th Resolved, That Congress has no power to prohibit or obstruct the trade in slaves between 
 the slaveholding States ; but that the admission or exclusion of slaves brought from one into another 
 of them depends exclusively upon their own particular laws." 
 
 It will be remembered that, when the resolutions were first introduced, an ani- 
 mated debate sprung up in the Senate, and that they were assailed at all points. 
 Among other criticisms to which they were subjected, it was declared that they had 
 nothing practical about them ; that they were mere abstractions. Against this 
 charge the honorable Senator from Kentucky defended them with his usual warmth 
 and eloquence. He maintained that they were not. abstractions ; that all of them in- 
 volved princijjlcs, and that he designed to have the deliberate vote of the Senate 
 upon each of them. This declaration was highly satisfactory ; for, in these exciting 
 times, when the South was menaced with being pressed down to the earth unde,r the 
 assaulting hosts of the fanatics, a large and commanding vote of the Senate, assert- 
 ing the rights and immunities of slaveholders in the District and in the States to be 
 secure, both under the plightings of the public faith and the prohibition of the 
 Federal consii'ution, would have served two valuable purposes : the one in check- 
 ing and discouraging the assailants in their mad career, and the other in its tendency 
 to soothe and quiet the South, aroused and inflamed as she was through their menac- 
 ing bearing and galling calumnies. It would not, indeed, have been any thing to 
 boast of; yet it would have been something in the way of a plea for further for- 
 bearance on her part, to have had assurances, through the solemn votes of both 
 houses of Congress, that while they were stripping the South of her legitimate 
 rights to share in the migration and settlement of Federal Territories, yet that the 
 rights of slaveholder in the District and between the States would remain sacred 
 and inviolable. 
 
 True, I would not have voted for the fifth resolution, without a reservation upon 
 the question oi power, which might have been implied in an amendment asserting that, 
 ■"without affirming or denying a power in Congress to abolish slavery, it is inex- 
 pedient,'' &c. 
 
 Were there no other grounds of objection to this scheme of adjustment, (as most 
 unhappily there are,) I must think that the withholding from the vote of the Senate 
 the important resolutions, and the suppression of the deliberate opinion of the com- 
 mittee, that Congress possesses no power under the constitution to prohibit or 
 abolish slaveiy in the Territories of the United States, constitute objections which 
 of themselves would be almost insuperable. 
 
 If the committee has no other alternative to offer to the South but that presented 
 by the compromise before me, let us by all means have the Wilmot proviso. Bad 
 as that is, it scorns all disguises, and takes all of the responsibilities of all that it 
 imports, and of all that can be imputed to it. Aggressions, in the garb of aggres- 
 sions, can be confronted and resisted ; but aggressions, in the garb of concessions, 
 thatlook you fair, but mean you foul, gilding the bolus which masks the hemlock, 
 is the worst form that the worst wrong can assume. It deceives whde it assails : it 
 ruins while it allures. Sir, I mean no offence to any body, when I declare that this 
 mode of botching up a settlement of great issues, to which sovereignties are parties, 
 is something distasteful to my sentiments. The whole thing is unreal ; it has no 
 substance in it. 
 
Yet I was told, on yesterday, by my friend and colleague, (Mr. Downs,) that the 
 South should not be too strict and peremptory in her requirements ; that she should 
 also make some sacrifices ; and that, after all, what the compromise proffered to her 
 was the best she could gel. Has it come to this, Mr. President,^ that when we are 
 pleading for our just and constitutional lights, we are to kneel down in supplica- 
 tion before the North, and be content and rejoiced that we meet not at her hands a 
 still worse treatment — as whatever we have is at her mercy ; as all she takes is hers, 
 and all she leaves us is a boon ? 
 
 Mr. President, I am at a loss to conceive how the committee can save itself from 
 the reproach of having left undecided the most important matters of controversy ex- 
 isting between the South and the North. And I would ask, what would the fathers 
 of the republic have thought, when they were preparing the constitution — that noble 
 palladium of our right and our liberties — if the committee men, charged with fram- 
 ing that instrument, had reported nothing in the form of positive enactments, but 
 merely a tissue of misleading alternatives, decisive of nothing, and leaving all in 
 doubt as to what the committee deemed expeiient to be done or let alone ? 
 
 What have we in this compromise? Little indeed ; very little : so little that I 
 hardly dare to touch it, lest it should vanish into thin air. , Others, however, with 
 surer optics than mine, have found, or thought they found, in this project a protec- 
 tion to Southern interests, which all the magnifying powers of their eloquence have 
 failed to bring within the scope and compass of my vision; and it has been insisted 
 upon by the honorable Senator from Kentucky, and afterwards by my honorable col- 
 league, that the South gained a great deal by the compromise, as that the two ob- 
 noxious ■postulates contained in the second of the original resolutions (touching the 
 present existence of the Mexican anti-slavery law in the ceded Territories) had been 
 extirpated from the projet, and were nowhere engrafted or to be found among the 
 provisions of the bill before us. 
 
 I readily admit that these postulates were the most objectionable features in the 
 original scheme ; but is it true that they have been lopped away from the bill, and 
 may not even now be lurking in some of the folds of its multifarious clauses ? 
 
 Mr. DOWNS. If my honorable colleague will permit me, I will say to him that I do not con- 
 sider that it was the province of the committee to judge of the constitutionality of any measure. I 
 think it is a sufficient decision on the Wilmot proviso, that it was not sanctioned by the committee. 
 If my honorable colleague wants an expression against the proviso, there is a distinct expression in 
 the report that it is rejected. I read it yesterday to the Senate. This committee was not appointed 
 as judges, but to report something that would be satisfactory to the whole country. I certainly 
 never understood them as having to decide the whole question as to the constitutionality of the 
 proviso. If that was to be the course, there is no settlement of the question. 
 
