■ : r 1 * rifa^ THE GIFT OF MAY TREAT MORRISON IN MEMORY OF ALEXANDER F MORRISON ' ' , 1 ■ » POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Abolition Party. Rise an*d Progress of. The extraordinary increase numerically of the Abolition or Anti-Slavery party of this country cannot be better illustrated than by an exhibit of the increase of its vote, each succeeding election from its initiation as a national organization to the present day. It first made its appearance in national politics in the Presidential contest of 1840, when its ticket, with James G. Birney of Michigan as its candidate for the Presidency, and Francis J. Lemoyne of Pennsylvania, as its Yice-Presidential candidate, polled 7000 votes. In 1844, with Mr. Birney again as its candidate, it polled 62,140 votes. In 1848, with Martin Van Buren as the Presidential candidate of the Buffalo Convention, and Gerrit Smith as that of the more ultra anti-slavery men, it polled 296,232 votes. In 1852, John P. Hale, its nominee, polled 157,296 votes. In 1856, the candidate of the Republican party, John C. Fremont, supported by the entire Abo lition party, polled 1,341,812 votes. Abolition Petitions. 0* the 11th of February, 1790, Mr. Fitz- simmons of Pennsylvania presented a memo- rial of Quakers, praying the abolition of the slave-trade. Mr. Lawrence of New York presented the memorial of the " Friends" of New York City to the same effect. Mr. Hartley of Pennsylvania moved that the first named petition be referred, which was seconded by Mr. White of Yirginia. Mr. Stone of Maryland feared that action indicating an interference with this kind of property would sink it in value, and be inju- rious tu a great number of the citizens, par- ticularly of the Southern States. He depre- cated the disposition of religious sects to imagine they understood the rights of human nature better than all the world besides, and that in consequence they were found meddling with concerns with which they had nothing to do. He was in favor of laying the petition on the table. He would never consent tc refer petitions, unless the petitioners were ex- clusively interested. Messrs. Fitzsimmons and Hartley of Penn- sylvania, Parker, Madison and Page of Vir- ginia, Lawrence of New York, Sedgewick of Massachusetts, Boudinot of New Jersey, Sherman and Huntington of Connecticut, favored a reference. Messrs. Smith, Tucker, and Burke of South Carolina, Baldwin and Jackson of Georgia opposed a reference, for very much the same reasons advanced by Mr. Stone, and in favor of its going to the table. On the next day the following memorial was presented and read : " A memorial of the Pennsylvania Society for promoting the abolition of slavery, the relief of free negroes unlawfully held in bondage, and the improvement of the African race. " The memorial respectfully showeth : " That, from a regard for the happiness of mankind, an association was formed, several years since, in this state, by a number of her citizens, of various religious denominations, for promoting the abolition of slavery, and for the relief of those unlawfully held in bondage. A just and acute conception of the true prin- ciples of liberty, as it spread through the land, produced accessions to their numbers, many friends to their cause, and a legislative co-operation with their views, which, by the blessing of Divine Providence, have been successfully directed to the relieving from bondage a large number of their fellow-crea- tures, of the African race. They have also the satisfaction to observe, that, in consequence of that spirit of philanthropy and genuine liberty which is generally diffusing its benefi- cial influence, similar institutions are forming at home and abroad. " That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike objects of his care, and equally designed for the enjovment of happi- (5) G THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ness, the Christian religion teaches us to be- lieve, and the political creed of America fully coincides with the position. " Your memorialists, particularly engaged in attending to the distresses arising from slavery, believe it to be their indispensable duty to present this subject to your notice. They have observed, with real satisfaction, that many important and salutary powers are vested in you., for ' promoting the welfare and securing, the blessings of liberty to the people of the United States ;' and, as they conceive that these blessings ought rightfully to be administered without distinction of color to all descriptions of people, so they indulge themselves in the pleasing expectation that nothing which can be done for the relief of the unhappy objects of their care will be either omitted or delayed. " From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally the portion and is still the birthright of all men, and influenced by the strong ties of humanity, and the principles of their in- stitutions, your memorialists conceive them- selves bound to use all justifiable endeavors to loosen the bonds of slavery, and promote a general enjoyment of the blessings of freedom. " Under these impressions, they earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of slavery ; that you will be pleased to coun- tenance the restoration of liberty to those un- happy men, who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage, and who, amidst the general joy of surrounding free- men, are groaning in servile subjection ; that you will devise means for removing this in- consistency from the character of the Ameri- can people ; that you will promote mercy and justice towards this distressed race ; and that you will step to the very verge of the power vested in you, for discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow-men. Bev.j. Franklin, President. " Philadelphia, February 3, 1790." The debate was resumed on the memorial of the Friends presented the day before. Mr. Tucker of S. C, was sorry it had had a second reading, as it contained an unconsti- tutional request, for which he wished it thrown aside, lie feared the commitment of it would be a very alarming circumstance to the South- ern States, for if it was to engage Congress in ail unconstitutional measure, it would be con- sidered an interference with their rights, mak- ing them uneasy under the government, and Causing them to lament that they had ever put additional power into their hands. lie was surprised to see another memorial on the same subject, signed by a man* who ought to have known the constitution better. He thought it a mischievous attempt as it res- pected the persons in whose favor it was in- tended. It would, buoy them up with hopes without a foundation, and as they could not reason on the subject, as more enlightened * 'Jenjauiiu Krankliu. men would, they would do things which would incur punishment, and cause their owners to use a severity with them they were not ac- customed to. Mr. Smith of S. C, amongst other things said, that the states would have never entered into the confederacy unless their property had been guarantied to them, for such is the state of agriculture in that country, that without slaves it must be abandoned. Why will these people then make use of arguments to induce the slave to turn his hand against his mas- ter ? A gentleman can hardly come from that country with a servant or two, either to this place or Philadelphia, but there are persons trying to seduce his servants to leave him, and when they have done this, the poor wretches are obliged to rob their master, in order to obtain their subsistence; all, therefore, who are concerned in this seduction are accessories to the robbery. * * We look upon this measure as an attack upon the palladium of the property of our country ; it is, therefore, our duty to oppose it by every means in our power. Mr. Page of Va., said he lived in a state which had the misfortune of having in her bosom a great number of slaves ; he held many of them himself, and was as much inte- rested in the business as any gentleman. If he was to hold them in eternal bondage, he would feel no uneasiness on account of the present menace, because he would rely upon the virtue of Congress that they would not exercise any unconstitutional authority. After a long debate, the memorial was com- mitted, by a vote of yeas 43, nays 11. The nays were, Messrs. Baldwin, Jackson, and Matthews of Ga. ; Bland and Coles of Va. ; Burke, Hager, Smith, and Tucker of S. C. ; Stone of Md. ; and Sylvester of N. Y. The other memorials were in like manner referred. The committee to whom the memorials were referred, made a report, which was referred to the committee of the whole House, which amended the report of the select committee, and resolved, amongst other things : — " That Congress have no authority to inter- fere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them within any of the states ; it remaining with the several states alone to provide any regulations therein which hu- manity and true policy may require.'-' On the 26th of Nov., 1792, a memorial of Warner Mifflin, one of the people called Qua kers, was presented and read to the House, stating certain reflections for the consideration of Congress, aud in relation to the African slave-trade, and to the humane treatment of slaves in the United Sates. It was ordered that the said memorial and representation do lie on the table. ABOLITION PETITIONS. On the 28th of Nov., Mr. Steele of N. C, called the attention of the House to the above memorial of "Warner Mifflin. He was sur- prised to find this subject started anew by a fanatic, who, not content with keeping his own conscience, undertook to become the keeper of the consciences of other men ; and, in a manner which he deemed not very decent, had intruded his opinions upon this House. Had an application been made to him to pre- sent such a petition, he would have avoided a compliance with it. Gentlemen of the North do not realize the mischievous consequences which have already resulted from measures of this kind ; and, if a stop were not put to it, the Southern States would be compelled to apply to the General Government for their interference. He concluded by moving, " that the paper purporting to be a petition from Warner Mifflin, be returned to him by the Clerk of the House ; and that the entry of said petition be expunged from the Journal." Mr. Ames of Mass., who had presented the petition, defended his presentation of it on the ground of the general right of every citi- zen to petition Congress. The petitioner's representative being absent, he had not, on that account, felt at liberty to decline present- ing it. He had no idea of supporting the prayer of the petition ; but had made up his mind long since that it was inexpedient to interfere with the subject. That part of the motion directing the peti- tion to be returned, was agreed to. The re- mainder was withdrawn by Mr. Steele, the mover. On the 30th of Jan., 1797, Mr. Swanwick of Pa., presented the petition of four slaves, who had been emancipated as they allege, representing that, under some law enacted by North Carolina, they could again be reduced to slavery ; that they had escaped to Pennsyl- vania to avoid its effects ; and petitioned Con- gress to look into the matter, as also to the case of a fellow black, who was once manu- mitted, and, under the same law of North Carolina, was again reduced to slavery ; and who, escaping therefrom, was lying in the jail of Philadelphia, under the sanction of the act of the General Government called the Fugitive Slave Law, &c, &c, &c. Mr. Swanwick hoped the petition would be referred to a select committee. Mr. Blount from N. C, hoped it would not even be received. He said, under the law of North Carolina they were slaves, and could oe seized as such. Mr. Thatcher of Mass., thought the petition ought to be referred to the Committee on the Fugitive Slave Law. He believed them to be free people, and contended that they had an undoubted right to petition the House and to be heard. Mr. Swanwick defended their right to peti- tion. Mr. Blount said the laws of North Carolina did not permit a man to manumit his slaves. Mr. Sitgreaves of Pa., defended the petition. Mr. Heath was clearly convinced that these people were slaves, and that the object of their petition was within the jurisdiction of the legis- lature of the state, and not the United States. Mr. Madison of Va., thought it a judicial case. If they are free by the laws of North Carolina, they ought to apply to those laws and have their privileges established. He thought they could obtain their due in a court of appeals in that state. Messrs. Rutherford and Gilbert defended a reference. Mr. W. Smith thought that the petition ought to be sealed up and sent back to the petitioners. Mr. Christie was much surprised that any gentleman would present such a petition, and hoped the gentleman from Pennsylvania would never hand in such a one again. Mr. Holland contended that it was a judicial question, and that the House ought not to pretend to determine the point. Mr. Macon of N. C, contended that justice would be done them in his state. He con- ceived it a delicate matter for the general government to act on, and hoped the petition would not be committed. Mr. W. Smith, alluding to a remark of Mr. Thatcher, that he wished to draw these people from a state of slavery into liberty, did not think that they were sent there to take up the subject of emancipation. Mr. Varnum of Mass., and Mr. Kite-hell, defended the right of the memorialists to peti- tion, and hoped their petition would be re- ceived and be committed. The motion to receive the petition was negatived. Yeas 33 ; Noes 50. On the 30th of Nov., 1797, Mr. Gallatin of Pa., presented a memorial of the annual meet- ing of Quakers, relative to the oppressed state of their African orethren, particularly those in North Carolina, who had been manumitted and again reduced to slavery. It also was directed against every species of extravagance and dis- sipation, such as gaming, horse-racing, cock fighting, shows, plays, and other /xpensive diversions and entertainments. The reception of the petition was debated at great length. Finally it was referred to a select committee, consisting of Messrs. Sit- greaves of Pa., Nicholas of Va., Dana of Conn.,Schuremanof N. J., and Smith of Md. On the 29th of Jan., 1798, Mr. Sitgreaves, THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. from the select committee, reported that the facts referred to in the petition were exclu- sively of judicial cognisance ; that therefore it is not competent for the Legislature to do any- thing in the business, and recommend that the memorialists have leave to withdraw their aemorial. On the 14th of Feb., 1798, the House con- curred in the report of the committee. The same petition was presented in the Senate, but withdrawn. In the Senate, on the 21st of Jan., 1805, Mr. Logan of Pa., presented the memorial of the representatives of the Quakers, pleading the cause of their oppressed and degraded fellow men of the African race, and praying that Congress may adopt effectual measures to prevent the introduction of slavery into the territories of the United States. ■On the question shall the petition be re- ceived, it was decided in the affirmative. Teas.— Messrs. Adams of Mass., Bayard of Del., Brown of Ky„ Condit of N. J., Franklin of N. C, Hillhouse of Conn., Howland of R. I., Logan of Pa., Maclay of Pa., Mitchill of N. Y., Olcott of N. H., Pickering of Mass., Fluiiier of N. II., Smith of 0., Smith of Vt., Stone of N. C, Sumter of S. 0, White of Del., and Worthington of 0.— 19. Nats.