F 
 786 
 
REMARKS 
 
 <Q C-vwvt 
 
 HON, MR. WELLED, OF CALIFORNIA, 
 
 THE MEXICAN BOUNDARY COMMISSION THE RIVER AND 
 
 HARBOR BILL THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW, 
 
 AND CALIFORNIA LAND TITLES. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 MEXTCAN BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 
 FRIDAY, August 27, 1852. 
 
 The Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation bill 
 being under consideration 
 
 Mr. MASON said: Mr. President, I offer a fur- 
 ther amendment to the bill, not, however, by 
 instruction of the committee, but of my own mo- 
 tion. There is a provision in the bill " for running 
 and marking the boundary line between the Uni- 
 ted States and Mexibo under the treaty of Guada- 
 lupe Hidalgo, $120,000. I propose to amend this 
 clause by adding to it: 
 
 Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be used 
 or expended until it shall be made satisfactorily to appear 
 to the President of the United States, that the southern 
 boundary of New Mexico is not established by the Commis- 
 sioner and Surveyor of the United States further north of 
 the town called Paso than the same is laid down on Distur- 
 nell's map which is attached to the treaty. 
 
 Mr. WELLER said: 
 
 Mr. PRESIDENT, I regret very much that I am 
 compelled to say anything to-night on this sub- 
 ject; but I am, from convictions of duty, driven 
 to the necessity of moving to strike out this ap- 
 propriation from the bill. There are many rea- 
 sons which I could assign, if it were necessary, 
 that the public interests demand that no further ap- 
 propriation should now be made for this Commis- 
 sion. On the 22d day of March last, more than 
 five months ago, I submitted a resolution to 
 the Senate, (which was adopted,) calling upon the 
 Secretary of the Interior for information as to the 
 manner in which the appropriations heretofore 
 made had been expended. There have been ap- 
 
 gropriations made by the Congress of the United 
 tates for the years 1850, 1851, and 1852 (I speak 
 of the time which has elapsed since I headed that 
 Commission) amounting tothe sum of $365,000. 
 Three hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars of 
 the public money have been appropriated and ex- 
 pended. Early in the month of March last, I was 
 anxious to ascertain the manner in which this 
 money had been expended, in order that, if a call 
 were made for further appropriations, we might be 
 enabled to understand the propriety of making 
 them. More than five months, as I have said, 
 have elapsed since that resolution was adopted and 
 sent to the Department of the Interior; and up to 
 this hour the Secretary has refused to let this 
 branch of the Government know how that money 
 
 has been expended ! He seems to have assumed 
 the ground, that under his Administration the peo- 
 ple have no right to know what disposition has 
 been made of their money. If this be the policy 
 of the Whig party, I trust the people will see the 
 necessity of ejecting them from power. 
 
 Mr. PEARCE. I would explain to the Senator 
 that it has been communicated to me by the Sec- 
 retary of the Interior in reply to an inquiry which 
 I addressed to him recently, after a conversation 
 which I had with the Senator that those accounts 
 were not kept in the Department of the Interior, 
 but that he had sent a direction , or a request, to the 
 office in which they were kept, that copies of them 
 should be made out and sent to the Senate. 
 
 Mr. WELLER. Well, sir, it is a matter of 
 very little importance to me whether it be the fault 
 of the Secretary or of the auditing officer of the 
 Department. I am complaining of this Adminis- 
 tration and of the Whig party, and they may 
 divide the responsibility if they choose, between 
 them. 
 
 When I was Boundary Commissioner, I was 
 charged with " squandering the public money." 
 Such an allegation was made by a Senator now 
 on this floor, [Mr. SMITH,] who has not attempted 
 to prove it, although I have challenged him to do 
 so. A resolution was offered, calling for my ac- 
 counts and all of my vouchers, in order that I 
 might be convicted as the accounts were then in- 
 complete of squandering the public money. How 
 long do you think it took a Whig Administration 
 then to answer that resolution ? The record in my 
 hand shows that the resolution was offered upon 
 the 19th day of February, 1 850, and upon the 27th 
 day of the same month it was answered, trans- 
 mitting the accounts, &c. It took precisely eight 
 days to answer a call for all my vouchers and ac- 
 counts. An answer was then promptly trans- 
 mitted by the Department, showing a disbursement 
 of nearly $50,000. But here, now when I stand 
 upon this floor and ask the Administration to give 
 me an account of the manner in which my illus- 
 trious successor has 
 five months have ela 
 
 \ the information ! This unaccountable delay fully 
 justifies the inference that the accounts would not 
 bear public scrutiny. Do you call this honest 
 and fair? Is this even-handed justice? Do the 
 interests of the Whig party demand a suppression 
 i of the information called for ? 
 
 o e manner n wc my us- 
 has expended the public moneys, 
 e elapsed and they dare not give me 
 ! This unaccountable dela full 
 
 
 W 4- 
 
The Senate will perceive that with this Adminis- 
 tration, there is a very marked difference between a 
 Democratic officer and a Whig officer ! When 
 they supposed that the production of those ac- 
 counts of mine would enable them to sustain their 
 charge against me of squandering the public money, 
 and justify them in publishing me to the world as 
 a " defaulter," those accounts were promptly sent 
 here showing, as I have said, an expenditure of 
 $50,000. But after all their charges of " extrava- 
 gance" and "defalcation," here and elsewhere, 
 they were compelled to settle up my accounts and 
 pay over a balance of some $5,000 which they 
 owed me ! 
 
 But here has been an expenditure of $365,000, 
 and there is not a Senator on this floor who is per- 
 mitted to know how one dollar of that money has 
 been expended, and still they ask us now for 
 $120,000 more to prosecute this work ! I must 
 be satisfied that the amount heretofore appropri- 
 ated has been honestly expended before I will con- 
 sent to give you any more. 
 