 Mr. SOULE. My colleague says that he considered the committee were not bound 
 to adjudicate the matters which I have alluded to, as they had been raised only for 
 the purpose of projecting a compromise ; that they were not to judge of such dif- 
 ficulties, but to report back to the Senate something that would be satisfactory to 
 all. I would ask him how could a compromise be effected at all, unless the mat- 
 ters to be adjusted were intelligibly disposed of one way or the other? If chosen, 
 with one or two other members of this House, to decide a dispute between private 
 individuals, would my colleague consider the arbitrament effected and conclusive, if 
 it were couched in terms so equivocal as to be wholly incomprehensible to the par- 
 ties to the reference; and if, when asked what it decides, he could say no more nor 
 otherwise than that the abiirators disagreed as to the precise import and meaning of 
 the terms of the award which they had made ? Sir, a settlement so extraordinary 
 as this would be without a parallel, and undeserving of a name ; it would unsettle 
 every thing, and open up afresh all the issues of the contestation. 1 said such a set- 
 tlement would be without a parallel ; I was too fast, sir : the parallel stands revealed 
 and surpassed in the provisions to be found among the bills, as will be more and 
 more obvious in the progress of the debate. 
 
 Mr DOWNS. If the Senator will point out any particular provision of the compromise that 
 the committee do not understand, and understand alike, of any thing that he does not understand, 
 I shall be much obliged to him. It is true, with me, as with every one of the Committee, that 
 
there are several things in that report that I do not approve of; but I think I understand them, and 
 the committee understand them. I think, there is no ambiguity in them. Besides, as my col- 
 league has propounded the question, I will answer; and I think it is no uncommon thing to settle 
 disputes in this way — a thing recognized by the laws of our own State; and we have what are called 
 amicable compounders, that do not decide legal points of the law strictly, but decide what is fair, 
 just, and equitable, honorable to all. Such, I consider, was the duty of the committee which re- 
 ported this bill. 
 
 Mr. SOULE. Truly so. The law? of Louisiana, ami doubtless of other States also, 
 recognize amicable compounders ; and I am willing that the committee, for the sake 
 of the argument, be viewed in the light of amicable compounders. But, then, ami- 
 cable compounders always decide somethings while the committee have left every thing 
 undecided. Did I say that the committee were bound, and that we expected them, 
 to decide the questions submitted to then consideration according to strict rules of 
 
 law ? 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. Will my friend bear with me while I ask him a single question, having been 
 interested in the matter? When he voted to laise this committee, did he suppose it would be the 
 duty of the Committee to decide the constitutionality of the Wilmot proviso, or to endeavor to set 
 on foot some plan of adjustment that, avoiding the decision of disputed points, would yet settle all 
 matters of difficulty upon terms of honorable and fraternal forbearance of the various sections of the 
 Union' 
 
 Mr. SOULE. I will answer the question promptly. When I voted in favor of the 
 resolution raising the committee, I did not expect that the Wilmot proviso would 
 be acted upon by the committee in such a manner as to come back to us with an 
 abstract declaration of its constitutionality or unconstitutionality ; yet I did expect 
 that some measure would be reported to the Senate, intimating the sense of the com- 
 mittee, and bringing the proviso itself in its practical bearing, to a test that would 
 have enabled the country to know whether or not the monster was still alive. 
 
 But resuming the observations of my colleague, (Mr. Downs :) Why, does he 
 suppose that I ever thought of suspecting that the members of the committee did 
 not understand the meaning of the bills reported ? I intimated nothing of the kind ; 
 and my colleague has strangely misconceived me. It would have been highly dis- 
 courteous in me to treat thus slightly, not only him, but the other members of the 
 committee. 
 
 I said, truly, that they could not agree as to the legal consequences of the mea- 
 sures reported ; but, though the parliamentary courtesy of debate forced the conces- 
 sion from me that the committee understood the true import of their own measure, 
 yet I had no control over that liberty of speech of the honorable members of the 
 committee, through which they convinced me (as they must have convinced every 
 member of the Senate) that, though all the members may have understood the true 
 import of their own bill, it was not to be doubted that they understood it in a dif- 
 ferent way. What could be said, sir ? There stood the honorable chairman of the 
 committee insisting most earnestly and resolutely that, had he doubted at all that 
 the Mexican law prohibiting slavery was in force in the Territories, he would have 
 utterly opposed the whole section under discussion ; which plainly means, if it 
 means any thing, and the Senator from Kentucky never speaks without a meaning,) 
 that, in such a conjuncture, he would have imposed no restraint either upon the lo- 
 cal Legislatures or upon Congress, in enacting a revival of that Mexican law, or 
 (what is precisely the same thing) the enactment of the very Wilmot proviso itself, 
 so determined was he that the anti-slavery restriction, in some name or other, in 
 some form or other, should be applied to these Territories. On the other hand, 
 there stands my honorable colleague, (Mr. Downs) who honored me with the high 
 praise (which 1 should be as proud of, did I deserve it, as I am grateful to him for 
 bestowing it) of declaring that he regarded my humble argument upon this point 
 u as infinitely superior to that of the Senator from Kentucky," and that he fully con- 
 curred with me in the conclusion it had brought me to — leaving the inference irre- 
 sistible that he would not have voted for the bill without the section, nor for the 
 section, but for the construction it bore (in his judgment) of putting an end to the 
 Mexican anti-slavery restriction law, if it teas there, and of keeping it out, as well 
 
as all other anti-slavery restrictions, if it was not. If there were mere differences 
 of views between the friends of the same measure, it would not have been at all sur- 
 prising, as I had occasion to remark in the course of what I said the other day. 
 Such things happen sometimes. Statesmen concurring in measures passed sub si- 
 lentio, and without any consultation with each other, and found thereafter putting 
 various and even opposite constructions upon the same clauses of the same statute, 
 present clashings of opinion by no means without example. But instances of states- 
 men of high intellectual powers, after carefully and thoroughly weighing the infer- 
 ences and reasons of each other, finding themselves at utter variance and in irrecon- 
 cilable opposition and absolute antagonism to each other, and yet continuing to give 
 a mutual support to the same measure, unshorn of its duplicities, present a case ex- 
 ceedingly rare, if it ever happened at all. 
 
 What, then, is it, I will ask again, that this famed plan tenders to the country ? 
 Three or four bills, prepared with a view to the final settlement of the difficulties 
 which so unhappily divide the two great sections of this empire ; three or four bills, 
 well considered, well understood no doubt by each member, and acceptable to each 
 in the interpretation he gave them, yet so put together, so replete with ambiguities, 
 that their authors cannot agree as to what will be their legal bearing and coiue- 
 quences, when brought to the test. 
 