— Messrs. Anderson of Tenn., Baldwin of Geo., Brad- ley of Vt.. Cocke ofiffenn., Jackson of Geo., Moore of Va., Smith of Md., Smith of N. Y., and Wright of Md.— 9. A like memorial was presented in the House on the same day, and referred. During the month of January, 1817, several petitions, were presented against the slave- trade between the middle and southern states, which were read and referred. During the first session of the 16th Congress, sundry petitions were presented against the introduction of slavery into any state there- after to be admitted, some of which were referred and others merely read. On the 12th of February, 1827, Mr. Barney of Md., presented to the House a memorial of certain citizens of Baltimore, Md., praying that a law may be passed providing that all children hereafter born of parents held to Slavery, within the District of Columbia, shall be free at a certain age, and moved that it be printed. Mr. McDuff.e of S. C, opposed the printing of the memorial. Mr, Cook of 111., moved to lay it on the : which motion tb,e chair pronounced to be out of order. Mr. Powell ofVa., opposed the printing. Mr.Barney had made the motion to print, ' ause the tne noriali I - had requested him to do so. He wa i perfectly content to acquiesce in the deciaion of the Elouse. Mr. Dorsey of Md., conceived the memorial breathed the general spirit of emancipation, and though its request began with the District, its ulterior purpose went much further. He opposed the printing. The motion to print was negatived by a large majority. On the 12th of December, 1831, Mr. John Quincy Adams presented fifteen petitions from numerous inhabitants of Pennsylvania, pray- ing the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and the abolition of the slave-trade therein. So far as the latter desire was con- cerned, he thought it a proper subject of legis- lation by Congress, and that the petitions on that account should be referred to the com- mittee on the District of Columbia. As to the other prayer of the petition, the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, he deemed it his duty to say that he would not support it. Whatever his opinion of slavery in the ab- stract, or of slavery in the District of Colum- bia might be, he hoped the subject would not be discussed in the House. He would say that the most salutary medicine unduly ad^ ministered, was the most deadly poison. The petition was referred to the committee on the District of Columbia. Mr. Doddridge, of Va.,'from the said com- mittee, on the 19 th of Dec. made a report, ask- ing to be discharged from the further con- sideration of so much of said petitions, as asked the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In the Senate, January 7, 1836, Mr. Mor- ris of Ohio, presented several petitions from citizens of Ohio, one of which was signed by ladies, praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and moved to refer them to the committee on the District of Columbia. Mr. Calhoun asked that the question should first be taken on receiving the petition. He demanded it on the part of the state he repre- sented, because one-half the Union was deeply slandered in these petitions. The Senate had refused to receive petitions, because they im- plicated members of that body. Were they to put more reprobation on the slander of an in- dividual member, than on the slander of sovereign states ? He demanded the question, because these memorials aimed at a violation of the consti- tution, and because he was averse to an agita- tion which would sunder the Union. It was agitation here that they feared, because it would compel the southern press to discuss the question in the very presence of the slaves, who were induced to believe that there was a powerful party at the north, ready to assist them. As a lover of the Union he objected to, receiving them, nay, they must cease or the southern people never can be satisfied. And ABOLITION PETITIONS. how will you put a stop to them ? By receiv- ing these petitions and laying them on the table ? No, no ! The Abolitionists understood this too well ? Nothing would stop them but a stern refusal, by closing the doors to them, and refusing to receive them. Mr. Morris of Ohio, contended, that the pe- titions contemplated no legislation by Con- gress, not within its constitutional power, exclusive legislation being, in his opinion, vested in Congress, both as to persons and things within the District of Columbia. In this view of the case he contended for the recep- tion of the petition, and warned the Senate to be careful how it tread on this ground, lest, in its attempts to make petitions palatable, it does not abridge the sacred right of peti- tion. Mr. Porter of La., opposed the reception of the petition. Mr. Buchanan had had in his possession several weeks a memorial from a meeting of Quakers, making the same prayer, which he had deferred presenting, because he believed that, by private consultations, some resolution might be devised upon this exciting subject, which would obtain the unanimous sanction of the Senate." He felt it, however, to be due to the memorialists, himself, and the Senate, respectfully but firmly to state the reasons why he could not advocate their views, or acquiesce in their conclusions. If any one principle of constitutional law can at this day be considered as settled, it is that Congress had no right, no power, over the question of slavery in those states where it exists. The property of the master in his slave existed in full force before the federal constitution was adopted. It was a subject that then belonged, as it still belongs, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Southern States. These states, by the adoption of the constitu- tion, never yielded to the general government any right to interfere with the question. It remains where it was previous to the establish- ment of our confederacy. The constitution has in the clearest terms recognised the right of property in slaves. It Erohibits any state into which a slave may ave fled, from passing any law to discharge him from slavery, and declares that he shall be delivered up by the authorities of such state to his master ; nay, more, it makes the existence of slavery the foundation of politi- cal power, by giving to those states within which it exists representatives in Congress, not only in proportion to the whole number of free persons, but also in proportion to three-fifths of the number of slaves. After showing that Congress, on the 23d day of March, 1790, had so determined, and that the Union would be dissolved at the mo- ment an effort would be seriously made by the free states in Congress to pass such laws, he continued : "What, then, are the circumstances under which these memorials are now presented? A number of fanatics, led on by foreign in- cendiaries, have been scattering ' arrows, fire- brands, and death' throughout the southern states ; the natural tendency of their publica- tions is to produce dissatisfaction and revolt among the slaves, and to incite their wild pas- sions to vengeance. All history, as well as the present condition of the slaves, proves that there can be no danger of a servile war, but in the mean time what dreadful scenes may be enacted before such an insurrection, which would spare neither age nor sex, could be sup pressed; what ag^ny of mind must be suffered, especially by the gentler sex, in consequence of these publications ? Many a mother clasps her infant to her bosom when she retires to rest, under dreadful apprehensions that she may be aroused from her slumbers by the savage yells of the slaves by whom she is sur- rounded. These are the works of the aboli- tionists. That their motives may be honest I do not doubt, but their zeal is without know- ledge. The history of the human race pre- sents numerous examples of ignorant enthu- siasts, the purity of whose intentions cannot be doubted, who have spread devastation and bloodshed over the face of the earth." * * * * * " This being a true statement of the case as applied to the states where slavery exists, what is now asked by these memorial- ists ? That in this district of "ten miles square, a district carved out of two slaveholding states, and surrounded by them on all sides^ slavery should be abolished. What would be the effects of granting their request ? You would thus erect a citadel in the very heart of these states, upon a territory which they have ceded to you for a far different purpose, from which abolitionists and incendiaries could securely attack the peace and safety of their citizens ; you establish a spot within the slave- holding states which would be a city of refuge for runaway slaves ; you create, by law, a central point from which trains of gunpowder may be securely laid, extending into the sur- rounding states, which may at any moment produce a destructive and fearful explosion. By passing such a law you introduce the enemy into the very bosom of these two states, and afford them every opportunity of produc- ing a servile insurrection. Is there any rea- sonable man who can for one moment suppose that Virginia and Maryland would have ceded the District of Columbia to the United States, if they had entertained the slightest idea that Congress would have used it for any such pur- pose ? They ceded it for your use, for your convenience, and not for their own destruc- tion. When slavery ceases to exist under the laws of Virginia and Maryland, then, and not till then, ought it to be abolished in the Dis- trict of Columbia." Mr. Buchanan continuing said, notwith- standing these were his views, he could not vote against receiving these memorials, but moved that the whole subject be postponed until Monday next. 10 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Mr. Benton concurred in the views of Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Tyler of Va., advocated their reference to the committee on the District of Columbia, in order that a report from that committee might be made which would dispose of the subject. Mr. Brown of N. C, advocated laying them en the table without printing. Mr. Leigh of Va., advocated a distinct ex- pression of opinion by Congress as to its con- stitutional power over the question. Mr. Preston of S. O, thanked the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Buchanan) for the reprobation he had given the petition here presented. Messrs. Calhoun and Brown continued the discussion, and the subject was postponed. On the 11th of January, Mr. Buchanan pre- sented the petition from the Quakers, which he had alluded to in his speech as having been in his possession for some time. He moved that it b,e read and its prayer rejected. Mr. Calhoun demanded a vote on the recep- tion of the petition. During the pendency of the long debate on these petitions, Mr. Swift of Vt., on the 28th of January, 1836, presented another pe- tition to the same effect from citizens of Ver- mont, which he requested might be read. The petition was read, when Mr. Calhoun demanded the preliminary question upon its reception. The question was laid on the table on mo- tion of Mr. Buchanan, to be called up again when the Senate was prepared to make a final disposition of it. On the 9th of March, 1836, the question again came up on the motion to receive the petition presented by Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Calhoun spoke at length against receiv- ing the memorial. Mr. Clay of Ky., did not agree with Mr. Calhoun as to the right of Congress to refuse the reception of a petition. The right of peti- tion carried with it the right of being heard on any subject that the body addressed had the power to act on. As to the right of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Colum- bia, he was inclined to think, and candor required the avowal, that the right did exist, though he was opposed to the expediency of exercising that power. He was opposed to the motion of Mr. Buchanan to receive and immediately reject the petition. He did not think it a safe, substantial, and efficient enjoy- ment of the right of petition, to reject it with- out its passing through the usual forms. That right he thought required of them to examine, deliberate, and decide, either to grant or refuse the prayer of a petitioner, giving the reasons fur such decision, &c, &<;. The question was then taken, Shall the peti- tion be received, and it was decided in the affirmative by yeas and nays as follows :-- Yeas. — Messrs. Benton of Mo., Brown of N.C., Buchanan of Pa., Clay of Ky., Clayton of Del., Crittenden of Ky., Davis of Mass., Ewiug of 0., Ewing of 111., Goldsborough of Md., Grundy of Tenn. Hendricks of Ind., Hill of N. H., Hubbard of N. H., Kent of Md., King of Ala., King of Geo., Knight of R. I., Linn of Mo., McKean of Pa., Morris of Ohio, Naudain of Del., Niles of Conn., Prentiss of Vt., Robbins of R. I., Robinson of 111., Ruggles of Me., Shep- ley of Me., Southard of N. J., Swift of Vt., Talmadge of N. Y., Tipton of Ind., Tomlinson of Conn., Wall of N. J., Webster of Mass., and Wright of N. Y— 36. Nats. — Messrs. Black of Miss., Calhoun of S. C, Cutb> bert of Geo., Leigh ofVa., Moore of Ala., Nicholas of La., Porter of La., Preston of S. C , Walker of Miss., and White of Tenn.— 10. On the 11th of March, 1836, the question was taken on the motion of Mr. Buchanan, that the prayer of the memorial be rejected, and it was decided in the affirmative, yeas 34, nays 6. Every Senator who voted on the above vote was present, except Messrs. Cal- houn, Clayton, Kent, Moore, Naudain, and Southard. Every Senator present voted aye on Mr. Buchanan's motion, except Messrs. Davis, Hendricks, Knight, Prentiss, Swift, and Webster. The large number of petitions, &c, praying the abolition of slavery in the district, which were presented to the House during the first session of 24th Congress, gave rise to a variety of resolutions, motions, &c, with referent to the power of Congress over the subject, and the proper disposition which should be made of these petitions. Finally, on the 8th Feb- ruary, 1836, Mr. II. L. Pinckney, of S. C, obtained a suspension of the rules to enable him to introduce the following resolution : " Resolved, That all the memorials which have been offered or may hereafter be pre- sented to this House, praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and also the resolutions offered by an honorable member from Maine (Mr. Jarvis) with the amendment thereto proposed by an honorable member from Virginia, (Mr. Wise,) and every other paper or proposition that may be sub- mitted in relation to that subject, be referred to a select committee with instructions to re- port, that Congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere in any way with the institutions of slavery in any of the states of this Confederacy ; and that, in the opinion of this House, Congress ought not to interfere in any way with slavery in the District of Co- lumbia, because it would be a violation of the public faith, unwise, impolitic, and dangerous to the Union, assigning such reasons for these conclusions, as in the judgment of the com- mittee, may be best calculated to enlighten the public mind, to repress agitation, to allay excitement, to sustain and preserve the just rights of the slaveholding states, and of the people of this district, and to re-establish har- mony and tranquillity among the various sec tions of the Union." ABOLITION PETITIONS. 