 This officer was instructed to return his vouchers 
 quarterly. Is there any difficulty in showing us 
 these accounts, if all is honest and fair? How 
 long will it take the accounting officer to make out 
 the returns, and transmit them to the Senate? If 
 they cannot transmit all, why not send us his set- 
 tlements for some of the quarters of the past two 
 years ? If they cannot account for the whole ap- 
 propriation, why not show us how some portion 
 of it has been expended? If they cannot do 
 either, why not honestly avow it? If the charges 
 which your Whig Administration falsely made 
 against me, are true as to my successor, depend 
 upon it the day of exposure will come. And yet, 
 whilst we are kept in the most profound ignorance, 
 we are called upon to appropriate $120,000, which, 
 together with appropriations unaccounted for, will 
 make nearly a half million of dollars ! To this 
 fact I desire to call the attention of the Senate and 
 the country. It may enable the people to see how 
 public affairs are managed by those now in power. 
 It may seem to enlighten them as to their duty in 
 the coming contest. 
 
 There is another thing connected with this mat- 
 ter to which I desire to allude. I found very 
 recently, for the first time, that the Mexican Min- 
 ister in this city had addressed a letter to the Sec- 
 retary of State, under date of April 20, 1850, in 
 which he complained of the delay of the American 
 Commission in the prosecution of that work. I 
 will read you a short extract from that letter: 
 
 "From the information and data which the Government 
 of the undersigned has collected together, it must be con- 
 fessed that if the task of defining the boundary line has been 
 suspended and postponed until the month of November of 
 the present year, it has resulted entirely from the fact that 
 the Commissioners of the United States have frequently 
 been absent in California, and that latterly the said Com- 
 missioners, with some exceptions, have not participated in 
 the operations of settling the boundary. It was these same 
 Commissioners of the United States who proposed as the 
 only means by which these important labors could be con- 
 tinued, that the prosecution of the same should be delayed 
 until next November. General Garcia Cond, chief of the 
 Mexican Commissioners, in agreeing to this proposition, 
 only yielded to the force of necessity, and although this 
 chief found himself encompassed with difficulty to continue 
 in the discharge of his duty, yet. he was determined, as he 
 intimated it to the United States Commissioners, not to 
 interrupt the operation, the management of which had been 
 intrusted to him by his Government." 
 
 i Now, sir, I am not aware that the Secretary of 
 
 State ever responded to this allegation. He was 
 quite willing that I should be censured. Here 
 was a grave complaint a complaint preferred by 
 the representative of a forefgn Government, that 
 the Commissioner (he seems to have forgotten 
 that there was but one) on the part of the United 
 States was delaying the prosecution of that im- 
 portant work. To this letter, 1 say, the Secretary 
 of State never made any response, although the 
 Department of the Interior had then in its posses- 
 sion abundant testimony to show that it was ut- 
 terly false and unfounded. They seemed to be 
 quite willing that I should be convicted of delaying 
 the work. 
 
 Mr. CLARKE. Will the honorable Senator tell 
 me what Commissioner is alluded to in the letter? 
 
 Mr. WELLER. I am the man. I am the 
 Commissioner alluded to. By the way, however, 
 there is another letter from the Mexican Minister 
 which I might read, complaining of a much more 
 grievous offense on the part of rny illustrious suc- 
 cessor, whom my friend has so often defended. 
 In that letter the Mexican Minister has complained 
 that he (the American Commissioner) has organ- 
 ized parties for the purpose of exploring the coun- 
 try, examining its minerals, and hunting up all 
 the bugs in the country ! I believe he has parties 
 in the field examining the geology and mineralogy 
 of that country, and to this I presume the Mex- 
 ican Minister alludes. The appropriations have 
 been made for the sole purpose of running and 
 marking the boundary line between the two Re- 
 publics, and it would, perhaps, be somewhat diffi- 
 cult to justify the Commissioner in organizing 
 these parties. If the accounts had been sent in 
 under the call of the Senate we might have been 
 enabled to ascertain how much money has been 
 expended in this way. 
 
 But I was speaking of the letter complaining of 
 my delay. The record then in the Department 
 of the Interior showed that, so far from delaying 
 the prosecution of the work, the delay had been 
 the fault of the other side. I reached San Diego, 
 the point fixed upon by the terms of the treaty, 
 on the 31st of May, one day after the time agreed 
 upon, and the Mexican Commissioner and his 
 party did not arrive until the third day of July; 
 and the Joint Commission was organized on the 
 6th. 1 was, therefore, compelled to remain five 
 weeks after the time fixed upon for the meeting, 
 wholly inactive, because of the failure of the Mexi- 
 can Commissioner to meet me. As I was fully 
 aware of the sensitiveness of the Mexican nation, 
 I would not suffer my party to make any move- 
 ments whatever in executing the work, until the 
 representative of that Government arrived. I did 
 not intend to give them the slightest pretext for com- 
 plaint. Of these facts the Department had official 
 knowledge, at the time the complaints were made. 
 
 But there is another point in this letter of the 
 Mexican Minister, to which I invoke the attention 
 of the Senate. He says that it was the fault of 
 the American Commissioner that the Commission 
 was adjourned in February to meet at El Paso on 
 the Ist'of November following. This is wholly 
 unfounded, as I can readily show. In a letter 
 addressed by me to the Department, under date of 
 February 3, 1850, (which I find in the printed 
 document before me,) and which was on file at 
 the time this complaint was made, I used the fol- 
 lowing language: 
 
3 
 
 "The Joint Commission to run and mark the boundary 
 between the United States and the territories of Mexico, 
 have agreed to adjourn to meet again at Kl Paso in the State 
 of Chihuahua, on the first Monday in November next. I 
 desired that the meeting should take -place at an earlier day; 
 but as it is understood that during the rainy season in New 
 Mexico (July, August, and September,) no successful 
 operations could he carried on in the field, nothing perhaps 
 would be lost by the delay." 
 
 Now, sir, there was the distinct declaration 
 made in that letter which was on file in the De- 
 partment at the time, that I had desired that an 
 earlier day should be fixed upon for the meeting 
 of the Joint Commission. Such was the fact. In 
 fixing upon the time for adjournment, I proposed 
 July. General Garcia Conde insisted on Novem- 
 ber, as it was impossible to carry on field opera- 
 tions during the summer months; and I confess 
 that I was therefore struck with surprise, that 
 the Mexican Minister should have addressed a 
 letter to the Secretary of State, complaining of my 
 delay ! The journal of the Joint Commission 
 will explain the whole matter. It reads thus 
 
 "It was determined, as nothing remains to be done on 
 this side of the line, except that which has already been 
 provided for, and as it is impracticable, in the present con- 
 dition of California, to advance from this direction beyond 
 the mouth of the Gila, and towards the frontier of New 
 Mexico, that the Commission should adjourn to meet at El 
 Paso, in the State of Chihuahua, on the first Monday of 
 November next." Extract from Journal, 15th Feb., 1850. 
 