 Mr. DOWNS. I dislike very much to interrupt my colleague. But if he will state the point 
 as to which the committee disagree, and the terms, I shall be pleased to hear it. 
 
 Mr. SOULE. I will do so with great pleasure ; and in order to satisfy the gentle- 
 man, I shall avail myself of the disclosure which he made in his speech of yester- 
 day, when he stated that there were many provisions in the bill about whose legal 
 meaning and import he could not agree with other members of the Committee. 
 Did I understand what my colleague said on the occasion ? 
 
 Mr. DOWNS. I trust my honorable colleague will also recollect that the chairman (Mr. Clay) 
 at the moment said I was mistaken in supposing we differed about the fugitive slave section; that 
 he perfectly agreed with me in my construction of it. 
 
 Mr. SOULE I am still more surprised ; and the difficulty is greater than I sup- 
 posed. Then the honorable Senator considered on yesterday that he had not agreed 
 with the chairman, (Mr. Clay,) and he probably would still be under that impres- 
 sion, had not the honorable Senator assured him from his seat that he was mistaken, 
 and that they were agreed ! Now, Mr. President, I wish to be clearly understood 
 as to my appreciation of the disagreement which separates me on this occasion from 
 my friend and colleague. It is to me a subject of unfeigned concern and of deep re- 
 gret that I find myself at points and antagonism with him, anil on an issue like this ; 
 for there is none whom I hold in higher esteem, and to whom I would like to show 
 a readier deference. I feel assured, however, that this disagreement will in no way 
 weaken those ties of mutual respect and friendship which have heretofore united 
 us, and which, for the good of our common Slate, as well as for my own personal 
 satisfaction, will, I hope, steadily strengthen and last long. Yet, so it is ; and while 
 I am on this subject, I had as well take leave to express my surprise at the language 
 which my colleague (though unintentionally, I am sure) thought proper to use, 
 when, answering one of my arguments of the previous day, he exclaimed, in a tone 
 full of significance, "Shall this warfare last forever ?" 
 
 Mr. DOWNS. If there was any thing in any remarks I made showing any thing but a kindly 
 spirit towards the honorable Senator, or in the slightest degree construed in such a sense by him, 
 it was not my intention. I alluded to no "warfare" between him and myself. I had no such 
 idea. I referred to the " warfare" on the slavery question. Though I did not, in the heat of de- 
 bate, on a subject of great interest, always form my sentences with that precision, elegance, and 
 polish which characterize my honorable colleague, still my intentions, my feelings, my wishes, with 
 regard to him, are as kind and friendly as they ever have been, and I trust ever will be. 
 
 I wish nothing to occur — nothing has occurred, and nothing will, I trust, occur— in this debate, 
 however we may differ, to disturb, in the slightest degree, the cordial relations which have always 
 existed between us. If any thing I said has wounded, in the slightest degree, his sensibilites in 
 any way, it was the furthest thing from my intentions. 
 
 Mr. SOULE. There was no necessity for the explanation which my colleague has 
 just given of the language which he used on yesteiday. Had it been still stronger^ 
 
9 
 
 and more pointed than it was, being well assured, as lam, that it could not but have 
 been delivered under the promptings of his heated zeal, and without the least inten- 
 tion to wound my sensibilities, I should have met it with the best feelings. I, in- 
 deed, would even now abstain from all reference to it, were it not that, as it will go 
 to the couniry and be read with peculiar interest throughout ourcammon State, jus- 
 tice to myself requires that I should say something in vindication of the course 
 which, by implication at least, it seemed to impeach. 
 
 I was going to remark, when my colleague interrupted me, that 1 had in no man- 
 ner shared in the warfare about which he is now so deeply concerned — otherwise, 
 at least, than in joining many of those who had heard him on a former occasion, 
 and on this very subject, in the praises which they bestowed on the manly indepen- 
 dence and boldness with which he, from the outset, assailed and repudiated the very 
 propositions which he now defends with so much warmth and earnestness. If I 
 have erred in the course which I have pursued — if I am still on the wrong tack with 
 respect to the matters embraced in this compromise — I may, without doing my col- 
 league the least injustice, disburden myself of a great share of my responsibility, 
 by laying my delinquencies to his door 5 for he will not take it as unkind in me, if 
 I should remind him that he led the way in the opposition which was manifested 
 in the first instance to the ^cheme embraced in the resolutions of the honorable 
 Senator from Kentucky, and afterwards to the compromise reported by the commit- 
 tee, on its first appearance in the Senate. Being among the youngest of the Sena- 
 tors who were to take a share in the debate, I did not venture to settle definitely 
 upon the part which it might become me to act, until I was able to direct my steps 
 by those lights which I kne*v his fuller knowledge of public affairs and his lirger 
 experience in parliamentary life, would cast upon the path opening before me ; and 
 he will pardon, me if, having received from him those first impressions which roused 
 me to resistance against this compromise, I prove to be more steadfast than himself 
 in the distrust and aversion which a memorable speech of his own has awakened in 
 my breast and keeps there. 
 
 But to recur to my subject: The friends of the compromise exult in the fact that 
 the two propositions, injuriously affecting the slave interests, contained in the second 
 of the original resolutions of the Senator from Kentucky, have been excluded from 
 the bill, and insist that, in this at least, the compromise improves the terms allotted 
 to the South. Will my colleague tell me whether there be any thing in the report 
 repudiating the doctrines of these propositions? He certainly was under the im- 
 pression, and is still in the belief, that they have been actually repudiated ; and he 
 has referred me to the very part of the report from which 1 had intended to read, in 
 order to show that, far from this being the case, the obnoxious propositions were 
 (most adroitly, it is true, but) most unequivocally ingrafted in the report accompa- 
 nying the bill. What was it, in there propositions, which brought from the South 
 her deep dissatisfaction and her loud complaints ? It was the irresistible implica- 
 tion it carried with it, that if slavery was established by law in the Territories, or 
 was likely to be introduced there, not only would the power of Congress to abolish 
 it have been asserted, but its exercise declared expedient. And what less than this 
 does the report of the honorable Chairman announce ? Why, it announces ex- 
 actly, not in words, but in sense, what this resolution had spoken forth before ; 
 what the Senator's speech introducing that report proclaimed afterwards; and to 
 make the matter free from all doubt, and do the honorable Senator full justice, I 
 shall jiow give him the benefit of his own views, in his own words: 
 
 "The bill for establishing the two Territories, it will be observed, omits the Wil mot proviso, on 
 the one hand, and on the other makes no provision for the introduction of slavery into any part of 
 the new Territories." 
 