11 The resolution having been adopted, the fol- /cwing gentlemen were appointed the com- mittee: — Messrs. Pinckney, of S. C, Hamer, of Ohio, Pierce, of N. H., Hardin, of Ky., Jarvis, of Me., Owens, of Ga., Dromgoole, of Va., andTurrill, ofN. Y. On the 18th of May, 1836, Mr. Pinckney presented a unanimous report from the said committee, concluding with the following re- solutions : — Resolved, That Congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere in any way with the institution of slavery in any of the states of this confederacy. " Resolved, That Congress ought not to in- terfere in any way with slavery in the District of Columbia. " And whereas it is extremely important and desirable that the agitation of this subject should be finally arrested for the purpose of restoring tranquillity to the public mind, your committee respectfully recommend the adoption of the following resolution : " Resolved, That all petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers relating in any way or to any extent whatever, to the subject of slavery or the abolition of slavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid upon the table, and that no further action whatever shall be had thereon." Mr. Hardin, of Ky., a member of the com- mittee, deemed it necessary to say, as the re- port had been called a unanimous one, that he had attended none of the meetings of the committee, and there was a part of the report from which he entirely dissented ; to wit, that the abolitionists were few. He believed there were a great many, and that the report had been got up to suppress that fact. Messrs. Wise and Bouldin, of Va., Thomp- son, of S. C, and others, assailed the report. Messrs. Pinckney, of S. C, Howard, of Md., and others, defended it. _ On the 25th of May, 1836, the first resolu- tion was adopted by a vote of yeas 182, nays 9. The negative vote being Messrs. J. Quincy Adams, Clark, of Pa., Denny, of Pa., Everett, of Vt., Jackson, of Mass., Janes, of Vt., Phillips, of Mass., Potts, of Pa., and Slade, of Vt. Messrs. Glascock, of Ga., Pickens, of S. C, and Robertson, of Va., asked to be excused from voting and did not vote. Mr. Wise, of Va.. and Thompson, of S. C, refused to vote on the question. The second resolution was then adopted, yeas 132, nays 45. The negative vote was as follows : Messrs. Allen, of Vt. ; Bailey, of Me.; Bond, of 0.; Bordon, of Mass. ; Brings, of Mass.; Calhoun, of Mass. ; Carr. of Ind.; Chambers, of Pa.; Childs, of N. Y.; Clark, of Pa.: Cushing, of Mass.; Denny, of Pa.; Everett, of Vt. ; Fuller, of N. Y. ; llrennell. of Mass.; Hall, of Vt.; Hard, of N. Y.; Harrison, of l'a. ; Qazeltine, of N. Y.; Henderson, of Pa.; Heister. of Pa. : Hoar, of Mass. ; Hunt, of N. Y. ; J. R. Ingersoll, of Pa. ; W. Jackson, of Mass.: Janes, of Vt. ; Jones, of 0.; Kilgore, it 0. ; Laae, cf Ind. ; Lawrence, of Mass. ; Josh. Lee, of N. Y. ; Lincoln, of Mass.; Mason, of 0. ; McCarty, of Tnd. : McKen- nan. of Pa.; Morris, of Pa. ; Parker, of N.J. ; Phillips, of Mass. ; Potts, of Pa. ; Reed, of Mass. ; Russell, of N. Y. ; Slade, of Vt ; Sprague, of R. I.; Vinton, of 0. ; and Whittlesey, of O. The third resolution was carried by a vote of 117 yeas to 68 nays. Every member who voted No on the last vote did so on this, with the exception of Messrs. Harrison, Kilgore, Lee and Parker. Messrs. Harrison and Parker did not vote at all on this vote. Messrs. Kilgore and Lee voted Aye. In addition to the negative vote as above stated, Messrs. Beaumont and A. Buchanan, of Pa., Corwin and Crane, of Ohio, Garland, of Va., Glascock, of Ga., Granger, of N. Y., Haley, of Conn., Harper, of Pa., Holsey, of Ga., Howell, of Ohio, Judson, of Conn., Jones, of Va., Laporte, of Pa., Love, of N. Y., Patton, of Va., Pearce, of R. L, Pickens, of S. C, Schenck, of N. J., Shinn, of N. J., Steele, of Md., Storer, of Ohio, Thompson, of Ohio, Wardwell, of N. Y., and Webster, of Ohio, voted No on the third resolution. In the Senate during the second session of the Twenty-Fifth Congress, the plan was in- variably pursued of laying the question of reception upon the table. At this session Mr. Calhoun introduced his celebrated resolutions, induced by the aboli- tion petitions which were being flocked in upon Congress. These resolutions will be found at their appropriate place in this book, under the caption of Mr. Calhoun's name. In the House, at this session, the excitement produced by abolition petitions, &c, was in- tense. A better description of that excite- ment, and the action to which it brought the House, cannot be better written than that from the pen of Col. Benton in his valuable histo- rical narrative of his time in the Senate. I give a synopsis of Col. Benton's description of the scene in the House, on the 20th of Decem- ber, 1837, during the proceedings on the mo- tion of Mr. Slade, of Vermont, to refer two memorials, praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, to a select committee. " The immediate occasion of this contest,'' says Col. Benton, " was the pertinacious effort of Mr. Slade, of Vermont, to make the pre- sentation of abolition petitions the ground of agitation and action against the institution of slavery in the Southern States. Mr. Slade had moved to refer the resolutions presented by him to a select committee, with instructions to report upon them. Upon making this motion, he commenced a violent assault upon the in- stitution of slavery. Mr. Rhett, of South Ca- rolina, interposed to warn him of the conse- quences of such an inflammatory harangue. Mr. Slade refused to desist, and was inter- rupted by a motion, made by Mr. Dawson, of Georgia, for an adjournment. The Speaker 12 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. [an upright and impartial southern man] ruled this motion out of order. " Mr. Slade was proceeding to discuss the question, ' What was slavery V Mr. Dawson again asked him to give way for an adjourn- ment, which was refused. A visible commo- tion began to pervade the house — members rising, clustering together, and talking with animation. Mr. Slade continued, and was about reading a judicial opinion of one of the southern States, defining a slave to be a chat- tel, when Mr. Wise called him to order for irrelevancy. ' The question being upon the ab- olition of slavery in the District, and the argu- ment upon the legality of slave title in a State.' The Speaker decided that it was not in order to discuss the subject of slavery in the States. Mr. Slade contended that he read the decision as he might have done that of an English court. Mr. Robinson, of Virginia, moved an adjourn- ment. The Speaker decided the motion out of order, and Mr. Slade refused to yield the floor, and continued his speech. Mr. Slade pro- ceeded at great length, when Mr. Petrikin, of Pennsylvania, called him to order. The chair did not sustain the call. Mr. Slade went on quoting from the Declaration of Independence and the constitutions of the several States, and had got to that of Virginia, when Mr. Wise called him to order for reading papers without the leave of the house. The speaker then said that no paper objected to could be read with- out leave of the house. "'Mr. Wise then said that the gentleman had wantonly discussed the abstract question of slavery, going back to the very first day of its creation, instead of slavery as it now existed in the District, and the powers and duties of Con- gress in relation to it. He was now reading the State constitutions to show that as it existed in -the States it was against them, and against the laws of God and man. This was out of order.' " Mr. Slade explained, and argued in vindi- cation of his course ; he was about to read a memorial of Dr. Franklin* and an opinion of Mr. Madison upon the question of slavery, when Mr. Griffin, of South Carolina, objected to the reading. Mr. Slade, without asking the permission of the House, which he knew would not be granted, proposed that the clerk should read the document. To this the Speaker ob- jected, that it was equally out of order for the clerk to read. Mr. Grifhn withdrew the ob- !•' ition, and Mr. Slade proceeded to read the papers and comment upon them. He was about to return to the state of opinion in Vir- ginia upon the subject of slavery before Dr. Franklin's memorial. Mr. Rhett inquired, 'What the opinions of Virginia fifty years since had to do with the case V The Speaker was about to reply when Mr. Wise rose, and, with much warmth, said: ' He has discussed the whole abstract subject of slavery — of slavery in Virginia — of slavery in my own district, and I now ask all of my colleagues to retire with me from this hall.' Mr. Slade reminded the * See page 5-6. Speaker that he had not yielded the floor, but his progress was interrupted by the condition of the House, and the exclamations of mem- bers. Amongst them Mr. Holsey, of Georgia, was heard calling on the delegates from that State to withdraw with him ; whilst Mr. Rhett was heard proclaiming that the members from South Carolina had already consulted together and appointed a meeting at three o'clock, in the committee-room of the District of Colum- bia. Here the Speaker succeeded in getting the floor, and stating the question to be on granting leave to the member from Vermont to read certain papers, the reading of which had been objected to. Many members rose, all addressing the chair at the same time, and the general scene of noise and confusion con- tinued. " ' Mr. Pihett succeeded in raising his voice above the roar of the tempest which raged in the House, and invited the entire delegation from all the slave States to retire from the hall forthwith, and meet in the committee-room of the District of Columbia.' " The Speaker rose to a personal explana- tion, and succeeded in recapitulating his de- cisions and vindicated their correctness. ' Had it been in his power,' he said, ' to restrain the discussion, he should have done so. But it Avas not.' " Mr. Slade continuing, said the paper he was about to read was one of the Continental Congress of 1774. The Speaker was about to put the question of leave, when Mr. Cost John- son inquired if it ' would be in order to force the member from Vermont to stop V The im- partial chair said, in despair, that it could not be done. The indomitable Slade proceeded in triumph. ' Then Mr. McKay, of North Caro- lina, a clear, cool-headed, sagacious man, in- terposed the objection that headed Mr. Slade.' The rule of the House required that when a member was called to order, he should take his seat ; and, if decided to be out of order, he should not be allowed to speak again with- out the leave of the House. Mr. McKay stated the point of order, and said that he now ob- jected to Mr. Slade's proceeding. 'Redou- bled noise and confusion ensued — a crowd of members rising and speaking at once, they at last yielded to the noise of the Speaker's ham- mer, and his apparent desire to read something from a book — recognised to be the Manual — which he held in his hand, he at last succeeded in reporting the rule referred to by Mr. Mc- Kay, and sustaining his motion. Mr. Slade endeavored to proceed. The Speaker directed him to take his seat until the question of leave should be put. Then Mr. Slade — still keeping on his feet — asked leave to proceed in order. On that question Mr. Allen, of Vermont, asked the ayes and nays. Mr. Rencher, of North Carolina, moved an adjournment. Mr. Adams and others demanded the ayes and noes upon this motion. They were called, and resulted 106 ayes, 63 noes — some fifty or sixty mem- bers having withdrawn." The vote against adjournment follows : — ABOLITION PETITIONS. 13 Messrs. John Quincy Adams; Alexander of 0.; Allen, of Vt.; Allen, of 0.; Aycrigg, of X. J.; Bell, of Tenn.: Biddle, *f Pa. ; Bond, of 0. ; Borden, of Mass. ; Briggs, of Mass. ; Cal- houn, of Mass.; Coffin, of 0. ; Cranston, of R. I.; Curtis, of N. Y. ; Cushiug, of Mass. : Darlington, of Pa. ; Paries, of Pa. : Duun. of Ind. ; Evans, of Me.; Everett, of Vt. ; Ewing, of Ind.; Fletcher, of Vt.; Fillmore, of N. Y. ; Goode, of 0.; Grennell. of Mass.; Haley, of Conn.; Hall, of Vt.; Hastings, of Mass. ; Henry, of Pa. ; Herod, of Ind. ; HotTman. of N. Y. ; Lincoln, of Mass.; Marvin, of N. Y. ; Mason, of 0. ; Maxwell, of N. J.; McKennan, of Pa.; Milligan, of Del. ; M. Morris, of Pa. ; C. Morris, of 0. : Naylor, of Pa. ; Noyes, of Me. ; Ogle, of Pa.; Parmenter, of Mass.; Patterson, of N. Y. ; Peck, of N. Y. ; Phillips, of Mass. ; Potts, Of Pa. ; Potter, of Pa. ; Raiideu, of Ind. ; Randolph, of N. J. , Reed, of Mass. ; Ridirway, of 0. ; Russell, of N. Y.; Sheffer, of Pa.; Sibley, of N. Y.: Slade. of Vt.; Stratton, of N. J.; Tillinghast, of R. I.; Toland. of Pa.; White, of Ind. ; White, of Ky. ; Whittlesey, of 0.— 63. " This opposition to adjournment," says the historian, " was one of the worst features in this unhappy day's work — the only effect of keeping the house together being to increase irritation, and multiply the chances of an out- break. From the beginning Southern members had voted to adjourn, Cut were prevented from succeeding by the tenacity with which Mr. Slade kept possession of the floor; and now, at last, when it was time to adjourn any way — when the House was in a condition in which no good could be expected, and great harm might be apprehended — there were sixty-three members willing to continue it in session. When the adjournment passed, Mr. Campbell 6tood up in a chair, and calling for the atten- tion of members, invited all of the southern delegations to attend the meeting then being held in the committee-room of the District of Columbia. " Members from the slaveholding States had repaired to the appointment, agitated by various passions. We give a report of the propositions, presented from a letter written by Mr. Rhett : " ' In a private and friendly letter to the editor of the Charleston Mercury, amongst other events accompanying the memorable secession of the southern members from the hall of the House of Representatives, I stated to him that I had prepared two resolutions, drawn as amendments to the motion of the member from Vermont, whilst he was discus- sing the institution of slavery in the South, ' declaring, that the constitution having failed to protect the South in the peaceable posses- sion and enjoyment of their rights and pecu- liar institutions, it was expedient that the Union should be dissolved ; and the other, appointing a committee of two members from each State, to report upon the best means of peaceably dissolving it.' They were intended as amendments to a motion to refer with in- structions to report a bill, abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. I expected them to share the fate which inevitably awaited the original motion so soon as the floor could have been obtained, viz. : to be laid upon the table. My design in presenting them was, to place before Congress and the people what, in my opinion, was the true issue upon this great and vital question ; and to point out the course of policy by which it should be met by the southern States.' " ' But extreme counsels did not prevail. There were members present who well con- sidered that although the provocation was great and the number voting for such a fire- brand motion was deplorably large, yet it was but little more than the one-fourth of the House, and decidedly less than one-half of the members from the free States : so that, even if left to the free State vote alone, the motion would have been rejected. But ths motion itself, and the manner in which it was supported, was most reprehensible — necessa- rily leading to disorder in the House, the destruction of its harmony and capacity for useful legislation, tending to a sectional segre- gation of the members, the alienation of feel- ing between the North and