 It is true that my drafts had been protested, the 
 appropriation exhausted, and no means whatever 
 left to prosecute the work; still I did not choose 
 to let the Mexican Commissioner know my real 
 situation. I did not choose that he should know 
 of the infamous course pursued by the party in 
 power towards me. I did not choose that he 
 should know that my drafts, drawn in conformity 
 with instructions, and within the appropriation, 
 had been protested, and that my party was suffer- 
 ing for their pay. Hence it was, as the journal 
 shows, it was mutually agreed to adjourn, and for 
 the reasons stated in the extract which I have just 
 read. I had too much pride as an American to 
 confess my inability, for want of funds, to go on 
 with the work. 
 
 Mr. PRATT. Mr. President, the chairman of 
 the Committee on Finance called the Senator from 
 Rhode Island to order, because he was speaking 
 of a subject not connected with the amendment. 
 
 Mr. WELLER. My proposition is to strike 
 out the appropriation for the boundary, and that 
 brings up the whole question. 
 
 Mr. PRATT. I think the honorable Senator 
 is out of order. I think the rules of the Senate 
 ought to be applied to one side of the Chamber as 
 well as the other. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. BRIGHT 
 in the chair.) It is the impression of the Chair 
 that the debate has taken a very wide range; but 
 the Senate must judge whether or not the Senator 
 from California is in order. 
 
 Mr. PRATT. 1 think that it is the duty of the 
 Chair to judge. 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Then the 
 Chair feels constrained to say that the whole de- 
 bate has gone beyond the bounds of order. 
 
 Mr. WELLER. I am compelled to submit to 
 the decision of the Chair, of course; but I think 
 it is very remarkable that I should not be allowed 
 to proceed. I have shown, however, by the rec- 
 ord, that the ^charge of the Mexican Minister 
 
 against me is wholly unfounded. There were 
 many things introduced by the Senator from Ma- 
 ryland [Mr. PEARCE] connected with this Admin- 
 istration so far as this boundary survey is con- 
 cerned, to which I desire to refer. 
 
 Mr. PRATT. Mr. President 
 
 Mr. WELLER. I do not wish to be inter- 
 rupted. 
 
 Mr. PRATT. 1 choose to interrupt the Sena- 
 tor. I rise to a point of order. If the decision 
 of the Chair is to be conformed to, the Senator 
 Tom California must conform to it as well as the 
 rest of us. I do not see why he should say to me 
 that he did not choose to be interrupted when my 
 object must be evident to everybody. I listen to 
 the Senator with as much pleasure as to any one, 
 Dut I think that at this time of the night, when it 
 s near eleven o'clock, it is of no use to be going 
 into these questions. I listened to the gentleman 
 attentively for four hours in defending himself, 
 and I must say that he did defend himself very 
 successfully against the charges which had been 
 brought against him. But I do not want a rep- 
 etition of these matters to-night, at this late 
 hour. 
 
 Mr. WELLER. The gentleman has exagger- 
 ated the length of time which it took me to de- 
 fend myself. I believe I never spoke four hours 
 in my life at one time; and I am sure I never oc- 
 cupied more than two hours in addressing the 
 Senate. Besides, I am not responding to the 
 charges to which I then replied. 
 
 Mr. PRATT. Then I made a small mistake 
 as to time; that is all. 
 
 Mr. WELLER. I ask no exemption from the 
 rules by which other Senators are governed, and 
 ,vill put myself in order by speaking to the point 
 that is raised by the amendment. If I were to 
 attempt to discuss the questions presented hereby 
 the amendment proposed by the Senator from Vir- 
 ginia, I should occupy much more time than I 
 would have occupied in explaining a matter some- 
 what personal to myself. It is not often that Sen- 
 ators are interrupted here, when they are speak- 
 ing of matters in which their own honor or their 
 own reputation is involved. 
 
 I wish to say a word or two to the Senator from 
 Maryland who sits furthest from me, [Mr. 
 PEARCE.] I agree with him that there is a distinction 
 between the Commissioner and the Surveyor, but 
 I should never have undertaken, as Commissioner 
 on that boundary, to have determined any point 
 on that line without consulting with the Surveyor. 
 His advice would have been implicitly relied upon, 
 unless it was plainly and palpably wrong. The 
 instructions to which the Senator referred, places 
 the Commissioner at the head, and thus makes a 
 distinct difference between the two officers. Under 
 date of January 24, 1849, (the first instructions,) 
 you will find that in organizing the Commission, 
 Secretary Buchanan says: 
 
 "You are referred for any information which you may 
 deem necessary, to Andrew B. Gray, Esq., who has been 
 appointed Surveyor under the treaty." 
 
 It certainly was the intention of the Department 
 to draw a distinction between the power of the 
 Commissioner and that of the Surveyor. I con- 
 sidered myself as the head of the Commission 
 no doubt about that. I held myself responsible 
 for the movements of all the parties who went out 
 into the field; but I relied implicitly on the judg- 
 
4 
 
 merit of the Surveyor for the determination of any 
 point upon the face of the earth in the running of 
 the boundary. So I relied implicitly upon the 
 chief astronomer in determining the geographical 
 position of any point desired. The one had charge 
 of the linear surveys the other of the astro- 
 nomical lines. 
 
 I have perhaps detained the Senate too long. I 
 regret very much that I have been compelled to 
 inflict upon my friend from Maryland [Mr. 
 PRATT] the remarks which I have made. I con- 
 sidered it necessary, and that is reason enough so 
 far as I am concerned. I am sure that when he 
 gets up in the Senate to speak of a matter in 
 which his own reputation is involved, or where he 
 has been grossly misrepresented at the bar of pub- 
 lic opinion, 1 shall interpose no objection to his 
 proceeding. In this respect I will return good for 
 evil. 
 