 Had the report stopped here,my colleague might be right in the interpretation which 
 he puts upon it; but it explains the reasons why the obnoxious proviso was not 
 inserted in the bill, and thus justifies its exclusion : 
 
10 
 
 "That proviso has been the fruitful source of distraction and agitation. Ifitwere adopted and 
 applied to any Territory, it would cease to have any obligatory force as soon as such Territory was 
 admitted as a State into the Union. There was never any occasion for it to accomplish the pro- 
 fessed object with which it was originally offered." 
 
 Had, therefore, the occasion existed, it might have been justified. The want of 
 an occasion is the only pie a for its not being there ! The honorable Senator shakes 
 his head, I see, and finds, perhaps, that I am placing a forced construction upon his 
 words. I would be loth to do him any injustice. But he says, further, " it has 
 been clearly demonstrated by the current of events." Is that evident ? How has 
 the current of events demonstrated that there was no occasion for the Wihnot pro- 
 viso f Why, by the coming of California into the Union with it ; and furthermore : 
 
 " California, of all the recent territorial acquisitions from Mexico, was that in which, if any 
 where within them, the introduction of slavery was most likely to take place; and the Constitution 
 of California, by the unanimous vole of her Convention, has expressly interdicted it. There is the 
 highest degree of probability that Utah and New Mexico will, when they come to be admitted as 
 States, follow the example." 
 
 Such are the reasons and motives set forth by the committee, through their organ, 
 for not having inserted the Wihnot proviso in the Territorial bill. Therehad never 
 been any occasion for it, as was "■demonstrated by the current of events." Cali- 
 fornia presented herself for admission with the proviso in her constitution, and it 
 was likely that, Utah and New Mexico would folloio the example ! 
 
 Yet my colleague was satisfied, and i bought that Southern slaveholders ought to 
 be content, inasmuch as, if they actually possessed any right, under the constitu- 
 tion, to carry slaves there, nothing in the bill could impede them in the exercise of 
 those rights. But I have already shown, and I think, conclusively, how illusory 
 would their deductions and expectations have been under the clause in the 10th sec- 
 tion divesting the local Legislature of all authority to pass such laws and provide 
 such remedies as would ensure protection to the slaveholder, and secure him in the 
 enjoyment of lvs property, imposing no duty on Congress to do so, with a reserva- 
 tion of an absolute veto upon all local legislation. 
 
 I must now notice another argument of the Senator from Kentucky, (and, if not 
 meant a* an argument, personal, and conveying a reproach,) which I would 
 rather have been spared; The honorable Senator most exultingly, as it seemed — 
 and I must think against all parliamentary usage — brought to the notice of the Senate 
 the very important circumstance that the clause in the 10th section which the amend- 
 ment sought to modify had been moved in committee by my own colleague, (Mr. 
 Downs,) and, from the emphasis and relish wi;h which he urged that fact against 
 me, I could not but be struck with the extraordinary pretension it implied, that J 
 ought not, on that account, to have questioned either its orthodoxy or its conclu- 
 siveness. Whether this circumstance was brought forward as an argument or as a 
 sentiment, I must think it came with but ill grace from the honorable Senator. 
 Above all other Senators here, he holds (if I have understood him aright) that his 
 position on this floor is one of absolute Senatorial independence, and that he is re- 
 sponsible to his own judgment and conscience alone for whatever he says and does 
 here. At an early day of the session, and upon the point now under debate, we all 
 heard him exclaim, with an ardor and warmth that bronght down from certain por- 
 tions of the gallaries loud plaudits ; — that he would never vote, and that no earthly 
 power should ever induce him to vote, for the admission of slavery into Territories 
 now free. Whether the Senator's views of Senatorial responsibility are right or 
 wrong, is no business of mine, and I meddle not with it. But, while he holds these 
 opinions, how does it become him to rebuke other Senators for exercising that free 
 judgment and Senatorial independence which he claims for himself? And when he 
 so unceremoniously gives up the obnoxious clause, after having doubtless concurred 
 to its insertion in committee, how can he pretend to hold me fast, not to any opinion 
 of mine, but to that of my colleague ? But, sir, be the paternity of that clause where 
 it may, how can its merits or demerits be enhanced or impaired by it, when it comes 
 here with the sanction of the committee, and must stand or fall by its merits alone ? 
 
11 
 
 A fresh sanction has been claimed for this clause, as being couched in the identi- 
 cal terms adopted by the eminent statesmen who p.epared the Clayton compromise. 
 This was undoubtedly true of the original projet of ihat measure which 1 have now 
 before me. In the very words of the new compromise, which to me are so objec- 
 tionable, it declares, among other things, that " no law shall be passed respecting 
 slavery.' 1 '' But my colleague overlooked altogether the important circumstance that 
 this language proved quite as distasteful and exceptionable to the Senate of that day 
 as, I think, it will prove to the Senate of this. The obnoxious words were stricken 
 out, and on motion of a Senator from Maryland (Mr. Johnson) the following sub- 
 stituted : k ' respecting the prohibition or the abolishment of slavery." 
 
 But why carry this argument further ? The question is now settled ; the battle 
 is over; our adversaries have surrendered, and surrendered, verily, at discretion. 
 The honorable Senator from Maryland (Mr. Pratt) has kindly banded us this 
 morning an amendment, proffered, as I understand, with the sanction of the honor- 
 able Senator from Kentucky and his friends — embodying, in my humble judgment, 
 every matter provided for in the pending amendment of the honorable Senator from 
 Mississippi, (Mr. Davis,) and accepted by him in lieu of his own. 
 