the South, and alarm to all the slaveholding States. The evil required a remedy, but not the remedy of breaking up the Union ; but one which might prevent the like in future, while admin- istering a rebuke upon the past. That remedy was found in adopting a proposition to be offered to the House, which, if agreed to, would close the door against any discussion upon abolition petitions in future, and assimi- late the proceedings of the House, in that particular, to those of the Senate. This pro- position was put into the hands of Mr. Patton, of Virginia, to be offered as an amendment to the rules at the opening of the House the next morning. It was in these words : — " ' Resolved, That all petitions, memorials, and papers touching the abolition of slavery, or the buying, selling, or transferring of slaves, in any State, District, or Territory of the United States, be laid on the table without being debated, printed, read, or referred, and that no further action whatever shall be had thereon.' " Accordingly, at the opening of the House Mr. Patton asked leave to submit the resolu- tion — which was read for information. Mr. Adams objected to the grant of leave. Mr. Patton then moved a suspension of the rules, which motion required two-thirds to sustain it ; and, unless obtained, this salutary remedy for an alarming evil (which was already in force in the Senate) could not be offered. It was a test motion, and on which the opponents of abolition agitation in the House required all their strength ; for, unless two to one, they were defeated. Happily the two to one were ready, and on taking the yeas and nays, de- manded by an abolition member (to keep his friends to the track, and to hold the free-State anti-abolitionists to their responsibility as home), the result stood 135 yeas to 60 nays — the full two-thirds, and fifteen over. " This was one of the most important y Dtes ever delivered in the House. Upon its issue depended the quiet of the House on one hand, or on the other the renewal and perpetuation of the scenes of the day before — ending in breaking up all deliberation and all national legislation. It was successful, and that cri- tical step being safely over, the passage of the resolution was secured — the free-State 14 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. friendly vote being itself sufficient to carry it ; but, although the passage of the resolution was secured, yet resistance to it continued. Mr. Patton rose to recommend his resolution as a peace offering, and to prevent further agitation by demanding the previous question. " Then followed a scene of disorder, which thus appears in the Register of Debates : " ' Mr. Adams rose and said : Mr. Speaker, the gentleman precedes his resolution — [Loud cries of ' Order ! order !' from all parts of the hall.] Mr. A. He preceded it with remarks — [' Order ! order !'] " ' The Chair reminded the gentleman that it was out of order to address the House after the demand for the previous question. "Mr. Adams. I ask the House — [Con- tinued cries of ' Order !' which completely drowned the honorable member's voice.'] " Order having been restored, the next question was, ' Is the demand for the previous question seconded V which seconding would consist of a majority of the whole House ; which, on a division, quickly showed itself. Then came the further question, ' Shall the main question be now put V on which the yeas and nays were demanded and taken ; and ended in a repetition of the vote of the same G3 against it. The main question was then put and carried ; but again, on yeas and nays, to hold free-state members to their res- ponsibility ; showing the same 63 in the negative. " Thus were stifled, and in future prevented in the House, the inflammatory debates on these disturbing petitions. It was the great session of their presentation, being offered by hundreds, and signed by hundreds of thou- sands of persons — many of them women, who forgot their sex and their duties to mingle in such inflammatory work ; some of them clergymen, who forget their mission of peace to stir up strife among those who should be brethren. It was a portentous contest. The motion of Mr. Slade was, not for an inquiry into the expediency of abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, (a motion in it- self sufficiently inflammatory), but to get the command of the House to bring in a bill for that purpose — which would be a decision of the question. His motion failed." The resolution of Mr. Patton was adopted by a vote of yeas 122, nays 74. The negative vote on this resolution was the same as on the adjournment previously recorded, with the ex- ception that Messrs. Adams, Aycrigg, Bell, and White, who voted against adjourning, did not vote against the resolution. Mr. White voted for the resolution. The others named did not vote at all. Messrs. Bronson, of N. Y., Chaney of Ohio, Duncan of Ohio, Fletcher of Mass., Foster of N. Y., Graham of Ind., Hamer of Ohio, Ingham of Conn., Kilgore of Ohio, Leadbetter of Ohio, Sheplor of Ohio, Smith of Me., Touey of Conn., Webster of Ohio, and Yorke of N. J., also voted against the re- solution of Mr. Patton. During the second session of the 24th Con- gress, the Senate pursued the course of laying on the table the motion to receive all abolition petitions. The House adopted, on motion of Mr. Hawes of Ky., a resolution laying all aboli- tion petitions upon the table, without being either printed or referred. During the 25th Congress, both Houses con- tinued to pursue a like respective course upon the subject of abolition petitions. The Senate has to this day continued to lay the question of the reception of abolition pe- titions upon the table. On the 28th of January, 1840, the question was taken in the Houge on an amendment offered by Mr. W. Cost Johnson, to an amend- ment offered by Mr. J. Q. Adams to the rules. The amendment of Mr. Johnson was carried, and was called the 21st Rule. It is as follows: " That no petition, memorial or resolution, or other paper, praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or any state or territory, or the slave-trade between the states or territories of the United States, in which it now exists, shall be received by this House, or entertained in any way whatever." It was adopted by the following vote : — ■ Yeas. — Messrs. Alfortl, of 6a. ; Andrews, of Ky. ; Atherton, of N. II. ; Hanks, of Va. ; Beirne, of Va. ; Blackwell, of Term. : Botts, of Va.; Boyd, of Ky.; A. V. Brown, of Tenn.; Brown, of Miss., Burke of N. II.. Butler of Ky., Butler of S. C, Bynnm of N. C, Campbell of S. C., Campbell of Tenn.. Carroll of Md., Chapman, of Ala. ; Coles, of Va. ; Colquitt, of Ga. ; Conner, of N. C, Cooper of Ga., Crabb of Ala., Craig of Va., Crockett, of Tenn.; Cross, of Ark.; Davis and Fornance, of Pa. ; Gar- land, of Va. ; Garland, of La. ; Gerry, of Pa. ; Goggin. of Va. ; Graham, of N. C. ; Graves and Green, of Ky. ; Griffin, of S. C; Habersham, of Ga. ; Hawkins, of N. C; Hill, of Va. ; Hill, of N. C. ; Hollemau, of Va. ; Holmes, of S. C. ; Hopkins, of Va. ; Hubbard, of Ala.; Jameson, of Mo. ; Jenifer, of Md.; Johnson, of Va. ; Johnson, of Md.; Jones, of N. Y. ; Jones, of Va. ; Kemble, of N. Y. ; Leadbetter, of 0. ; Lewis, of Ala. ; Lucas, of Va.; McCarlv; McClellan, of Tenn.; McCulloeh of Pa.; McKay, of N. C; Medill, of 0.; Miller, of Mo.; Montanya, of N. Y.; Montgomery, of N. C. ; Nisbet of Ga. ; Parrish. of 0. ; Parris, of Me. ; Petriken. of Pa.; Pickens, of S. C; Pope, of Ky.; Prentiss, of N. Y.; Proffit, of Ind.; Kamsey, of Pa. ; Kayncr, of N. C; Reynolds, of 111.; Khett, of S. C. ; Rives, of Va. ; Rogers, of S. C; Samuels, of Va. ; Shaw, of N. H.; Smith, of Me.; Stanley, of N. C; Steen- rod, of Va. ; Strong, of Pa. ; Sumter, of S. C. ; Sweeney, of 0. ; Taliafero, of Va. ; Taylor, of 0. ; F. Thomas, of Md. ; P. F. Thomas, of Md.; Thompson, of S. C. ; Thompson, of Miss. ; Triplett. of Ky. ; Turney, of Tenn. ; Warren, of Ga. ; Watterson, of Tenn. ; Weller, of 0. ; White, of Ky. ; Williams, of N.C.; J. L. Williams, of Tenn.; C. H. Williams, of Tenn. ; Williams of Ivy., Wise of Va., and Worthington of Md. — 114. Nays. — Messrs. Adams of Mass., Allen of N. Y., Allen, of 0., Anderson of Me., Anderson of Ky., Baker ; Barnard of N Y., Beatty of Pa., Bell of Tenn., Biddle of Pa., Bond of 0., Brewster of N. Y., Briggs of Mass., Brockaway of Conn., lirown, of N. Y. ; Calhoun, of Ky. ; Carr, of la.; Casey, of 111.. Chittenden. Clark of N. H., Clifford of Me., Cooper, of Pa. ; Cranston, of R. I. ; Crary, of Mich. ; Curtis, of N. Y. ; Cushing, of Mass. ; Dana, of N. Y. ; Davee, of Maine ; Davies, of Pa. ; Doane, of 0. ; Davis, of N. Y.; Duncan, of 0. ; Ed- wards, of Pa. ; Ely of N. Y. ; Evans, of Me.; Everett, of Vt.; Fillmore, of N. Y. ; Fletcher, of Vt. ; Floyd, of N. Y. ; Gates, of N. Y. : Gentry, of Tenn.; Giddings and Goode, of 0.; Granger, of N. Y.; Grinnell, of N. Y.; Hall, of Vt. ; Hand, of N. Y. ; Hastings, of Mass.; Hastings, of 0. ; Henry, of Pa.; Hoffman, of N. Y.; Hook, of Pa.; Howard, of la., ABOLITION PETITIONS. 15 Hunt, of N. T. ; Jackson, of N. Y. ; James C. Johnston ; Keim, of Pa.; Kempshall; Lawrence, of Mass.; Leet, of Pa. ; Leonard, of N. Y. ; Lincoln, of Mass.; Lowell, of Me. ; Mal- lory, of N. Y. ; Marchand of Pa. ; Marvin, of N. Y. ; Mason, of 0. ; Mitchell, of N. Y. ; Monroe, of N. Y. ; Morgan, of N. Y.; Morris, of Pa.; Morris, of 0.; Naylor, of Pa.; Newhard, of Pa.; Ogle, of Pa.; Osborne, of Conn.; Palen, of N. Y.; Tarmenter, of Mass. ; Paynter, of Pa. ; Peck, of N. Y. ; Ran- dall, of Me.; Randolph, of N. J.; Rariden, of la.; Reed, of Mass.; Ridgway, of 0.; Rogers, of N. Y.; Russell, of N. Y. ; Saltonstall, of Mass.; Sergeant, of Pa.; Simonton, of Pa.; Slade, of Vt. ; Smith of Vt., Smith of Conn., Starkweather »f 0., Storrs of Conn., Stuart of 111., Tillinghast of R. I., Toland of Pa., Trumbull of Conn., Underwood of Ky., Van- derpoel of N. Y., Wagener of Pa., Wagoner of N. Y., Wick, of la., Williams of N. H., Williams of Conn., and Williams of Mass.— 108. The 21st rule, as it was called, which read as follows : " No petition, memorial, reso- lution, or other paper praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or any state or territory, or the slave-trade between the states and the territories of the United States in which it now exists, shall be receiv- ed by this House, or entertained in any way whatever," was rescinded on the 3d of Dec. 1844, on motion of Mr. J. Quincy Adams, by yeas and nays as follows : Yeas. — Messrs. Abbot, of Mass. ; Adams, of Mass. ; An- derson, of N. Y. ; Baker, of Mass. ; Barnard, of N. Y. ; Ben- ton, of N. Y. ; Black, of Pa. ; Brinkerboff, of 0. ; Brodhead, of Pa.; T. Brown, of Pa.; Buffington of Pa.; Carpenter, of N. Y. ; Cary, of N. Y. ; Catlin, of Conn. ; Clingman, of N. C, Clinton of N. Y., Collamer of Vt., Cranston of R. I., Dana, of N. Y. ; Darragh, of Pa. ; Bean, of 0. ; Dickey, of Pa.; Dillingham, of Vt. ; Duncan, of 0.; Dunlap, of Me.; Ellis, of N. Y.; Elmer, of N. J.; Farlee, of N. J.; Fish, of N. Y. ; Florence, of 0. : Foot, of Vt. ; Fuller, of Pa. ; Gid- dings, of 0. ; Green, of N. Y. ; Grinnell, of Mass. ; Hale, of N. H. ; Hamlin, of Me. ; Hamlin, of S. C. ; Hardin, of 111., Harper, of 0. ; Henley, of la.; Herrick. of Me.; Hubbell, of N. Y. , Hudson, of Mass. ; Hungerford, of N. Y. ; Hunt, of Mich. ; J. R. Ingersoll, of Pa. ; Irvin, of Pa. ; Jencks, of Pa. ; P. B. Johnson, of 0. ; Kennedy, of la. ; Kennedy, of Md. ; King, of Mass. ; Kirkpatrick, of N. J. ; Leonard, of N. Y. ; Lyon, of Mich. ; McCauslen, of 0. ; McClelland, of Mich. ; McDowell, of 0. ; Mcllvaine, of Pa. ; Marsh, of Vt. ; Morris, of Pa.; Morris, of 0.; Morse, of Me.; Moxly, of N. Y.; Nes, of Pa.; Owen, of la.; Parmenter, of Mass.; Patterson, of N. Y.; Pettit, of la.; Phoenix, of N. Y.; Pollock, of Pa.; Potter, of R. I. ; Pratt, of N. Y. : Preston, of Md. ; Purdy, of N. Y. ; Ramsey, of Pa. ; Rathbun, of N. Y. ; Ritter, of Pa.; Robinson, of N. Y. ; Rockwell, of Mass.; Rogers, of N. Y. ; St. John, of 0.; Sample, of la.; Sehenck, of 0.; Sever- ance, of Me. ; Thomas H. Seymour, of Conn. ; David L. Sey- mour, of N. Y.; Albert Smith, of N. Y.; John T. Smith, of Pa.; Thomas Smith, la.; Caleb B. Smith, of la. ; Stetson, of N. Y. ; Andrew Stewart, of Pa.; John Stewart, of Conn. ; Tyler, of X. Y. ; Vance, of 0. ; Vinton, of 0. ; Wentworth, of 111. ; Wethered, of Md. ; Wheaton, of Mass. ; John White, of Ky. ; Benjamin White, of Me. ; Williams, of Mass. ; Win- thropof Mass., William Wright of N. Y., Joseph A. Wright of la. ; and Yost, of Pa.— 108. Nays. — Messrs. Arrington, of N. C. ; Ashe, of Tenn. ; At- kinson, of Va. ; Baily, of Va. ; Barringer, of N. C. ; Bidlack, of Pa.; Edward J. Black, of Ga. ; James A. Black, of S. C. ; Blackwell. of Tenn. ; Bowlin, of Mo. ; Boyd, of Ky. ; Milton Brown, of Tenn. ; William J. Brown, of la. ; Burke, of N. H. ; Burt, of S. C. : Caldwell, of Ky. ; Causin, of Md. ; Reuben Chapman, of Ala.; Augustus A. Chapman, of Va. ; Chilton, of Va., Cobb of Ga., Daniel of N. C, Garrett Davis of Ky., John W. Davis, of la.; Dawson, of La. ; Deberry, of N. C. ; Dellett, of Ala. ; Dromgoole, of Va. ; Ficklin, of 111. ; French, of Tenn.; Goggin, of Va.; Grider,of Ky.; Haralson, of Ga. ; Holmes, of S. C. ; Hoge, of 111. ; Hopkins, of Va. ; Houston, of Ala. ; Hubard, of Va.; Hughes, of Mo.; Charles J. Inger- soll, of Pa. ; Jameson, of Mo. ; Cave Johnson, of Tenn. ; An- drew Johnson, of Tenn.; George W. Jones, of Tenn.; Pres- ton King, of N. Y. ; Labranche, of La.; Lucas, of Va. ; Lumpkin, of Ga. ; McClernand, of 111. ; McConnell, of Ala. ; McKay, of N. C. ; Mathews, of 0.: Isaac E. Morse, of La.; Murphy, of N. Y. ; Newton, of Va. ; Norris, of N. II.; Payne, of Ala. : Peyton, of Tenn. ; David S. Reid, of N. C. ; Reding, of N. H.; Kelfe, of Mo.; Kbett, of S. C. ; Rodney, of Del.; Saunders, of N. Y. ; Senter, of Tenn.; Simpson, of S. C. ; Slidell, of La.; Robert Smith, of Illinois; Steenrod, of Va. ; Stephens, of Ga. ; Stiles, of Ga.; James W. Stone, of Ky.; Alfred P. Stone, of 0.; Taylor, of Va.; Thomasson, of Ky.; Thompson, of Miss; Tibbatts, of Tenn.; Weller, of 0.; Woodward, of S. C. ; and Yancey, of Ala.— SO. On the 1st of Dec. 1845, Mr. Chapman of Ala. made a motion in effect to revive the 21st rule, but it was rejected by a vote of yeas 84, nays 121. The following is the affirmative vote. Yeas. — Messrs. Stephen Adams, of Miss.; Atkinson, of Va. ; Barringer, of N. C. ; Bayley, of Va. ; Bedinger, of Va. ; Bell of Ky., James A. Black of S. C, Bowlin of Mo., Boyd of Ky., Milton Brown of Tenn., William G. Brown of Va. ; Burt, of S. C. ; Cabell, of Fla. ; John G. Chapman, of Md.; Augustus A. Chapman, of Va.; Reuben Chapman, of Ala.; Chase, of Tenn. ; Chipman, of Mich.; Clarke, of N. C. ; Cobb, of Ga. ; Cocke, of Tenn.; Constable, of Md. ; Cullom, of Tenn.; Daniel, of N. C; Garrett Davis, of Ky. ; Dobbin, of N. C. ; Dockery, of N. C. ; Douglass, of 111.; Dromgoole, of Va., Faran, of 0.; Ficklin, of 111.; Giles, of Md.; Graham, ofN. C; Haralson, of Ga.; Harmanson, of La. ; Ililliard, of Ala.; Hoge, of 111. ; Isaac E. Holmes, of S. C. ; Hopkins, of Va. ; George S. Houston, of Ala.; E. W. Hubard, of Va. ; Hunter, of Va. ; Charles J. Ingersoll, of Pa.; Joseph John- son, of Va. ; Andrew Johnson, of Tenn. ; George W. Jones, of Tenn. ; Seaborn Jones, of Ga. ; Thomas B. King, of Ga. ; Leake, of Va. ; Ligon, of Md. ; Long, of Md. ; Lumpkin, of Ga. ; McClean, of Pa. ; McClernand, of 111. ; McConnell, of Ala.; McHenry, of Ky.; McKay, of N. C. ; John P. Martin, ofKy. ; Barclay Martin, of Tenn.; Norris, of N. H. ; Payne, of Ala. ; Pendleton, of Va. ; Perry, of Md. ; Price, of Mo. ; Reid, of N. C. ; Relfe, of Mo. ; Rhett, of S. C. ; Seddon, of Va. ; A. D. Sims, of S. C. ; L. H. Simms, of Mo. ; Simpson, of S. C. ; Robert Smith, of 111. ; Stanton, of Tenn. ; Stephens, of Ga. Taylor of Va., Jacob Thompson of Miss., Toombs, of Ga., Tibbatts of Ky., Tread way of Va., Trumbo of Ky., Wilmot of Pa., Woodward of S. C, Yancey of Ala., Yell of Ark.