 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 THURSDAY, August 26, 1852. 
 Mr. SUMNER submitted the following amend- 
 ment to the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation 
 Bill: 
 
 Provided, That no such allowance shall be authorized 
 for expense incurred in executing the act of September 18, 
 1850, for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor, 
 which said act is hereby repealed. 
 
 Mr. WELLER. Mr. President, I certainly do 
 not desire to weary the Senate, at this late hour, 
 by attempting to discuss the question which has 
 been obtruded upon it to day. But I may be 
 allowed briefly to express my opinion, as I am 
 now, for the first time, called on to vote upon it in 
 the Senate. 
 
 I will say, sir, at the outset, that this is the first 
 time in the course of my life that I have listened 
 to the whole of an Abolition speech. I did not 
 know that it was possible that I could endure a 
 speech for over three hours upon the subject of 
 the abolition of slavery. But this oration of the 
 Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER,] to- 
 day, has been so handsomely embellished with poe- 
 try, both Latin and English, so full of classical allu- 
 sions and rhetorical flourishes, as to make it much 
 more palatable than I supposed it could have been 
 made. I do not see what object the Senator from 
 Massachusetts could have had in view unless it was 
 to excite in the free States of this Union a forcible 
 resistance to the enactment of the last Congress 
 known as " the fugitive slave law. " In the exer- 
 cise of that power which is vested in you under 
 the Constitution, you have attempted to give se- 
 curity to one of the institutions that exist in a por- 
 tion of the States of this Confederacy. Does any 
 man suppose that this Union can be maintained 
 unless every section of it is secured in the enjoy- 
 ment of its constitutional rights ? Can the Union 
 be maintained if one portion of the Confederacy 
 is permitted to trample upon the rights of another ? 
 I apprehend it is too late in the day to discuss 
 the constitutionality of the fugitive law. The 
 power of Congress to legislate on the subject is, 
 in my opinion, unquestionable. The former law 
 of 1793, containing provisions similar to those 
 found in this act, was passed by the fathers of the 
 Republic, who understood, perhaps, the Consti- 
 tution quite as well as the Senator from Massa- 
 chusetts. 
 
 Sir, I look to no " higher law" than the Con- 
 stitution of the United States in ascertaining the 
 political rights of the members of this Confedera- 
 cy. I find that here is an institution fastened upon 
 this country, recognized by the Constitution, and 
 I am willing to throw around it all the guarantees 
 necessary to give it protection. Now that Con- 
 gress, in the exercise of the power conferred by 
 the Constitution, have legislated, and the public 
 mind has become settled down, and there is a 
 peaceable and quiet execution of the law in almost 
 every section of the Union, the Senator from 
 Massachusetts, by an inflammatory speech, indi- 
 rectly, at least, counsels forcible resistance. Why 
 this attempt to show the resemblance between the 
 fugitive slave law and the stamp act, which our 
 revolutionary fathers resisted? The stamp act 
 was resisted by revolution, by bloodshed. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. The stamp act was not re- 
 sisted forcibly. 
 
 Mr. WELLER. It was one of the acts which 
 brought about the Revolution, which did result in 
 bloodshed. It was one of the acts which our 
 fathers refused to execute. And is the Senator 
 from Massachusetts prepared for this ? Does he 
 counsel the people of Massachusetts, as he has 
 to-day, to resist the execution of the law? Doea 
 he not know that, if his counsel is taken, blood- 
 shed is inevitable? Sir, I would rather be the 
 lowest and humblest slave in all the land, than to 
 have the blood of murdered men upon my hands. 
 If the constituents of the Senator from Massachu- 
 setts follow his direction, if they obey his counsels, 
 murder, I repeat, is inevitable; and upon your 
 hands, sir, ay, upon your hands, [addressing 
 Mr. SUMNER,] must rest the blood of those mur- 
 dered men. Are you prepared for that? Would 
 your conscience sustain you in this? This forci- 
 ble resistance is not only calculated to strike at 
 the very foundation of our republican institutions 
 by dissolving the Union, but to bring upon the 
 head of the learned Senator from Massachusetts 
 the blood of murdered men. He who counsels 
 murder is himself a murderer ! Does he think 
 that any officer, who is charged with the execution 
 of the law of the land, will not execute it? Does 
 he not know that force will be met by force ? Does 
 he approve of the murders at Christiana? Would 
 a repetition of that horrible tragedy gratify his 
 taste ? 
 
 The Senator from Massachusetts has denounced 
 the slave-hunter as if he were a monster of most 
 hideous mien ! Who is the " slave-hunter?" A 
 man who resides in one of the States of this 
 Union, in the possession of certain property 
 property around which the guarantees of legisla- 
 tion have been thrown. That property escapes 
 into a free State, and the owner pursues it. He 
 goes, then, under the law of Congress, for the 
 purpose of recovering that which is regarded as 
 property; and the Senator counsels the good peo- 
 ple of Massachusetts to regard that law as similar 
 to the stamp act, and to resort to revolution in 
 order to resist it ! Does the Senator fully compre- 
 hend and properly appreciate the responsibility 
 resting upon him ? 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. Allow me to correct the Sen- 
 ator. I run a parallel between the slave act and 
 the stamp act; and in doing that I showed his- 
 torically how our fathers opposed the stamp act, 
 and my language was precisely this: That they 
 
rallied the country in peaceful phalanx against the 
 execution of the act; that, within the bounds of the 
 law and the Constitution, to that object they ded- 
 icated the patriot energies of the land. Such was 
 the language I employed, as near as I can recol- 
 lect; and let me say, that not one word has fallen 
 from my lips to-day, suggesting, in any way, a 
 resort to force. 
 
 Mr. WELLER. Then I entirely misunder- 
 stood the character of his speech, and the whole 
 tenor of his oration. 
 
 Mr. SUMNER. Most certainly you did. 
 
 Mr. WELLER. Then I must plead guilty to 
 the humiliating charge of not being able to com- 
 prehend the English language. My friend from 
 North Carolina [Mr. BADGER] read extracts from 
 a speech of the Senator from Massachusetts, de- 
 livered before he came here, in which, while he 
 seems to have said ironically, " I do not counsel 
 you to resistance," uses language calculated to 
 lead directly to the forcible resistance of the law. 
 If that is not to be inferred from his speech to- 
 day; if any other construction can be fairly placed 
 upon it, then I am unable to understand the force 
 of English words. If, as he affirms, this act of 
 Congress is a violation of the law of God, of the 
 Constitution of the United States, a " wicked, in- 
 famous, devilish law, abhorrent to every principle 
 of religion and morality," then a forcible resist- 
 ance would be justifiable. 
 