 The Senate was told on yesterday that there was no occasion for allowing the 
 Territorial Legislature the power which the amendment acknowledges by implica- 
 tion ; and this on the ground that slaves being property, the laws applying to all 
 other kinds of property, would equally apply and extend to them. When my hon- 
 orable colleague comes to consider more seriously of that matter, I have no doubt he 
 will admit that this is by no means a satisfactory solution of it. Slaves assimilate to 
 other property interests in two particulars only : the one is, that, under the Consti- 
 tution and laws, they are equally property ; the other, that they are equally entitled 
 to protection ; but the laws regulating and protecting either widely and necessarily 
 differ from each other, as my colleague will admit, when he calls to mind the great 
 number of laws we have in Louisiana, regulating the functions of slavery, and pro- 
 tecting the right of the master to th j services of the slave. Why, sir, if the act of 
 1793, providing the extradition of fugitives from service were repealed, and Con- 
 gress should refuse to pass any further law upon the subject, and all laws in the free 
 States touching the matter were abolished, would the general laws, (in Pennsylva- 
 nia, for instance,) protecting the rights of owners with respect to other kinds of 
 property, be construed as authorizing the restitution of his slave to a 'citizen of a 
 slave State ? No, no; and it would be equally in vain that he would expect pro- 
 tection for slaveholders in the new Territories. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. Will the honorable Senator from Louisiana bear with me a mo- 
 ment ? 
 
 Mr. SOULE yielded the floor. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. I simply wish to inform him of a fact of which he is evidently not aware. The 
 amendment which he speaks of as a substitute for that portion of the bill to which he is objecting 
 was drawn up by the Senator from Indiana the day before the Senator from Louisiana, who is 
 now addressing the Senate, commenced his speech. It was handed about the hall, agreed to on 
 all sides, and offered to the Chair before, but was decided not to be in order. It was embodied in 
 the speech which I made last week, and which was printed two or three days since, before the 
 honorable Senator commenced his speech. So that he will perceive, I suppose, that although it 
 may be a very signal triumph, it was conceived and agreed to on all hands before his speech was 
 made. In addition to this, 1 will say that when this proposition, originally in the Clayton com- 
 promise bill, was under discussion here, the very language which the gentleman from Louisiana 
 (Mr. Downs) is said to have offered in the committee, was proposed by the present Attorney Gen- 
 eral of the United States, a Southern gentleman and a profound jurist. I suggested the very ob- 
 jection to it which the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Soule) has suggested, that it was perhaps 
 more plausible than solid, and I suggested the amendment to which the then Senator from Mary- 
 land (Mr. R. Johnson) at once acceded, and it become incorporated in the Clayton compromise 
 bill in its present form. That is the history of the affair. It originated with Southern gentlemen, 
 and, so far as I know Northern gentlemen never objected at all to the modification. Certain it is 
 that the modification now proposed, in order to remove the objection to the bill, was agreed to on 
 all sides of the House before the honorable Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Soule) addressed the 
 Senate. 
 
12 
 
 Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. My colleague is entirely mistaken in supposing the amendment 
 now pending to be the same as that suggested by the Senator from Indiana. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. I was simply replying to the Senator from Louisiana, and did not refer to the 
 amendment offered by my colleague. I mean to say this. The Senator from Louisiana just now 
 said that the objectionable phraseology in the bill as reported from the committee was effectually 
 cured by the introduction of other words which are tantamount to the words in the Clayton com- 
 promise bill. I addressed myself to that point especially, and I said that that particular modifica- 
 tion had been agreed to before the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Soule) addressed the Senate at 
 all. I say furthermore, now, what my colleague well knows also, that immediately upon the sug- 
 gestion of the modification of that amendment, which is now universally satisfactory on this side 
 of the house, it was agreed to on all sides of the house. The honorable Senators from Kentucky, 
 (Mr. Clay,) Massachusetts, (Mr. Webstek,) New York, (Mr. Dickinson,) and others, all 
 agreed to it without the least difficulty, and never made the least obstacle. If the amendment of 
 my colleague (Mr. Datis) had assumed this form in the first instance, and had not used the term 
 "ownership," which seems to some to imply a disposition on the part of Congress to afford espe- 
 cial protection to property in slaves in the Territories, (although I do not think that it bears that 
 construction,) I have no doubt that it would have been immediately acceded to on all sides of the 
 house. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. I did not intend to argue the question of who had got the victory, 
 further than to say that this bill as originally reported contained an odious discrimination against 
 slave property, and that it is true that an amendment in that respect has been finally acceded to. 
 Beyond this, sir, it is also true that nobody on the other side of this question ever proposed to 
 modify the bill so as to meet our views until the amendment first offered by me had been argued ; 
 and, finally, those on the other side of this question have acceded to the amendment, but adding to 
 it that which I considered of no importance at all. All that my colleague (Mr. Foote) suggested 
 that he would move, and could not move bocause my amendment was before the Senate, was to 
 declare that the Territorial Legislature should not admit or prohibit slavery. That I consider to be 
 a constitutional question, above Congress and above the Senate ; but what we have from the first 
 contended for, and to the last adhered to, is this, that the Territorial Legislature shall be permitted 
 and required to give such protection to slave property as is extended to all other species of property ; 
 and if that had not been incorporated in the substitute for my amendment, offered yesterday by the 
 Senator from Maryland, (Mr. Pratt,) I, for one, would never have accepted it. 
 
 Mr. "FOOTE. I merely rise to say that, like my colleague, all of us entertain the opinion that 
 substantially there could be no change that would be effective except such an amendment as that 
 now proposed. If my colleague will simply look at a speech of mine, made and printed some 
 time before this discussion came up, he will find that I then advanced this view of the subject, that 
 no restriction could be necessary, inasmuch as the Territorial Legislature, in my judgment, could 
 have no such power to legislate except for the protection of slavery. 
 