— 84. The following Southern Representatives voted in the negative, Messrs. Crozier and Gentry of Tenn., Grider, Young, and Thomasson of Ky., Houston of Del., Thibodeaux of La. The following is the affirmative vote in the House on the 11th of Dec. 1845, in laying on the table an abolition petition, presented by Mr. Culver of N. Y., praying the abolition of slavery, and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia. Yeas. — Messrs. S. Adams, of Miss.; Atkinson, of Va.; Barringer, of N. C. ; Bayley, of Va. ; Bedinger, of Va. ; Biggs, of N. C. ; James Black, of Pa. ; James A. Black, of S- C. ; Boyd, ofKy.; Brodhead, of Pa.; William G. Brown, of Va.; Burt, of S. C.; John H. Campbell, of Pa.; Augustus A. Chapman, of Va.; R. Chapman, of Ala. ; Chipman, of Mich.; Clarke, of N. C. ; Cocke, of Tenn. ; Crozier, of Tenn. ; Cullom, of Tenn.; Cunningham, of 0.; Daniel, of N. C; G. Davis, of Ky. ; Dockery, of N. C. ; Douglass, of 111. ; Edsall of N. J. ; Erdman, of Pa. ; Faran, of 0. ; Foster, of Pa. ; Gentry, of Tenn.; Giles, of Md.; Goodyear, of N. Y.; Graham, of N. C. ; Grider, ofKy.; Haralson, of Ga.; Harmanson, of La.: Hen- ley, of Ind. ; Hilliard, of Ala. ; Hoge, of 111. ; Hopkins, of Va. ; John W. Houston, of Del.; G. S. Houston, of Ala. . Hunger- ford, of N. Y.; Hunter, of Va.; Charles J. Ingersoll, of Pa.; J. H. Johnson, of N. H. ; J. Johnson, of Va. ; Andrew John- son of Tenn., George W. Jones of Tenn., Seaborn Jones of Ga., Kennedy of Ind., T. B. King of Ga., Lawrence of N. Y., Leake of Va., Levin of Penn., Ligon of Md., Lumpkin of Ga., Ma-lay of N. Y., McClean of Pa., McCrate of Me., McHenry of Ky., John P. Martin of Ky., Barclay Martin of Tenn., Miller of N. Y., Morse of Louisiana, Moulton of N. H., Nor- ris of N. H., Owen of Ind., Parish of 0., Payne of Ala., Pen- dleton of Va., Perrill of 0., Perry of Md., Petit of Ind., Price of Mo., Rathbun of N. Y., Reid of N. C, Relfe of Mo., Ritter of Pa., Roberts of Miss., Sawyer of 0., Scammon of Me., Seddon of Va., A. D. Sims of S. C L. II. Simms of Mo., Simpson of S. C, Robert Smith of 111., Stanton of Tenn, Stephens of Ga., Thibodeaux of La., James Thompson of Pa.. Jacob Thompson of Miss., Thurman of 0., Tibbats of Ky.. Toombs of Ga., Tread way of Va., Trumbo of Ky., Wentworth of 111., Wick of Ind., Wilmot of Pa., Woodruff of N. Y., Woodward of S. C, Woodworth of N. J., Yancey of Ala., Yell of Ark., Young of Ky., and Yost of Pa.— 108. On the 25th of February, 1850, Mr. Gid- dings of Ohio, in the House of Representatives, presented two petitions, one from Isaac Jef- fries and other citizens of Penna., and the other from John T. Woodward and other citi- zens of Del. and Pa. They were as follows : 16 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. " We, the undersigned inhabitants of Penn- sylvania and Delaware, believing that the Federal Constitution, in pledging the strength of the whole nation to support slavery, violates the Divine law, makes war upon human rights, and is grossly inconsistent with republican principles : that its attempt to unite slavery in one body politic has brought upon the country great and manifold evils, and has fully proved that no such union can exist, but by the sacrifice of freedom to the supremacy of slavery, respectfully ask you to devise and propose without delay, some plan for the_ im- mediate, peaceful dissolution of the American Union." Mr. Giddings moved to refer the petitions to a select committee with instructions to in- quire- First. Whether disaffection with our Fe- deral Union exists among the people of these states ? Secondly. If so, to what extent does such discontent exist? Thirdly. From what has such disaffection arisen ? Fourthly. The proper means of restoring confidence among the people ? Mr. McClernand of 111. objected to the re- ception of the petitions, and it was decided by a vote of yeas 8, nays 162, not to receive them. The affirmative vote consisted of Messrs. Allen of Mass., Durkee of Wisconsin, Gid- dings of Ohio, Goodenow of Me., Howe of Pa., Julian of Ind., Preston King of N. Y., and Root of Ohio. Upon the 1st of February, 1850, the same petitions praying a dissolution of the Union were presented in the Senate by Mr. Hale of N. H. Mr. Webster of Mass. suggested that there should have been a preamble to the petition in these words — " Gentlemen, members of Congress, whereas at the commencement of the session, you and each of you took your solemn oaths in the presence of God and on the Holy Evangelists, that you would support the Constitution of the U. S., now therefore we pray you to take immediate steps to break up the Union and overthrow the Constitution of the United States as soon as you can. And as in duty bound we will ever pray." But three Senators voted for the reception of the petition, viz.: Messrs. Chase, Hale, and Seward. These petitions have since then excited but little attention. Abolition Platforms. The first national platform of the Abolition party upon which 't went into the contest in 1840, favored the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia and Territories ; the inter-state slave-trade, and a general opposi- tion to slavery to the full extent of constitu- tional power. In 1848, that portion of the party which did not support the Buffalo nominees took the ground of affirming the constitutional autho- rity and duty of the General Government to abolish slavery in the States. Under the head of " Buffalo," the platform of the Free Soil party, which nominated Mr. Van Buren, will be found. In 1852, the Independent Democrats as they were called, who supported John P. Hale for President, adopted the following plat- form: Having assembled in National Convention, as the Delegates of the Free Democracy of the United States, united by a common resolve to maintain right against wrongs, and freedom against slavery ; confiding in the intelligence, patriotism, and the discriminating justice of the American people, putting our trust in God for the triumph of our cause, and invoking His guidance in our endeavors to advance it, we now submit to the candid judgment of all men the following declaration of principles and measures : I. That governments, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, are instituted among men to secure to all, those inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pur- suit of happiness, with which they are en- dowed by their Creator, and of which none can be deprived by valid legislation, except for crime. II. That the true mission of American De- mocracy is to maintain the liberties of the people, the sovereignty of the states, and the perpetuity of the Union, by the impartial ap- plication to public affairs, without sectional discriminations, of the fundamental principles of equal rights, strict justice, and economical administration. III. That the Federal Government is one of limited powers, derived solely from the Constitution, and the grants of power therein ought to be strictly construed by all the de- partments and agents of the government, and it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers. IV. That the Constitution of the United States, ordained to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, and secure the blessings of liberty, expressly denies to the general government all power to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due pro- cess of law ; and therefore the government, having no more power to make a slave than to make a king, and no more power to esta- blish slavery than to establish monarchy, should at once proceed to relieve itself from all responsibility for the existence of slavery, wherever it possesses constitutional power to legislate for its extinction. ABOLITION PLATFORM. 1: V. That, to the persevering and importu- nate demands ol the slave power for more slave states, new slave territories, and the nationalization of slavery, our distinct and final answer is — no more slave states, no slave ter- ritory, no nationalized slavery, and no national legislation for the extradition of slaves. VI. That slavery is a sin against God, and a crime against man, which no human enact- ment nor usage can make right; and that Christianity, humanity, and patriotism alike demand its abolition. VII. That the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 is repugnant to the Constitution, to the prin- ciples of the common law, to the spirit of Christianity, and to the sentiments of the civil- ized world. We therefore deny its binding- force upon the American people, and demand its immediate and total repeal. VIII. That the doctrine that any human law is a finality, and not subject to modifica- tion or repeal, is not in accordance with the creed of the founders of our government, and is dangerous to the liberties of the people. IX. That the acts of Congress, known as the Compromise Measures of 1850, by making the admission of a sovereign state contingent upon the adoption of other measures demanded by the special interest of slavery ; by their omission to guaranty 'freedom in free terri- tories ; by their attempt to impose unconstitu- tional limitations on the power of Congress and the people to admit new states; by their provisions for the assumption of five millions of the state debt of Texas, and for the payment of five millions more, and the cession of a large territory to the same state under menace, as an inducement to the relinquishment of a ground- less claim, and by their invasion of the sover- eignty of the states and the liberties of the people through the enactment of an unjust, op- pressive and unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Law, are proved to be inconsistent with all the principles and maxims of Democracy, and wholly inadequate to the settlement of the questions of which they are claimed to be an adjustment. X. That no permanent settlement of the slavery question can be looked for, except in the practical recognition of the truth, that slavery is sectional, and freedom national; by the total separation of the general government from shivery, and the exercise of its legitimate and :onstitutional influence on the side of free- dom ; and by leaving to the states the whole subject of slavery and the extradition of fugi- tives from service. XI. That all men have a natural right to a portion of the soil ; and that, as the use of the soil is indispensable to life, the right of all men to the soil is as sacred as their right to life itself. XII. That the public lands of the United States belong to the people, and should not be sold to individuals nor granted to corporations, but should be held as a sacred trust for the benefit of the people, and Bhould be granted in limited quantities, free of cost, to land- less settlers. XIII. That a due regard for the Federal Constitution, and sound administrative policy, demand that the funds of the general govern- ment be kept separate from banking institu- tions ; that inland and ocean postage should be reduced to the lowest possible point ; that no more revenue should be raised than is re- quired to defray the strictly necessary ex- penses of the public service, and to pay oft' the public debt ; and that the power and patron- age of the government should be diminished by the abolition of all unnecessary offices, salaries, and privileges, and by the election, by the people, of all civil officers in the ser- vice of the United States, so far as may be con- sistent with the prompt and efficient transac- tion of the public business. XIV. That river and harbor improvements, when necessary to the safety and convenience of commerce with foreign nations, or among the several states, are objects of national con- cern ; and it is the duty of Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to pro- vide for the same. XV. That emigrants and exiles from the Old World should find a cordial welcome to homes of comfort and fields of enterprise in the New ; and every attempt to abridge their privilege of becoming citizens and owners of the soil among us, ought to be resisted with inflexible determination. XVI. That every nation has a clear right to alter or change its own government, and to administer its own concerns in such manner as may best secure the rights and promote the happiness of the people ; and foreign interfer- ence with that right is a dangerous violation of the law of nations, against which all inde- pendent governments should protest, and en- deavor by all proper means to prevent ; and especially is it the duty of the American go- vernment, representing the chief republic of the world, to protest against, and by all pro- per means to prevent the intervention of kings and emperors against nations seeking to esta- blish for themselves republican or constitu- tional governments. XVII. That the independence of Hayti ought to be recognised by our government, and our commercial relations with it placed on the footing of the most favored nations. XVIII. That as, by the Constitution, " the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states," the practice of imprisoning colored seamen of other states, while the ves- sels to which they belong lie in port, and re- fusing to exercise the right to bring such cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, to test the legality of such proceedings, is a flagrant violation of the Constitution, and an invasion of the rights of the citizens of other states, utterly inconsistent with the profes- cions made by the slaveholders, that they wish the provisions of the Constitution faithfully observed by every state in the Union. 