 So that the Senator cannot escape from the 
 conclusion. But, Mr. President, I hold that it is 
 not only your duty to throw around this institu- 
 tion of slavery all the guarantees which legislation 
 demands, in accordance with the power given by 
 the Constitution, but you are bound as good citi- 
 zens to avoid all agitation of that question in the 
 free States. You are bound to prevent as far as 
 possible any state of feeling from being engendered 
 calculated to prevent a just and fair execution of 
 the law. You are under a solemn obligation as 
 citizens of the Republic to abstain from pursuing 
 any course in the free States which is calculated 
 to defeat the recovery of the property which may 
 escape from the owner. You do not legislate 
 upon the subject, it is true. You pass no law in 
 Massachusetts prohibiting the slave-owner from 
 going there in pursuit of his property and why? 
 Because you know that the Supreme Court of the 
 United States would declare that all that sort of 
 legislation was unconstitutional and void. But 
 you do more; you manufacture by the sort of 
 speeches we have heard here to-day, a state of 
 public feeling which more effectually shuts out the 
 slaveholder than any legislation you could adopt. 
 Is that good faith amongst men and amongst States, 
 all confederated together in one common Union ? 
 Does not common honesty require that we shall 
 pursue that course toward each other which is 
 calculated to preserve the peace and quiet of the 
 whole? 
 
 But, Mr. President, I do not intend to discuss 
 this subject; I only rose to express briefly my 
 opinions, and to give utterance to the feelings of 
 my heart. Perhaps it was not necessary that I 
 should have expressed them certainly not with 
 regard to those gentlemen with whom I have been 
 associated in public life, and to whom I am per- 
 sonally known. My opinions upon the subject 
 have been well understood by them. I avowed 
 them in 1848, when I had the high satisfaction of 
 
 being beaten for Governor in the State of Ohio. 
 Upon the Western Reserve, the hot-bed of aboli- 
 tionism that section of my native State where 
 the sentiments avowed by the Senator from Mas- 
 sachusetts will be appreciated there I told his 
 Abolition friends that if I were elected by two 
 votes, and ascertained that two abolitionists had 
 voted for me, I would resign the office and go 
 home. You may infer from that, sir, what my 
 sentiments have been toward the Abolitionists. 
 And now, sir, let me say in conclusion, that I am 
 content with the Constitution as it is. It has 
 made us a great and prosperous nation a happy 
 and free people contented at home, respected 
 abroad. I desire to devote all the energies of my 
 soul to its perpetuity; but I cannot see how it can 
 be perpetuated except by securing to each State the 
 undisturbed enjoyment of its constitutional rights. 
 
 RI 
 
 LL. 
 
 TUESDAY, August 24, 1852. 
 
 The River and Harbor Bill being under consid- 
 eration 
 
 Mr. WELLER said ; I desire to say a word or 
 two before the question is taken. I know that 
 Senators are exceedingly anxious to vote, and I 
 shall not detain them long. I merely rise for the 
 purpose of stating my position in as few words as 
 possible. I have never been very friendly to this 
 system of internal improvements by the Federal 
 Government, even as advocated by a considerable 
 portion of my political friends. There are Sen- 
 ators on this floor much more latitudinous in their 
 construction of the Federal Constitution than I 
 am. When I was a Representative in the other 
 branch of Congress, I felt myself bound by con- 
 victions of duty to vote uniformly against appro- 
 priations to improvements which may be regarded 
 as local in their character. I have seen nothing 
 to induce me to change the opinion which I then 
 entertained* but on the contrary, the experience 
 of the past few years has demonstrated satisfacto- 
 rily to my mind that in order to preserve the peace 
 and quiet of this Union, aside from constitutional 
 obligations, it is of the last importance that this 
 question of internal improvement should be taken 
 out of the arena of Federal politics. If I had been 
 here, therefore, on yesterday, I should have voted 
 for the proposition introduced by my friend from 
 Illinois, [Mr. DOUGLAS,] for I hold that man a 
 public benefactor who takes out of the arena of 
 Federal politics any one of those questions which 
 are calculated in their nature to divide and distract 
 the people. He who can diminish the number of 
 questions upon which the States are divided, is 
 entitled to the thanks of every well-wisher of the 
 Republic. A policy which prevents as much as 
 possible the States from being brought in collision 
 with each other commands my support. 
 
 Sir, this question above all others,*in my judg- 
 ment, is calculated to disturb the peace and har- 
 mony of the States. Just so long as the General 
 Government exercises the power of carrying on a 
 system of internal improvements in the States by 
 appropriations from the Federal Treasury, just so 
 long must there be a struggle between the States 
 as to the amount of money which they shall re- 
 ceive. You make the States the mere stipendiaries 
 of the Federal Government. We have seen, 
 during the progress of this bill through the Senate, 
 
6 
 
 one Senator reproaching another for having ob- 
 tained for his State more than its proper propor- 
 tion of Federal plunder ! Such a contest is the 
 necessary result of the system. The smaller 
 States may contribute more than their share to the 
 Federal Treasury, but the larger ones will take 
 care to use their numbers in the other branch of 
 Congress to appropriate it within their own limits. 
 In other words, you may find California exceed- 
 ingly useful in replenishing your Treasury by con- 
 tributing more than $3,000,000 per year, but when 
 the "grabbing" comes for internal improvements, 
 the great States of New York, Pennsylvania, and 
 Ohio, will take care to demand the lion's share. 
 In this way the people of the small States, through 
 their commerce, may be taxed, and thus compelled 
 to carry on a system of internal improvements 
 within the limits of the larger ones. This, in my 
 opinion, is calculated to engender bad feeling, and 
 so lessen the affection which ought to exist amongst 
 the several members of this Confederacy. It would, 
 perhaps, be impossible to adopt any system which 
 would not operate unjustly upon some portions of 
 the Republic. This must lead to dissensions diffi- 
 cult to be reconciled to quarrels disastrous in 
 their results. 
 