 Mr. HALE. If the Senator from Louisiana will allow me a moment, I only want to make a 
 single remark. The honorable Senator from Mississippi says that the amendment draughted by 
 the Senator from Indiana was shown all round the Senate, and that every body assented to it. I 
 think the honorable Senator has fallen into the same mistake which he fell into once befofle ; he 
 only showed it to the leading men. [A laugh.] So far, sir, as I am concerned in the exercise of 
 my right as an humble individual 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. I do not really know what the Senator's object is. I said nothing about leading 
 Senators. 
 
 Mr. HALE. Mr. President, I do not know then what the Senator means by the expression. 
 T was aware that gentlemen from his section often looked upon the whole North as rather an un- 
 important division of the country ; and, being certain that the amendment had not come to me in 
 passing all round the hall, I was unwilling to rest under a wrong implication that it had ; for I am 
 opposed to these amendments, one and all. I prefer the original bill as it came from the com- 
 mittee. Let us have the whole thing ; I want to take the thing as a whole. 
 
 Mr. FOOTE. I said that it had been agreed to all round the house, and then I limited the re- 
 mark by specifying those gentlemen friendly to the measure. I purposely qualified the language 
 of my remark, and I cannot see why the Senator from New Hampshire carps at it. 
 
 Mr. HALE. I do not carp at the phraseology, but when the vote is taken it might give rise to 
 mistakes if it went forth that this amendment was assented to on all sides. I have neither directly 
 nor indirectly assented to any provision or amendment of this sort, and I shall vote against them. 
 I prefer the bill as it came from the hands of the committee to any of these amendments. 
 
 Mr. SOULE. I am much surprised, indeed, that my distinguished friend should 
 grudge to my remarks so slight a merit as to have seconded with their feeble aid 
 the able effort of his honorable colleague, (Mr. Davis,) whose sagacity first un- 
 masked the mischiefs lurking in this ambiguous section, and to whom is due all 
 the credit and whatever of triumph there may be in bringing the matter to th'e 
 Senate's notice. My contributions to the victory were but those of the humble 
 
13 
 
 gleaner in a well-reaped field ; and if my worthy friend claims the spoils for others, 
 why, regarding the amendment as outvaluing the triumph, let that be ours, and 
 the other theirs. If the Senator would have considered for a moment of the dis- 
 advantages and embarrassments which beset me at every term of the sentence, 
 in the whole progress of the argument, on account of my speaking in a language 
 not originally my own — how the pent-up thoughts crowd on one another, in await- 
 ing the words which are to give them utterance— if, moreover, he would make 
 some allowance for one who, with all these imperfections and deficiences, is found 
 engaged in a conflict where he has to encounter all the strategy of the most con- 
 summate marshalship — alas, sir, he would no longer impute to me so vain a thing 
 .as even a hope of triumphing over such odds as I have before me. 
 
 We are told that the amendment, now in debate is not deemed necessary for the 
 protection of slave property in the Territories. My honorable friend forgets that 
 a very strong argument was urged on yesterday, on the assumption that, unless 
 the obnoxious clause, against which I have been debating, had been inserted in 
 this section, 'slavery would have been in imminent and constant peril there, sup- 
 posing that it could exist under the constitution; for, my colleague went so far as 
 to say that, without it, there was nothing to prevent the Territorial Legislature from 
 meddling with slavery and abolishing it, nor Congress from interposing its # veto, 
 should the Territorial Legislature have granted it protection. But, while it was 
 insisted that the clause ought to remain as a protection, we were assailed for 
 guarding that very Legislature from all inhibition that might prevent it from af- 
 fording slavery, if it should exist there, such police ordinances as would regulate 
 its function as property : in other words, while, upon one hand, the section was 
 defended on the ground that it secured slave property against all interference on 
 the part of the territorial authority; on the other, the amendment of the honorable 
 Senator from Mississippi was assailed on the ground that by giving to the Legis- 
 lature, by implication, power to afford protection, it actually surrendered the doc- 
 trine of non-interference ! 
 
 Mr. DOWNS. I am very sorry to interrupt my honorable friend; but I beg leave to state to him 
 that I said I was in favor of the provision of the amendment as it now stands. 
 
 Mr. SOULE. 1 am glad lo hear this. Such is my confidence in the honesty 
 of purpose and the exalted patriotism of those who advocate the compromise, that 
 when this matter comes to be thoroughly understood, I feel assured that many of 
 those who now oppose us will be found to stand by us, upon the same platform. 
 
 In connexion with this, let me remark that we are accused of unwillingness to 
 be satisfied in any way, even should the measures be modified to our liking. I 
 might complain of the gross injustice of such an imputation, and even recriminate 
 and strike back with no small advantage ; but I forbear. Well, sir, how stands' 
 the fact ? We have opposed the 10th section on the ground that, under the guise 
 of granting the South something, it actually stripped her of every thing ; yet, after 
 strenuous efforts from the other side to maintain that section as it is in the bill, we 
 find our opponents surrendering the disputed ground, and admitting, by implication 
 at least, the correctness and justice of our opposition. Let another part of the 
 compromise meet a similar fate, (I allude here to the admission of California, un- 
 qualified as it is in the bill,) and as the other matters are such as must be of easy 
 adjustment between us, I hesitate not to say, we will easily be induced to vote for 
 the bill, and to assist in securing its passage. 
 
 Sir, I have ever been in favor of admitting California with suitable boundaries, 
 (as expressed in the first of the resolutions of the honorable Senator from Ken- 
 tucky,) and with such guaranties on her part as will secure the title and rights in 
 the United States to the primary disposition of the public domain, &c. against all 
 interference and danger. But this question belongs to another pant of the subject 
 before us, and will come up more appropriately when the general merits of the 
 bill shall be discussed, or when special amendments may be pending, with a view 
 to attain those important ends. I wish to be understood as remaining uncommitted 
 
14 
 
 as to my final action upon the several provisions of this bill, except and to the ex- 
 tent that the debate progresses. I am not and cannot be opposed to the settle- 
 ment of the difficulties which distract the country upon any just terms, cotne from 
 what quarter they may. Let the bill before us be amended and improved in those 
 parts which, in my opinion, are not only obnoxious, but threaten the utter annihila- 
 tion of Southern rights and equality, and I am willing to yield it a most cordial 
 support. 
 