18 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. XIX. That we recommend the introduction into all treaties hereafter to he negotiated be- tween the United States and foreign nations, of some provision for the amicable settlement of difficulties by a resort to decisive arbitration. XX. That the Free Democratic party is not organized to aid either the Whig or Democratic wing of the great Slave Compromise party of the nation, but to defeat them both ; and that repudiating and renouncing both, as hope- lessly corrupt, and utterly unworthy of confi- dence, the purpose of the Free Democracy is to take possession of the Federal Government, and administer it for the better protection of the rights and interests of the whole people. XXI. That we inscribe on our banner, Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, and Free Men, and under it will fight on and fight ever, until a triumphant victory shall reward our exer- tions. XXII. That upon this platform the Con- vention presents to the American people, as a candidate for the office of President of the United States, John P. Hale, of New Hamp- shire, and as a candidate for the office of Vice President of the United States, George W. Julian, of Indiana, and earnestly commends Jiem to the support of all freemen and parties. For the Anti-Slavery Platform of 1852, see * Republican Platform." lltotitionists and Republicans. Extracts from Letters, Speeches, and Re- solves OF. " The Abolitionists as Prophets. — -'Who- ever has been an attentive reader of anti- ilavery literature and journalism for the last fifteen or twenty years, cannot but have been struck with the spirit of prophecy that runs through it all. To be sure, the Abolitionists may be said to belong to that large class of prophets who help to bring about the accom- plishment of their own predictions. But it is a proof that they have known what they wanted, and also how best to bring it about. They have had a clear vision from the begin- ning of the way in which they were to walk, and of the work which they had to do. They acted on certain fixed principles, basing their measures on the nature of things and the nature of man ; and, as their principles were eternally right, and their views of man and his ways founded on reason and experience, ami as their speculations and their practice had no taint of selfishness in them, it was almost inevitable that they should see clearly and act sagaciously. Only, they have not seen half that was to come to pass, and the times were hidden from them, so that they are astonished at the haste with which the pro- cession of events hurries past, in spite of the 6econd-sight which discerned their coming shadows in the distant future. " Among the many predictions which they have uttered, or rather the many statements they have made, as to what must come to pass, the one which, five or six years ago, seemed the wildest, was the necessary division of the nation into two parts — the Northern and the Southern — of which the principles should be Slavery and Anti-Slavery. Five years ago, what seemed more unlikely than that the nation should be divided into strictly sectional parties as it is now ? The Whigs were run- ning up their bids for slaveholding support with a desperation which showed that they had abandoned any other hope of success. Daniel Webster had abandoned all hope of a North, and had flung himself and all he had at the feet of the slave-masters, as his last and only chance for the eminence he sighed for. They spurned him away, to be sure, and sent him broken-hearted into his grave ; but they appointed both the candidates and elected the one they loved the best. " The idea of a Northern party, of a party which should not extend its ramifications into the Southern States, was regarded as some- thing worse than a chimera, as a positive imagining of the death of the republic, as a positive misprision of treason. What a change has come over the dreams of the people since then! The Whig party, five years ago in power, and with a reasonable prospect of maintaining it, now dispersed, is demolished and ground to powder. Their very name has vanished from the face of the earth — or exists only as a mockery and a laughing-stock. The Abolitionists foresaw that this must come to pass ; but they did not dream of its accom- plishing itself so soon." " That the national parties should sooner or later divide on the only real matter of dispute existing in the country, was inevitable." " But the lines are now drawn, and the hosts are encamped over against each other. The attempt to keep up a delusive alliance with natural enemies has been abandoned. " The Abolitionists have been telling these things in the ears of the people for a quarter of a century. They have had a double part in what has come to pass, both by preparing the minds of the people of the North, and by com- pelling the people of the South to the very atro- cities which have startled the North into atten- tion. Nothing but the madness which ushers in destruction and the pride which goeth before a fall, on the part of the slaveholders, could have roused the sluggish North from its comfortable dreams of wealth, and made it put itself even into a posture of resistance." " The North is in a state of excitement, temporary perhaps, but real for the time, and the widening lines of division between the North and South are growing deep and distinct. " It is long since this paper took the ground that the first thing, though by no means the only- thing, needful was the formation of sec- tional parties — of parties distinctly Northern and Southern, and of necessity, slavery and anti-slavery. We rejoice that our eyes behold the day of that beginning of the end. Not that we have any very exalted hopes from the suc- cess of the 'Republican party, even if we con sidcred its success a very likely thing. All ABOLITIONISTS AND REPUBLICANS. 19 that it purposes to itself is to keep slavery out of Kansas, provided the actual settlers there do not want to have it in. This is a very small platform for a great party to stand upon, it must be owned ; and in rejoicing to see it, we certainly are grateful for very moderate mer- cies. But it is not the platform that is signi- ficant — it is not the point nominally at issue that is the material thing. The position is everything. It is the attitude that is expres- sive and encouraging. It is the entire separa- tion of the party from all southern alliance, and from all possibility of slaveholding help, that gives it its encouraging aspect, and makes it, with all its shortenings, a thing to thank God for. " We need hardly say that we do not look upon this new party as one that should super- sede the anti-slavery movement. It has sprung from that movement, and whatever of strength and hope it lias lies in the anti-slavery feeling of the Northern mind. It is vain that servile nien- pleasers seek to separate this effect from its anti-slavery origin. The slaveholders stamp it with its real character, and describe it better than it likes to do itself. It is true that the differing sagacities of the Slaveholders and the Abolitionists both discern that this must be the ultimate result." — From the New York Rational Anti-Slavery Standard, June 21, 185G. Debate in the New England Anti-Slavery Convention, on the 29th of May, 1856. Mr. William Lloyd Garrison said: — " I come now to the Republican party ; and while I do not forget its actual position under the Constitution and within the Union, I am constrained to differ in judgment from some of my respected friends here about the com- parative merits of that party. I think that they do not always accord to it all that justice demands ; that they overlook the necessary formation of such a party as the result of our moral agitation ; and I marvel that they do not see that to quarrel with it, to the extent they are doing, is to quarrel with cause and effect — with the work of our own hands. " Mrs. Foster. — I admit that the party is our own progeny ; but, as every child needs a great deal of reproof and constant effort to bring it up in the way it should go, this party, which is the necessary offspring of our efforts, 1 3 constant admonition and rebuke ; and, God giving me strength, I will not spare it an hour until it is fully educated, reformed, and brought up to the high position of truth and duty. [Applause.] " Mr. Foster. — Do you believe they can suc- ceed ? " Mr. Garrison. — Certainly not ! But that is not the question. They believe that they can. They laugh at my incredulity because I do not believe it. I think that, ere long, they will be satisfied that I am right, and that they have been deluded ; in which case, I expect then to hear them cry, ' Excelsior — come up higher !' and to see many of them take their position under the banner of disunion. " I cannot, therefore, agree with such of friends here as regard it as the worst or most dangerous party with which our movement has to contend. In its attitude toward slave power, in the amount of coe humanity to be found in it, in its direct i to baffle the designs of the slave oligi respecting the territories of the country, it is a far better party than either of the and to that extent it is a sign of progress v we have no cause to lament. I have again and again, that in proportion to the growth of disunionism will be the grow;' Republicanism or Free-Soilism. I think if you will examine the map of Massachusetts, for example, you will find this to hold true, with singular uniformity: that in those places where there are the most Abolitionists who have dis- franchised themselves for conscience and the slave's sake, the heaviest vote is thrown for the Free-Soil ticket. This is as inevitable as the law of gravitation. The greater includes the less. If we should berd ' Union' they all knew it was but a po- Litical catchword." — Rev. 0. B. Frothingham of N. J. at the American Anti-Slavery Society meeting, New York, May 13, 1857. "Were the same charge made against your- self, it could not be more groundless than it is against me. The power of language does not permit me to express the utter loathing I have for the conduct attributed to me. Far sooner would I be the poor quivering wretch on the road again to the agony of bondage, than a volunteer guard to aid in his return. He who invented the charge grossly slandered me ; they who repeat it, or believe it, do not know me. " It is not true that I am, or have ever been, in favor of the fugitive slave bill. I never voted for a man who favored it, knowing such to be his views, and I must very much change before I ever do. I never, by word, act, or vote, favored its passage, and I am an advo- cate of its essential modification, or in lieu thereof, its unconditional repeal. Returning from Canada last June, I read in the cars that there was a petition for its repeal at the Ex- change news room, and, on my arrival, before even going to my place of business, I hastened to the Exchange, and signed the petition." — Hon. Henry J. Gardner. " So long as this blood-stained Union existed there was but little hope for the slave. They saw the work to be done. Darknesswas around them, but God's truth was over them. He asked them to bring God's truth home with them. They were murderers if they turned away and refused to help their brother, and said ' Am I my brother's keeper ?' This case was their own. He asked them to argue it out of their own nature. Let them suppose the case that on their going home they should find their home desolate, their wife gone, their children gone, and gone irrevocably. This was the case with the slaves. They should make their cause their own. It was a glorious cause, good for time and good for eternity." — Win. Lloyd Garrison at American A nt i- Slavery Society meeting, Neio York, May 13, 1857. William Lloyd Garrison spoke thus in New York on the 1st day of August, 1855: — " The issue is this : God Almighty has made it impossible from the beginning for liberty and slavery to mingle together, or a union to be founded between abolitionists and slave- holders — between those who oppress and those who are oppressed. This Union is a lie ; the American Union is a sham, an imposture, a covenant with death, an agreement with hell, and it is our business to call for a dissolution. Let that Union be accursed wherein three millions and a half of slaves can be driven to unrequited toil by their masters. " I will continue to experiment no longer — it is all madness. Let the slaveholding Union go, and slavery will go with the Union down into the dust. " If the Church is against dis- union, and not on the side of *he slaw, then I pronounce it as of the devil. " I say let us cease striking har.i* with thieves and adulterers, and give to the winds the rallying cry, ' no union with slaveholders, socially or religiously, and up with the flag jf disunion.'" The following extracts are taken from a letter addressed by the Hon. J. R, Giddings, of the House of Representatives, to an anti- fugitive slave law meeting held at Palmyra, Ohio, in 1850 :— " The fugitive slave law commands us to participate in arresting and sending victims to this Southern immolation by torture a thousand times more cruel than ordinary as- 22 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Bassination. I would be as willing to handle the scourge — to sink the thong into his quiver- ing flesh, and to tear from him the life which God has given him — as to seize him and hand him over to his tormentors, with the full know- e and conviction that they will do it. Nor is the crime of the slave-catcher less in the sight of God and good men than is the guilt in who consummates the outrage by this final sacrifice of the victim. " Yot we are told we must obey this law, and petuate these crimes, until' a slave-ridden gress shall see fit to reclaim us from such sin against God by repealing the law. ' Whe- ther it be right to obey God rather than man, judge ye. 7 "From my innermost soul, I abhor, detest, and repudiate this law. I despise the human being who would obey it, if such a being has existence. I should regard such a man as a moral nuisance, contaminating the air of free- dom, and would kick him from my door should he attempt to enter my dwelling. " The authors of this law may take from me my substance, may imprison me, or take my life ; but they have not the power to degrade me, by compelling me to commit such tran- scendent crimes against my fellow man and inst God's law. "I rejoice exceedingly that the people of the free states comprehend and appreciate this insult to every freeman at the North. Public feeling is aroused ; popular indignation is king trumpet-tongued to those servants of the people who dared thus degrade the American character by constituting us the catchpoles of Southern slave-hunters." The Columbus (Ohio) State Journal, Rep., ains the following extract, taken from a Washington letter, dated the 5th of December, 1856:— " On the 1st of December, at a very full meeting of the members opposed to the e sion of slavery, the following resolution was red by Mr. Giddings, and adopted without a dissenting voice: "Resolved, That we will support no man for Speaker who is not pledged to carry out the parliamentary law by giving to each pro- ! measure ordered by the House to be committed a majority of such special commit- tee, and to organize the standing committees of the i touse by placing on each a majority of the friends of freedom, and who are favor- to making reports on all petitions com- mitted to them." The Hon. -T. 11. Giddings, in a letter to the Ashtabula (Ohio) Sentinel, dated Washington, imber 6, 1855 (a letter which ho subse- quently admitted to lie his on the floor of the House), thus spoke of the above meeting and resolve : — "This unanimity of feeling was so strongly exhibited that my own mind ran back to other scenes and other times, the history of which is hmiiliar to my readers ; but the recollection is, perhaps, more vividly impressed on my own mind than that of any other man living. I will not, however, trust my pen nor my lan- guage to express the emotions which 1 then experienced. " Our friends now appeared to feel that wo had found a common sentiment and a common principle on which we could rally. Hope seemed to cheer them, and a firmer pur] to unite appeared to pervade the minds of all present." " Why, sir, I never saw a panting fugitive speeding his way to a land of freedom, that an involuntary invocation did not burst from my lips, that God would aid him in his flight ! Such are the feelings of every man in our free -, whose heart has not become hardened in iniquity. I do not confine this virtue to Re- publicans, nor to Anti-Slavery men ; I speak of all men, of all parties, in all Christian com- munities. Northern Democrats feel it : they larily bow to this higher law of their na- tures, and they only prove recreant to the law of the ' Most High,' when they regard the in- terests of the Democratic party as superior to God's lav>- and the rights of mankind. "Gentlemen will bear with me when I as- sure them and the President that I have seen as many as nine fugitives dining at one time in my own house — fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, parents, and children. When they came to my door, hungry and faint, cold and but partially clad, I did not turn round to consult the Fugitive Law, nor to ask the President what I should do. I knew the constitution of my country, and would not violate it. I obeyed the divine mandate, to feed the hungry and' clothe the naked. I fed them. I clothed them, gave them money for their journey, and sent them on their way rejoicing. I obeyed God rather than the President. I obeyed my conscience, the dictates of my heart, the law of my moral being, the commands of Heaven, and, I will add, of the constitution of my country ; for no man of intelligence ever be lieved that the framers of that instrument intended to involve their descendants of the free states in any act that should violate the teachings of the Most High, by seizing a fel- low-being, and returning him to the hell of slavery. If that be treason, make the most of it. " Mr. Eenn'ett, of Mississippi. I want to know if the gentleman would not have gone one step further? "Mr. Giddings. Yes, sir; I would have gone one step further. I would have driven the slave-catcher who dared pursue them from my premises. I would have kicked him from my door-yard, if he had made his appearance there; or, had he attempted to enter my dwell- ing, I would have stricken him down upon the threshold of my door. " I do not speak these things to give thn President unhappiness. I mention them to show the people of our free states the rights ABOLITIONISTS AND REPUBLICANS. 