 Sir, this is inevitable under that system. If the 
 General Government is to engage in a system of 
 internal improvements of a local character, you 
 bring the States directly in conflict with each other; 
 you produce bitterness of feeling, which, in the 
 end, must, as 1 have already said, alienate them 
 from each other. This I hold to be the necessary 
 result. How long do you suppose the Govern- 
 ment will stand after the States have lost all affec- 
 tion for each other ? Destroy that bond of love, 
 of sympathy, which now binds them together, 
 and the Union will soon cease to exist. A scram- 
 ble for the public money will soon place the States 
 in antagonism to each other. 
 
 With that party to which I belong, or at least 
 that portion of the Democratic partytwho believe 
 in extending our institutions until they have cov- 
 ered the whole American continent, it is of the 
 last importance that we should confine the Fed- 
 eral Government to the few powers that have been 
 delegated to it by the Constitution. Sir, at an 
 early age in the history of this Republic, it was 
 supposed that, however well adapted our form of 
 government was to the control of a small portion of 
 territory, yet by extending its limits and bringing 
 into the Union an tagonistical States, or atall events, 
 States whose interests were, to some extent, in 
 conflict with each other, you would endanger the 
 Government and weaken the bond that bound the 
 States together. If thedoctrine of the Whig party 
 were carried out, it would be dangerous , I grant you , 
 to enlarge the number of States ; but, under the Dem- 
 ocraticdoctrine,ifyou confine the General Govern- 
 mentto the few and simple powers given to it by the 
 Constitution , and if you take care that every State 
 in the Union studiously abstains from intermeddling 
 with the affairs^ of their neighbors, you may go on 
 and increase the number of States until you have 
 covered the whole American continent, and the 
 Union will be stronger then than it is now. But 
 the salvation of the whole depends upon this. 
 Therefore, if I believed in this extended system 
 of internal improvements by the General Govern- 
 ment within the States, I should deprecate the ex- 
 tension of our territory, because, when you bring 
 
 those States together with conflicting interests, it 
 will be almost impossible to adopt a system of 
 improvements which shall do justice to each, and 
 thus preserve the peace and the harmony of the 
 whole. But, sir, if you leave this question to the 
 States, if you give them, as was proposed by 
 my friend from Illinois, power to levy tonnage 
 duties for the purpose of improving their harbors 
 and navigable rivers within their limits, you would 
 take away from the Federal Government one of 
 those questions which, in my judgment, more than 
 any other, is calculated to divide and distract the 
 people of this Union. 
 
 It was for that reason that I was anxious to have 
 recorded my vote for the proposition of the Sena- 
 tor from Illinois. There are many States in this 
 Union that have no harbors, no navigable rivers, 
 and it is somewhat difficult to explain to the Rep- 
 resentatives of those States how it is that they are 
 directly interested in the improvement of harbors 
 and of rivers within the limits of other States. 
 For instance, it is a very difficult matter to satisfy 
 my friend from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER] that 
 it is right to take a portion of the Federal funds 
 which belong to his people, and appropriate them 
 to the improvement of a harbor or river in the 
 State of Ohio. It is wrong in principle. I am, 
 however, in favor of those improvements which 
 are of a general and national character, and calcu- 
 lated, in their nature, to bind the States more 
 closely together. The construction of a great na- 
 tional railroad, connecting the Atlantic with our 
 Pacific possessions, whilst it would be clearly 
 within the powers granted to the Federal Govern- 
 ment, would bring the remote States into more inti- 
 mate connection with the central States, and thus 
 lay a permanent foundation for the prosperity and 
 happiness of the people. I trust the day is not 
 far distant when this important national work will 
 be undertaken and completed by the Government. 
 
 But whenever the improvement is within the 
 limits of a single State, or wherever the commerce 
 to be affected is local in its character, I do not con- 
 sider that of such national importance as to justify 
 Congress in appropriating the Federal funds to it. 
 It is better, therefore, in every view of the case, 
 to leave this question to the States; and I trust I 
 shall live to see the day when the principle as- 
 serted in the amendment introduced on yesterday 
 by my friend from Illinois, shall be the policy of 
 this Government. But if you are to carry on this 
 system of internal improvements, if it is to be the 
 settled policy of this Government, then, for one, 
 I should be compelled to abandon a favorite pol- 
 icy I mean the doctrine of extending the limits 
 of this Union; for I should be afraid to increase 
 the number of States where such a system was 
 recognized by the Government. There are already 
 sufficient elements of discord to endanger our safety, 
 and if this policy, which must necessarily be par- 
 tial in its operations, were introduced, it would be 
 difficult, indeed, to preserve the Union. In such 
 an event, the larger the number of States the more 
 difficult it would be to reconcile conflicting inter- 
 ests and maintain the Union. As an extensionist, 
 as a Union man, I am opposed to this policy. 
 
 I shall, without the slightest hesitation, vote 
 against this bill. It is true it makes a small ap- 
 propriation to the improvement of a harbor in the 
 State from which I come; but the fact cannot be 
 concealed that this bill is the entering wedge to a 
 
system of local improvements which, if pursued, 
 must bankrupt the Treasury, array the States 
 against each other, and ultimately divide the 
 Union. This bill makes appropriations to works 
 of internal improvements which are, in my judg- 
 ment, exclusively local in their character, and 
 which are not calculated to advance the general 
 interests of the people. 
 
 The power of Congress to improve harbors, or 
 to prosecute a national work which in its nature 
 is calculated to bring distant States more closely 
 together, and thus strengthen the ligaments which 
 bind them into one Union, is undeniable. So 
 long as the power is confined to these general and 
 national works, the most beneficial results may be 
 anticipated; but when it is carried within the limits 
 of a State by the Federal Government, and thus 
 extended to local improvements, it must be disas- 
 trous. 
 
 If you will authorize the State of California to 
 impose tonnage duties upon all vessels coming into 
 her harbors or navigating her rivers, we would 
 soon have all we desire. With the duties thus 
 collected, we could remove all the obstructions in 
 our navigable rivers, and make our harbors what 
 the commerce of the country demands. Under 
 such a system, those who use your harbors and 
 rivers would pay for their improvement. Where 
 the commerce of the country required harbors, 
 there the best would be found; and millions would 
 not as has been the case be expended in efforts 
 to make them where nature never intended there 
 should be any. 
 