 Amongst other remarks which fell from my colleague on yesterday, while he 
 was attempting to prove the inexpediency of the amendment under debate, there 
 was one which struck me as somewhat strange — I mean that having reference to 
 the non-existence of police enactment in Louisiana, regulating the functions of 
 slavery, prior to 1812. Let me remind my colleague that there is no State in the 
 Union where that matter is so thoroughly methodized <and minutely regulated as 
 in Louisiana, where prevails, from the very organization of the colony, a complete 
 code of laws covering the whole subject, going so far back as the early days 
 of Louis the Fifteenth's reign. 
 
 We were told, also, by the honorable Senator from Kentucky, that objections to 
 the amendments reported to the fugitive slave bill came with but small grace from 
 Louisiana, as she had but slight interest in the question, while these amendments 
 were satisfactory to Senators from the States mainly interested. The Senator 
 treated my interference as out of place and intrusive, as it raised objections to a 
 measure which could in no manner affect the interests of my constituency. Sir, 
 I do not understand, nor am I willing to submit to, this sort of supervision over 
 my action here, and still less to any assumption to control it. Will the Senator 
 tell me where he finds a warrant for his interference with my Senatorial duties 
 here? Can he adduce any reason why I may not enjoy, undisturbed and unques- 
 tioned, all that freedom and independence of action which he asserts for himself? 
 I claim nothing more, and the honorable Senator will understand that I can be 
 content with nothing less. I can assure the honorable Senator that he has fallen 
 into a great mistake in supposing that Louisiana had but small interests of her 
 own in the fugitive slave question. Her interests are large and her losses heavy. 
 The immense number of river and sea crafts which annually visit her principal 
 port, (New Orleans,) coupled with the vested privilege of mariners and boatmen 
 to moor in front of her principal plantations, day and night, furnish facilities almost 
 unexampled for the abduction and escape of slaves. 
 
 Louisiana, then, having a large interest at stake in the reclamation of fugitives 
 from service, has a corresponding interest in opposing and arresting all obstruc- 
 tions to the exercise of her rights. The section reported by the Committee, be- 
 sides other requisitions unknown to the existing laws, and certainly not contem- 
 plated by the Constitution, imposes upon the slaveholder the obligation of procuring 
 a record from a competent court exhibiting both the fact of ownership and escape 
 of the slave sought to be recaptured — an obligation which the amendments re- 
 commended by no means leave optional to the master, as my colleague seems to 
 suppose and argues, but which is made a necessary prerequisite to the delivery of 
 the fugitive, as plainly appears from the words of the section : 
 
 "And upon the production by the said party of other and further evidence, if necessary, 
 either oral or by affidavit, in addition to what is contained in said record, of the identity of the 
 person escaping, he or she shall be delivered up," &c. 
 
 Now, under the Constitution of Louisiana, such a record could in no way be 
 considered as a judicial proceeding, which imports a suit, for, a suit must represent 
 and embrace more than one party ; and being a suit, and the slave absent from 
 the State, the courts of Louisiana could have no jurisdiction to entertain a judicial 
 proceeding in anywise affecting his rights and interests, while he was absent and 
 unrepresented. Moreover, if there cannot be a suit, how can there be an adjudi- 
 cation? Our courts of justice are rigorously inhibited by our Constitution from 
 
 
15 
 
 interfering with any thing that is not strictly judicial ; and such a record, there- 
 fore, could not be obtained. 
 
 I was asked whether the South ought not to make sacrifices? Most undoubt- 
 edly, if necessary, and to the full extent of any sacrifices made or proffered by the 
 North. Her duties enjoin upon her not a doit more. I would wish that the 
 South would guide herself upon the line of conduct that was marked out on yes- 
 terday by my colleague with respect to States in general. When a State is 
 weak, she should be careful of her rights, and cautiousthat they were not invaded. 
 When a State is strong, she may be less strict, because of her ability to resist 
 oppression. But will my colleague permit me to remind him that while, on the 
 one hand, he recommended to the South forbearance, on account of her strength 
 and power to resist, on the other he made a strong, and, indeed, an impassioned 
 appeal to her, calling her to unite on account of her own weakness? And feeling 
 myself as my colleague seemed to feel on yesterday, when he ended his speech, 
 that the South has come to be the weaker of the two contending sections, I would 
 recommend to her to stand by the rights for which she is now struggling, unless she 
 chooses rather to wait until it is too late, and when nothing can save her from 
 beinjf crushed in the struggle. 
 
 I have not been of those who were ready and willing, at the beginning of the 
 session, to stake the very existence of this Confederacy upon such an issue, un- 
 less I should be convinced that it could not possibly be averted with honor and 
 safety to Southern institutions I am for peace and concord, for harmony and 
 for union, but I am for justice also; I am for a strict adherence to the precepts of 
 the Constitution ; I am for equal rights among the States, and for the erecting 
 and upholding of such barriers against Federal encroachments as will keep the 
 power of this Government within the bounds assigned to it by its founders. And 
 if all this has to be surrendered — if the South is to be immolated, let her face her 
 doom, but with dignity and resolution, and let no blush cover her cheek. 
 
 Mr. MASON obtained the floor. 
 
 Mr. Downs. Mr. President, I wish to say only one or two words 
 
 Mr. Clay. Will the Senator from Louisiana allow me one word. I do not wish to interfere 
 with the Senator if he wishes to avail himself of an opportunity of replying, but I desire an ex- 
 planation from the Senator from Louisiana who has just taken his seat. I understood the Senator 
 to say that the committee had held to the eye one thing, intending at the same time another and a 
 different thing — intending to cover the question with a " drapery" or " trickery;" I did not hear 
 the precise expression, but I thought it was one or other of these words. 
 
 Mr. Socle. Oh, no; the Senator from Kentucky is mistaken. 
 
 Mr. Clat. Well, then, I want to know what the Senator did say? 
 