9- -■> which I hold to be clear and sacred under the constitution. There is neither constitution nor law that forbids them to speak their opinions in regard to slavery. As already stated, the master holds the power of life and death over the slaves ; he not only robs the slave of his earnings, his intelligence, his manhood, but murders him if he refuses to be flogged — a tyranny revolting to every sense of justice, to every dictate of Christianity — a tyranny more unmitigated than any despotism of the Old World." — Hon. J. R. Giddings, in House of Representatives, First Session, 3-ith Congress. " The gentleman, however, says that Aboli- tionists look to the insurrection of the slaves. Sir. who does not look to that inevitable result, unless the slave states remove the heavy bur- dens which now rest upon the down-trodden and degraded people whom they oppress ? Is there a slaveholder who can shut his eyes to this sure finale of slavery ? And why should we not expect it ? Were we thus oppressed, outraged, and abused, would we not use all the means which God and nature have placed within our power to remove such evils ? Would not duty to ourselves, to our offspring, to God, and to humanity, demand that we should rise with one accord and hurl our oppressors from us ? Can we justify our fathers of the Revolu- tion in their patriotic struggle for political freedom, and then turn round and condemn the slaves of the South for breaking the chains which hold them in physical bond- age and in intellectual degradation? No, sir; no lover of- justice, no unbiassed mind, could blame them for asserting and main- taining their inalienable rights." — Hon. J. R. Giddings, in House of Representatives, April 25, 1848. " The people of Boston did not see fit to interfere between the administration and the 'negroes' of that city. In the name of hu- inanity I thank them for it, and assure them and the country that those whom I represent never will interfere in such case. The citizen who would do so would be driven from decent society in northern Ohio. It is here, on this point, that I take issue with the supporters of this law. That portion which commands me to assist in catching slaves is a flagrant usurpation of power, unauthorized by the constitution. My constituents hold that por- tion of the law in detestation. They spurn and abhor it. I say, as I have often said, ' My constituents will not help 3*011 catch your slaves.' They will feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and direct the wanderer on his way, and use every peaceful means to assist him to regain his God-given rights. If you pursue your slave there, they will let you catch him, if you can. If he defends himself against you, they will rejoice. If you press him so hard that he is constrained actually to slay you in self-defence, why, sir, they will look on and submit with proper resignation. In such cases they will carry out their peace princi- ples by abstaining from all interference." — Hon. J. R. Giddings. See page 453 of his Book of Speeches. " I would not be understood as desiring a servile insurrection ; but I say to Southern gentlemen, that there are hundreds of thou- sands of honest and patriotic men who will ' laugh at your calamity, and will mock when your fear cometh.' If blood and massacre should mark the struggle for liberty of those who for ages have been oppressed and de- graded, my prayer to the God of heaven shall be, that justice, stern, unyielding justice, may be awarded to both master and slave. I de- sire that every human being may enjoy the rights with which the God of nature has en- dowed him. If those rights can be regained by the down-trodden sons of Africa in our Southern States, by quiet and peaceful means, I hope they will pursue such peaceful mea- sures. But, if they cannot regain their God- given rights by peaceful measures, I never- theless hope they will regain them ; and, if blood be shed, I should certainly hope that it might be the blood of those who stand between them and freedom, and not the blood of those who have long been robbed of their wives and children, and all they hold dear in life." — Hon. J. R. Giddings. Seepages 159 and 1G0 of his Book of Speeches. " Sir, I would intimidate no one ; but I tell you there is a spirit in the North which will set at defiance all the low and unworthy machinations of this Executive, and of the minions of its power. When the contest shall come ; when the thunder shall roll, and the lightning flash ; when the slaves shall rise in the South ; when, in imitation of the Cuban bondmen, the southern slaves of the South shall feel that they are men ; when they feel the stirring emotions of immortality, and re- cognise the stirring truth that they are men, and entitled to the rights which God has be- stowed upon them ; when the slaves shall feel that, and when masters shall turn pale and tremble ; when their dwellings shall smoke, and dismay sit on each countenance : then, sir, I do not say, ' We will laugh at your ca- lamity, and mock when your fear cometh ;' but I do say, when that time shall come, the lovers of our race will stand forth and exert the legitimate powers of this government for freedom. We shall then have constitutional power to act for the good of our country, and do justice to the slave. " Then will we strike off the shackles from the limbs of the slaves. That will be a peril id when this government will have power to act between slavery and freedom, and when it can make peace by giving freedom to the slaves. And let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that time hastens. It is rolling forward. The President is exerting a power that will hasten it, though not intended by him. I hail it as I do the approaching dawn of that poli- tical and moral millennium which I am well assured will come upon the world." — Hon. J. R. Giddings, in House of Rep., March 16, 1854. 24 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. "Mr. Hale congratulated the convention upon the spirit of unanimity with which it had done its work. I believe, said he, that this is not so much a convention to change the ad- ministration of the government, but to say whether there shall be any government to be administered. You have assembled, not to say whether this Union shall be preserved, but to say whether it shall be a blessing or a scorn and hissing among the nations. Some men pretend to be astonished and surprised at the events which are occurring around us ; but I am not more surprised than I shall be this autumn to see the fruits following the buds and the blossoms." — Hon. J. P. Hale, Senator from New Hampshire, a delegate to tin- Republican Convention of the 17 th of June, 1856. "Washington, Sunday, Aug. 10, 1856. " Gentlemen : — I have received your very polite note of the 6th inst., inviting me to at- tend a mass meeting at the Tabernacle on the evening of the 21st inst. I regret that it is not in my power to be present with you on that occasion, but my engagements will not permit me. . I rejoice in your movement. I have faith and hope in progress. I look for- ward hopefully for the day when the word slave shall be without practical meaning in this, or the Eastern Continent ; when univer- sal man shall stand erect as God intended he should, calling no one lord or master save the common Father of us all, and recognising no government save that which is founded on the principles of Eternal Justice and universal rights of humanity. If I did not believe that the election of Fremont and Dayton would be a step in that direction, the movement would receive little sympathy from me. "With much respect, gentlemen, I am your friend, John V. Hale." " A man, then, who has no feeling in com- mon with us, who never felt the pulse of liberty till he set foot upon our soil, such a man is to enjoy the opportunity and the right to vote amongst us, whilst these rights are to be denied to the unfortunate black man, who lias ten times more intelligence, and who has lived in the state of Indiana from his birth." — l>arid Kilijare, in the Indiana Constitutional Convention in 1850. [See Debates in the Convention, vol. 1, p. 253.] "Justice and liberty, God and man, demand the dissolution of this slaveholding Union and the formation of a Northern Confederacy, in which slaveholders shall stand before the law as felons and be treated as pirates. God and humanity demand a ballot-box in which the slaveholders shall never cast a ballot. In this, what state so prepared to lead as the old Bay State? Slie has already made it a penal >fience to help to execute a law of the Union. I want to sec the officers of the state brought into collision with those of the Union. "No union with slaveholders. Up with the flag of disunion, that we may have a free and glorious union of our own," &c. — William L. Garrison. " Mark ! How stands Massachusetts at this hour in reference to the Union ? Just where she ought to be — in an attitude of open hostility." — The Liberator, Garrison,'s paper. "A Northern Confederacy, with no unLn with slaveholders. To all this is fast tending, and to this all must soon come. The long' r it is delayed, the worse for the country, and for the cause of freedom. To this end all who love liberty will labor." — Liberator, Sept., 1855. " But one Issue — The Dissolution of the Union. — See what the desperate and infernal spirit of the South is, by turning to the ' Re- fuge of Oppression/ and by reading the intel- ligence from Kansas in subsequent columns, and then sign and circulate this petition. " To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: " The undersigned, citizens and inhabitants of State of respectfully submit to Congress : " That as, in the nature of things, antago- nistical principles, interests, pursuits, and in- stitutions can never unite : " That an experience of more than three- score years having demonstrated that there can be no real union between the North and the South, but, on the contrary, ever increasing alienation and strife, at the imminent hazard of civil war, in consequence of their con- flicting views in relation to freedom and slavery : " That the South, having declared it to be not only her right and purpose to eternize her slave system where it now exists, but to ex- tend it over all the territories that now belong or may hereafter be annexed to the republic, come what may ; and having outlawed from her soil the entire free colored population of the North, made it perilous for any Northern white citizen to exercise his constitutional right of freedom of speech in that section of the country, and even in the national capitol, and proclaimed her hostility to all free institutions universally : " We, therefore, believe that the time has come for a new arrangement of elements so hostile, of interests so irreconcileable, of insti- tutions so incongruous ; and we earnestly re- quest Congress, at its present session, to take such initiatory measures for the speedy, peace- ful, and equitable dissolution of the existing Union as the exigencies of the case require — leaving the South to depend upon her own resources, and to take all the responsibility, in the maintenance of her slave system, and the North to organize an independent govern- ment in accordance with her own ideas of justice and the rights of man." — Liberator, June 20, 185G. " The United States Constitution is a cove- nant with death, and an agreement with hell."— Liberator, June 20, 1850. ABOLITIONISTS AND REPUBLICANS. 25 " Independence Day.- -This is the Eightieth Aniversary of American Independence. That independence began in a spirit of compromise with the foul spirit of slavery ; it ends with every seventh person in the land a chattel slave — the universal mastery of a slaveholding oligarchy — the overthrow of all the constitu- tional rights of Northern citizens — the reign of Lynch Law and Border Ruffianism through- out the entire South — the subversion of the national government by a clique of desperate and unprincipled demagogues, of which the President is a miserable and perjured tool — the reign of violence, tyranny, and blood, on a frightful scale. So much for disregarding the ' Higher Law' by our fathers! So mu^h for entering into ' a covenant with death, aud an agreement with hell !' Truly, God is just, and our national retribution another striking proof that, as a people sow, so shall they also reap. A new revolution has begun — another secession is to take place — and freedom for all secured upon a sure basis. ' No union with slaveholders !' " — Liberator, 4th July, 1856. " The Dissolution of the Union essential to the Abolition of Slavery. — But until we cease to strike hands religiously, politically, and governmentally with the South, and de- clare the Union to be at an end, I believe we can do nothing even against the encroach- ments of the slave power upon our rights. When will the people of the North see that it is not possible for liberty and slavery to com- mingle, or for a true union to be formed be- tween freemen and slaveholders? Between those who oppress and the oppressed, no con- cord is possible. This Union — it is a lie, an imposture, and our first business is to seek its utter overthrow. In this Union there are three millions and a half of slaves clanking their chains in hopeless bondage. Let the Union be accursed ! Look at the awful com- promises of the constitution by which that in- strument is saturated with the blood of the slave !" — -Boston Liberator. " In conclusion I have only to add that such is my solemn and abiding conviction of the character of slavery, that under a full sense of my responsibility to my country and my God, I deliberately say, better disunion — better a civil or a servile war — better anything that God in his providence shall send — than an extension of the bounds of slavery." — Hon. Horace Mann, formerly of Massachusetts, in the House of Rep. during the olst Congress. " Having thus given an exposition of the action of the Convention, and defined our po- sition, we shall henceforth do all that may lie in our power to bring about a perfect union of the friends of freedom at home and of good faith and peace in our foreign relations, against