 LAND CLAIMS IN CALIFORNIA. 
 MONDAY, August 2, 1852. 
 
 The Bill to ascertain and settle Private Land 
 Claims in California, being before the Senate, in 
 reply to some remarks of Mr. GWIN, 
 
 Mr. WELLER said: As my colleague has 
 given notice that he does not intend to press the 
 consideration of this bill to-day, 1 will content 
 myself on this occasion by saying that I regret 
 very much that I am not able to bring my mind 
 to the conclusion that this bill is calculated to ad- 
 vance the real interests of the people of California. 
 1 cannot get rid of the opinion that the first section 
 of the bill conflicts with the treaty of Guadalupe 
 Hidalgo. I cannot divest my mind, I say, of that 
 impression, because, if these claims which may be 
 presented before the land commissioners are valid, 
 they should be confirmed. In the decision of 
 that question the question of the validity of the 
 claims the board must be governed by the rules 
 laid down by the act of Congress passed on the 3d 
 March, 1851. This requires that the board shall 
 be governed by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 
 by the law of nations, together with the usages 
 and customs formerly existing under the Spanish 
 and Mexican Governments, and by the principles 
 of justice and equity. I can readi'ly imagine that 
 a claim may be presented to the board of com- 
 missioners, which is incomplete, in which the 
 grantee may not have performed all the require- 
 ments of the Spanish and Mexican laws; but that 
 person may have a just and equitable title through 
 the occupation, improvement, and enjoyment of 
 that which is covered by the original grant. I 
 believe that after a grant has been made to any 
 person no matter what may be the extent of that 
 
 grant if he has taken possession in good faith, 
 and enjoyed, improved, and occupied it, thus sub- 
 stantially complying with the terms of the grant, 
 he is entitled to have it confirmed. The Govern- 
 ment of the United States should do what justice 
 and honesty would have required from the Mexi- 
 can Government. If that Government, under 
 the usages and customs which prevailed, would 
 have been required to secure the land to the 
 grantee, then our Government is bound to respect 
 it. The extent of the grant cannot affect the ques- 
 tion. 
 
 I need not say that I believe it would be mani- 
 festly unwise for the Government of the United 
 States to make large grants of the public domain 
 to individuals. I am entirely opposed to that 
 policy, and the records of the past will show, so 
 far as I have been connected with public affairs, 
 that no one has been more favorable to those meas- 
 ures which would tend to the benefit of the actual 
 settlers than I have. My opinions were fully ex- 
 pressed more than eleven years ago, on that sub- 
 ject, in the House of Representatives, of which 
 I was then a member. 
 
 The following is an extract from a speech made 
 by me in the House of Representatives, February 
 3, 1841, (Congressional Appendix, vol. 9, page 
 145r) 
 
 " There is another subject introduced by the gentleman 
 from Tennessee, [Mr. BELL,] to which I beg leave to refer. 
 I allude to the ' prospective preemption law,' which I re- 
 joice to learn was passed by the Democratic party in the 
 Senate on yesterday, and is now in this House for its ac- 
 tion. It has been denounced here as a ' humbug, designed 
 to catch votes,' and gentlemen have volunteered the asser- 
 tion that we did not desire its passage. Now, sir, what is 
 this bill ? It is simply a proposition to give the settler upon 
 the public lands the right of preemption, and differs only 
 from the law heretofore passed in the fact that it is pros- 
 pective in Its operation. It does not propose to give the 
 public domain to the settler, but to allow him to take that 
 portion on which he has settled and built a log cabin at the 
 Government price, within a limited period. I lisa measure 
 for the benefit of the poor man for the humble tenants of 
 the log cabins ; for those who may be driven by poverty 
 from the older States, and who may go with no bank-bills 
 perhaps in their pockets, but with strong arms and honest 
 hearts to hunt for themselves and their families a home in 
 the far West. Sir, if this was a measure for the advance- 
 ment of the pecuniary interest of speculators or bankers, it 
 would not meet with the opposition it does from Whig gen- 
 tlemen. Although loud in their professions of attachment 
 to the poor man when office is to be obtained, in their legis- 
 lation little regard is paid to their interests. Gentlemen 
 have denounced these settlers as < lawless squatters,' and. 
 ' land pirates,' and told us that the United States marshal 
 ought to be sent with a military force to dispossess them. 
 Sir, if a banker (as is the case every day) swindles the 
 community out of millions, the act goes unwhipped of jus- 
 tice ; but if a poor man settles down upon the public land, 
 and endeavors by his industry and frugality to procure a 
 livelihood for his children, you would raise a military force 
 to turn him off and deprive him of the little improvement 
 he had made. This may be Whig policy, and Whig jus- 
 tice ; but I venture the assertion, the American people are 
 not prepared for such doctrine. In the estimation of these 
 Whig orators, to cut down a few trees in a dense and almost 
 unbroken forest belonging to the Government, for the pur- 
 pose of cultivating a few acres of corn, is a most heinous 
 offense ; whilst they suffer the bankers to violate the laws, 
 make sport of their legislation, acquire wealth by their vil- 
 lainies, and ride in proud triumph over the ruin and desola- 
 tion of the laboring man. Sir, there is a point beyond which 
 forbearance ceases to be a virtue ; and the time will come 
 when this great money power, which is eating out the sub- 
 stance of the people, must be checked by legislation, or the 
 land will be deluged in blood. The day of retribution is at 
 hand, and wo be to that legislator who seeks to aggrandize 
 the few by the oppression of the many. 
 
 " The preemption bill is a favorite measure with me, and 
 enlists all the sympathies of my nature. It affords me the 
 most sincere pleasure to do all in niy power to advance the 
 
 ' 
 
 . 
 