 Mr. Suule. The honorable Senator gives to my language a meaning which I had not intended 
 it should convey. Speaking of the measures in progress of debate, and commenting upon them, 
 I said, indeed, that " they spoke to the eye what they meant not to the sense;" intimating thereby 
 that they were so worded that a careless reader might be led to imagine that they imported some- 
 thing - which, in fact, they did not import. I did by no means intend imputing to the committee a 
 deliberate design to impart to the measures which they recommended, and with a view to mislead, 
 the duplex meaning which I thought I discovered in them; I intended only to signify that such 
 would be the effect of the phraseology which had been adopted, and that it would unavoidably be 
 misappiehended- That such woulil be the case is most clearly shown in the fact, now apparent to 
 all of us, that those who concurred in the bill are still in disagreement as to the legal bearing of 
 some of its most important provisions. Besides, fiom the manner in which I have conducted my 
 humble share in this important discussion, I had hoped I would have been spared the misapprehen- 
 Bion that I had designed any thing that was unkind or disrespectful to the honorable Senator and 
 his colleagues. 
 
 Mr. Clay. Mr. President, I certainly felt gratified by the very unmerited compliment which 
 the honorable Senator chose to pay me personally; but that does not satisfy me if, as I supposed, 
 ] he intended to cast reflections on the motives of the committee by intimating that it was their pur- 
 i pose to practice any deception towards the Senate. 
 
 Mr. Soule. Truly, sir, the honorable Senator bears down hard upon me; for, even supposing 
 
 that any unseemly expression had escaped my lips, ought I not to have met at his hands somewhat 
 
 |i more of indulgence, and I might say of strict justice, considering that I was wrestling with the 
 
 | peculiarities of a language not my own, whose vocabulary is so apt to rebel against my best inten- 
 
16 . • v 
 
 tions.' I questioned the motives of no one. I believe them good, and do not doubt at.alf the pur- 
 poses of the committee were most patriotic and honorable. 
 
 Mr. Clay. I am satisfied. As the chairman of the committee, and as one of the committee, 
 I certainly would not have allowed without suitable explanation any remarks reflecting upon the 
 purposes or intentions of that committee. 
 
 Sir, I should be glad if time permitted to make a reply to the honorable Senator, but I shall 
 have other occasions to do so. But will he and the Senate allow me for a few moments only to 
 make one or two observations? 
 
 Now, sir, what is the course of the honorable Senator with respect to these resolutions of mine, 
 and the report of the committee } The Senator takes them up and compares them together. Cui 
 bono ? The resolutions were the resolutions of an individual; the report of the committee is the 
 report of an aggregate number of gentlemen sent out for the purpose of considering these subjects. 
 To bring, therefore, the report to the test of the resolutions is to suppose that I, who was alone 
 responsible as the author of these resolutions, constituted the committee of thirteen to act upon the 
 whole of the subject. He says that in my resolutions the Souih was promised suitable limits to 
 California. Well, sir, the committee have said that the limits of California as proposed are suita- 
 ble limits, and I never intended to exclude the consideration of the limits which California took for 
 herself. 
 
 But I do not mean today to go into the subject, except to make one additional observation. 
 Sir, the Senator is not satisfied with the repudiation in the bill ot the"Wilmot proviso. No, sir, 
 it is not there, and all that the South has been struggling for for years has been to avoid its being put 
 there. But he wants more. He wants an argument against it; he wants it denounced as uncon- 
 stitutional. Now, let me put this case. The referees are sent out to make a decision upon a case 
 referred to them. Although they agree in the decision, each having his peculiar reasons, but all 
 uniting in the conclusion, yet if they do not agree in the premises, and in the arguments, accord- 
 ing to the doctrine of the Senator their award is worth nothing. 
 
 Sir, the Senator tells us that he is for compromise and for the Union, although I was sorry to 
 hear him concluding his speech by saying that he did not consider disunion so great a calamity ae 
 others did. 
 
 Several Senators around Mr. Clay. "No, no;" "he never said so ;" "you are mistaken." 
 Mr. Socle. Will the honorable Senator excuse me for interrupting him ; but I must say, dis. . 
 tinctly, that I never said anything of the kind. The Senator does me injustice. I most emphati- 
 cally deny having ever said anything of the kind. 
 
 Mr. Clay. I understood the Senator most distinctly to say that he did not see anything in the 
 calamities which would result from a dissolution of the Union. 
 
 Several Senators. "No, no." "You are wrong, he did not say so." 
 Mr. Socle. No, sir; that could not be. I said nothing that could have conveyed any such 
 meaning. On the contrary, I most unequivocally declared that I was not of those who would stake 
 the perpetuity of the Union upon the issues before us, should it be possible to avert it by any sacri- 
 fices we could make without dishonor, although I apprehend they might seriously endanger it. 
 Mr. Clay. I am very happy to hear it. 
 
 Mr. Socle. Sir, there could have been no mistake — no misunderstanding. Every Senator 
 here, I feel assured, understood me differently. What I did say is this: that if the South was to 
 be crushed to the ground, at least she should be suffered to fall with dignity, and so as to command 
 the respect, and not to attract the insulting pity of her adversaries. [Applause.] 
 
 Mr. Clay. I am, indeed, happy to hear these sentiments from the honorable Senator, but he 
 will allow me to say, that although he may not be desirous — and am T sure he is not — of a disso- 
 lution of the Union, the course which he may happen to take may possibly lead to such a conse- 
 quence at no distant day. He said that he did not like this compromise. He complained that 
 while he was restricting himself to the subject under debate, he had been misrepresented by me as 
 having travelled over the whole compromise. Now, I appeal to the Senate whether the Senator did 
 not take up every topic in the report and comment upon, and criticise, and reject it. I hope, Mr. 
 President, that, when this measure which has been before the committee shall have received all the 
 improvements of which it is capable, of which nobody will be more desirous than the committee, 
 the Senator may yet find it in his power to concur with the committee in their efforts to settle these 
 questions. » 
 
 Mr. Socle. I should be most happy if I am able to do so. 
 
 Mr. Clay. I have already said that at this hour, and for other reasons, I will not detain the 
 Senate now, especially as the Senator from Virginia, (Mr. Mason,) having obtained the floor, de- 
 sires to speak. I forbear, therefore, making any further observations until some future occasion. 
 
p 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 || ill 1 1! 1 1| 1 1 ij |i 1 1 | mi in 
 
 011 898 428 6