8 
 
 interests of the hardy and enterprising emigrant, who, 
 abandoning the home of his fathers, the worn-out, worm- 
 eaten land of his nativity, has taken up his abode in the rich 
 valleys of the far West. Sir, I would rather be recognized 
 as the champion of such men than hold the highest office 
 within the gift of my country. Let these men have the en- 
 couragement of the Government the promise that within a 
 limited period they shall be permitted, at the present price, 
 to purchase the land on which they reside ; and with indus- 
 try and enterprise, the rude cabin will soon give way 19 the 
 comfortable dwelling, and the ' wilderness be made to 
 bloom and blossom as the rose.' By the passage of this act, 
 many in the old States of this Union, who now feel from 
 day to day the cutting lash of penury and want, and who 
 have families growing up around them without the ability 
 to supply them with even the necessaries of life, would 
 emigrate to the West, settle down on your lands, and soon 
 surround themselves with all the comforts of life. In this 
 way you would not only contribute to their happiness, but 
 in making them the owners of the soil, increase and 
 strengthen their attachment to the Union, and thus lay the 
 foundation for the permanent prosperity of the country 
 broad and deep in the affections of the people. I would 
 much rather, for my own part, make a gift of the public do- 
 main to actual bona fide settlers who would improve the 
 country, than to see it falling at the Government price into 
 the hands of speculators." 
 
 But that policy which would be unwise and im- 
 politic in the present condition of the affairs of 
 this Government, might have been both wise and 
 politic in California when under the dominion of 
 Spain. It was a very difficult thing to settle that 
 country at that time, as well as when under the 
 government of Mexico; and it might be necessary 
 to the cultivation of these lands that large grants 
 should be made, for they were almost worthless, 
 and used chiefly for pastoral or grazing purposes. 
 Such a policy, however necessary or proper then, 
 would, beyond all question, be unwise and im- 
 politic now. The wants and necessities of our 
 people demand an entirely different policy, as we 
 are desirous to have as many landholders as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 By the terms of the treaty of peace, we agreed 
 to see that the people were protected in the enjoy- 
 ment of all their just rights. We have undertaken, 
 by the terms of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 
 to say that the people in California shall be pro- 
 tected in the free enjoyment of their legal and 
 equitable rights; that the title of their property 
 shall not be disturbed; in other words, that prop- 
 erty which they fairly and justly held under 
 Mexico, should be respected by us. 
 
 The first provision of the bill which my col- 
 league has submitted, is, that although the title 
 may be confirmed, if there be a defect or any 
 informality in that title, although the Board of 
 Commissioners may have decided in favor of it, 
 upon the principles of equity, yet if the settler 
 has occupied and improved eighty acres, he -shall 
 hold it; and the grantee shall have a floating 
 title given him to eighty acres elsewhere. I think 
 this would violate the spirit, if not the letter of 
 that treaty which we made with Mexico. Now, 
 I think if these grants are confirmed, the grantee 
 is entitled to the possession of the particular land 
 which is covered by that title. There may be 
 reasons why the original grant would be desired; 
 for we all know that we attach oftentimes a ficti- 
 tious value to property because of its location , its 41 
 natural position, or simply because it suits us. If 
 these grants have been made in good faith by the 
 proper authority, and have been occupied and en- 
 joyed by the proprietor, although he may not have 
 complied with all the technical provisions of the 
 law, I hold that it is the duty of the Government 
 
 to protect him in his right to the particular land 
 which is covered by his title. 
 
 There is the point in regard to which my col- 
 league and myself differ. There may be, and 
 probably there are, fraudulent grants in that coun- 
 try. There are many grants, I know, in Califor- 
 nia, the boundaries of which are indefinite, unde- 
 fined, and uncertain; and wherever a discretion is 
 left to be exercised in adjusting the boundaries, I 
 would have that discretion so exercised as to bring 
 down the grants to the very smallest portion, act- 
 ing upon the principle that it is against the public 
 policy that land should be held in large tracts. 
 
 But if the title be a good one, you are under the 
 highest of all obligations of a political character, 
 the plighted faith of the Government, to confirm it. 
 If it be fraudulent, or tinctured with fraud, unjust, 
 or of a doubtful character, it should be rejected. 
 A Government, no more than an individual, can 
 maintain its character for integrity by taking ad- 
 vantage of a mere technical defect in a title. 
 
 There are titles which will be found incomplete 
 in some particulars. If there are substantial de- 
 fects the title must be rejected. In regard to the 
 grant made in the Suisun valley, to which my 
 colleague has referred, I have only a remark to 
 make. There are between two and three hundred 
 settlers there, and I believe the grant contains 
 some twenty-four thousand acres, a considerable 
 portion of which has been settled upon, and they 
 have had the undisturbed enjoyment of all the 
 fruits of that rich and valuable land for two years. 
 But I will not discuss the title to this grant, for 
 the reason that I am in the position of counsel 
 myself for the settlers, and must, as such, resist 
 in the courts the confirmation of it. It is not be- 
 coming* in me, therefore, to express my opinion as 
 to the legality or validity of that title. But if it be 
 a good title, made by competent authority, and 
 he grantee took possession and improved in good 
 faith, and has complied with all the substantial 
 requisitions of the law, that board must con- 
 firm it. But what will be his position under this 
 bill if his title should be confirmed ? He will find 
 all the land susceptible of cultivation in the occu- 
 pancy of other persons, and he must take his cer- 
 tificate for twenty-four thousand acres, (if that be 
 the amount of the grant,) and locate it upon the 
 public domain. Could he find land as rich and 
 valuable unoccupied elsewhere in that State? 1 
 am confident he could not. Would this be a sub- 
 stantial compliance with the terms of the treaty, 
 "to maintain and protect him in the free enjoy- 
 ment of his property?" I think not. To compel 
 him to locate lands elsewhere than the place cov- 
 ered by his grant would, in my judgment, be a 
 violation of our treaty obligations. It would be a 
 breach of plighted faith. 
 
 This is the first time I have been compelled, 
 from a sense of duty, to differ with my colleague, 
 whose time and energies have been devoted to our 
 State. There is much, very much, in the argu- 
 ment of my colleague which receives my cordial 
 assent. I know the difficulties under which we 
 labor in that country, and it is natural that we 
 should sometimes be unable to see alike in respect 
 to the best method of meeting those difficulties. 
 But I do not wish to discuss this subject unless it 
 should be pressed upon the Senate. For the res-p 
 ent I only desire to put myself right before uor 
 common constituency. 
 
 Printed at the Congressional Globe Office.