the Cincinnati nominations, pledged as they are by the platform which accompanies them, and the majority who framed both, to slavery at home and filibustering abroad. Like many others, we may have been vexed, disappointed, sometimes mortified, at the injudicious and unfair measures of men who ought to have known better ; but, we place our great move- ment above men : it is the only movement which aims or is calculated to save Kansas, and put an end to the despotism which re- pealed the Missouri Compromise, and is per- petually seeking to subjugate the country to slavery : its platform is clear, sound, and comprehensive: its nominations must repre- sent it : by sustaining them, we sustain it : opposition to them will only tend to perpetu- ate the spirit and policy of an administration which has brought the country to the verge of civil and foreign war. Will not patriotic men, whatever may have been their prefer- ences, hesitate long before assuming such a responsibility as that V * '-* * -s * " Thank God ! the movement has escaped this danger; the counsels of temporizing men have failed ; to the bold, clear-sighted Joshua R. Giddings, sustained by the good sense of the Convention, are we indebted for the preser- vation of the Great Movement against the Slave Power, free from all entangling allian- ces." — National Era, of June 26, 1856. " The Philadelphia Convention has defined the issues of the campaign, framed the plat- form, made the nominations, and respectfully called upon the people of the United States, without distinction of party, to sustain them. We shall be very happy to see North Ameri- cans and South Americans and all sorts of Americans rallying to the standard of Fre- mont, and uniting to put down the slave power, but let us have no talk of special arrangements with any particular class or party." — National Era, July 3, 1856. " Let me suppose a case which may happen here and before long. A woman flies from South Carolina to Massachusetts to escape from bondage. Mr. Greatheart aids her in her escape, harbors and conceals her, and is brought to trial for it. The punishment is a fine of one thousand dollars and imprison- ment for six. months. I am drawn to serve as a juror and pass upon this offence. I may refuse to serve and be punished for that, leaving men with no scruples to take my place, or I may take the juror's oath to give a verdict according to the law and the testi- mony. The. law is plain, let us suppose, and the testimony conclusive. Greatheart himself confesses that he did the deed alleged, saving one ready to perish. The judge charges that if the jurors are satisfied of that fact, then they must return that he is guilty. This is a nice matter. Here are two questions. The one put to me in my official capacity as juror, is this — " Did Greatheart aid the woman ?" The other, put to me in my natural character as man, is this — " Will you help to punish Greatheart with fine and .imprisonment for helping a woman to obtain her unalienable rights 1" If I have extinguished my man- hood by my juror's oath, then I shall do mj 26 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. official business and find Greatheart guilty, and I shall seem to be a true man ; but if I value my manhood, I shall answer after my al duty to love a man and not hate him, to do him justice, not injustice, to allow him tatural rights he has not alienated, and say ' not guilty.' Then men will call me forsworn and a liar, but I think human nature will justify the verdict. " The man who attacks me to reduce me to slavery, in that moment of attack alienates [lis right to life, and if I were the fugitive, a . ■! could escape in no other way, I would kill him with as little compunction as I would drive a mosquito from my face."— -A Sermon, by Rev. Theodore Parker. " We confess that we intend to trample under foot the constitution of this country. Daniel Webster says : ' You are a law-abiding people;' that the glory of New^ England is, ' that it is a law-abiding community.' Shame on it, if this be true ; if even the religion of New England sinks as low as its statute-book. But I say we are not a law-abiding community. God be thanked for it ["—Wendell Phillips, of Massachusetts, at a Free-Soil meeting in Boston, in May, 1849. Wendell Phillips issued a pamphlet in 1850, reviewing Mr. Webster's speech " on the con- stitutional rights of the States," in which is the following : — " We are disunionists, not from any love of separate confederacies, or as ignorant of the thousand evils that spring from neighboring and quarrelsome States, but we would get rid of this Union." — " He wished for the dissolution of the Union, because he wanted Massachusetts to be left free to right her own wrongs. If so, she would have no trouble in sending her ships to Charleston and laying it in ashes. There was no state in the Union that would not contract, at a low figure, to whip South Caro- lina. Massachusetts could do it with one hand tied behind her back. He did not like 3uch a republic as this. It was against his conscience. He hated and abhorred it. In order to hold any office under the government of the United States a man must swear to support the constitution, and consequently to support slavery in its various phases. It was as inevitable that this Union should be dis- solved as that water and oil must separate, no matter how much they may be shaken. They i mid not tell how it was to be done, but done it must !>:•." — Edmund Quincy, of Mans., at American X. )'. Anti-Slavery Society meeting, al New Yuri;, May 13, 1857. " The Nebraska fraud is not that burden on which i now intend to speak. There is one nearer home, more immediately present and ■ insupportable. Of what that burden is I shall speak plainly. The obligation incum- bent upon the free states to deliver up fugi- tive slaves is that burden — and it must 1 li- berated from that Constitution at every hazard. " And such an obliteration can be demon strated to be as much the interest of the South as it is of the North."— Hon. Josiah Quincy at Boston, Aug. 18, 1854. " Resolved, That while we would express our deep gratitude to all those earnest men and women who find time and strength, amid their labors in behalf of British reform, to study, understand, and protest against Ameri- can slavery, to give us their sympathy and aid, by munificent contributions, and by holding our Union up to the contempt of Europe, w« feel it would not be invidious to mention Wil- liam and Mary Ilowitt, Henry Vincent, and George Thompson, as those to whose untiring advocacy our cause is especially indebted in this country, as well as for the hold it has gained on the hearts of the British people. "Resolved, That the discriminating sense of justice, the steadfast devotedness, the generous munificence, the untiring zeal, the industry, skill, taste, and genius, with which British abolitionists have co-operated with us for the extinction of slavery, command our gratitude. " From the abolitionists of England, Scotland, and Ireland, we have received renewed and in- creasing assurances and proofs of their constant and enlightened zeal in behalf of the American slave. Liberal gifts from all of these countries, falling behind none of the most bounteous of former years, helped to fill the scanty treasury of the slave."— -Resolutions of the American Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. A convention held in Boston in 1855, adopted by a unanimous vote, these resolutions : — " Resolved, That a constitution which pro- vides for a slave representation and a slave oligarchy in Congress, which legalizes slave- hunting and slave-catching on every inch of American soil, and which pledges the military and naval power of the country to keep four millions of chattel slaves in their chains, is to be trodden under foot and pronounced ac- cursed, however unexceptionable or valuable may be its other provisions. " Resolved, That the one great issue before the country is, the dissolution of the Union,_in comparison with which all other issues with the slave power are as dust in the balance ; therefore we will give ourselves to the work of annulling this 'covenant with death,' as essen- tial to our own innocency, and the speedy and everlasting overthrow of the slave system." The following resolution passed the Legis- lature of New Hampshire, of 1856 : — " Resolved, That the people of New Hamp- shire demand as a right the restoration of said Compromise, and the amendment of the Kan- sas and Nebraska bill, so called, so as to ex- clude slavery from said territories, and will never consent to the admission into the Union of any state out of said territory with a con- stitution tolerating slavery." A convention was held in the city of Buf- falo in 1843, at which the following resolution ABOLITIONISTS AND REPUBLICANS. 27 was unanimously adopted, with Salmon P. Chase as chairman of the committee on reso- lutions: — " Resolved, That we hereby give it to be distinctly understood, by this nation and the world, that, as Abolitionists, considering that the strength of our cause lies in its righteous- ness, and our hopes for it in our conformity to the laws of God, and our support of the rights of man, we owe to the sovereign Ruler of the Universe, as a proof of our allegiance to Him, in all our civil relations and offices, whether as friends, citizens, or as public functionaries, sworn to support the Constitution of the Uni- ted States, to regard and treat the third clause of the instrument, whenever applied in the case of a fugitive slave, as utterly null and void, and consequently as forming no part of the Constitution of the U. States, whenever we are called upon or sworn to support it." " Recognising, therefore, the paramount issue, I recognise, as the only practical means of sustaining our position upon that issue, our co-operation with the masses of our friends in other states in the formation of the Republi- can party of the Union. — Julius Rockwell, Mas- sachuselts Free-soil Candidate for Governor. " Yes, with that freedom and Fremont and Dayton emblazoned on the ample folds of our national banner, we will drive the base min- ions of slavery from their control of the Gov- ernment, and we will use its powers to build up our new countiy free from the taints of slavery, and make America worthy of being the North Star of freedom, by which the eye of the exile can be guided with safety to the asylum of liberty." — Ron. W. R. Sapp, of Ohio, in the House of Reps., 1st Sess. o-ilh Cong. Mr. Seward declared, in a speech which he made in Cleveland, in 1848 : " What, then, you say, can nothing be done for freedom because the public conscience is inert ? Yes ; much can be done, everything can be done. "Auburn, April 5, 1851. " Dear Sir : Your letter inviting me to attend a convention of the people of Massa- chusetts opposed to the fugitive slave law, and to communicate in writing my opinion on that statute, if I should be unable to attend the convention, has been received. " While offering the pressure of duties here too long deferred as an apology for non-attend- ance, I pray you to assure the committee in whose behalf you act of my profound sense of their courtesy and kindness. It would be an honor to be invited to address the people of Massachusetts on any subject, but it might well satisfy a generous ambition to be called upon to speak to that great and enlightened "Commonwealth on a question of human rights and civil liberty. " I confess, sir, that I have earnestly desir- ed not to mingle in the popular discussions of the measures of the last Congress. The issue necessarily involves the claims of their advocates and adversaries in the public coun- cils to the confidence of the country. Some of those advocates have entered the popular arena, criminating those from whom they had differed, while others have endeavored by ex- traordinary means either to control discussion or to suppress it altogether, and thus they have shoAvn themselves disqualified, by pre- judice or interest, for practising that impar- tiality and candor which the occasion de- manded. " I am unwilling even to seem to imply, by reiterating arguments already before the pub- lic, either any distrust of the position of those with whom I stood in Congress or im- patience for that favorable popular verdict which I believe to be near, and know to be ultimately certain. " Nevertheless, there can be no impro- priety in my declaring, when thus questioned, the opinions which will govern my vote upon any occasion when the fugitive slave law shall come up for review in the national legis- lature. " I think the act signally unwise, because it is an attempt, by a purely federative govern- ment, to extend the economy of slave states throughout states which repudiate slavery as a moral, social, and political evil. Any despotic government would awaken sedition from its profoundest slumbers by such an attempt. " The attempt by the Government has arous- ed constitutional resistance, which will not cease until the effort shall be relinquished. He who teaches another faith than this, whether self-deceived or not, misleads. I think, also, that the attempt was unnecessary ; that poli- tical ends — merely political ends — and not real evils resulting from the escape of slaves, constituted the prevailing motives to the enactment." — Letter of the Hon. W. H. Seward. "We deem the principle of the law, for the recapture of fugitive slaves, unjust, un- constitutional, and immoral ; and thus, while patriotism withholds its approbation, the conscience of our people condemns it. You will say that these convictions of ours are dis- loyal. Grant it, for the sake of argument. They are nevertheless honest ; and the law is to be executed among us, not among you ; not by us, but by the federal authority. Has any government ever succeeded in changing the moral convictions of its subjects by force ? But these convictions imply no disloyalty. We reverence the Constitution, although we perceive this defect, just as we acknowledge the splendor and the power of the sun, although its surface is tarnished with here and there an opaque spot. " We cannot, in our judgment, be either true Christians or real freemen, if we impose on another a chain that we defy all human power to fasten on ourselves. You believe and think otherwise, and doubtless with equal 28 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. sincerity. We judge you not, and He alone, ■who ordained the conscience of man and its laws of action, can judge us. Do we then, in this conflict, demand of you an unreason- able thing, in asking that, since you will have property that can and will exercise human powers to effect its escape, you shall be your own police, and in acting among us as such, you shall conform to principles in- dispensable to the security of admitted rights of freemen ? If you will have this law executed, you must alleviate, not increase its rigors. " The Constitution regulates our steward- ship ; the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to justice, to defence, to welfare, and to liberty. " But there is a higher law than the Con- stitution, which regulates our authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes." — Mr. Seward's Higher Law Speech. " Wherein do the strength and security of slavery lie ? You answer that they lie in the constitution of the United States, and the con- stitutions and laws of the slaveholding states. Not at all. They lie in the erroneous senti- ment of the American people. Constitutions and laws can no more rise above the virtue of the people than the limpid stream can climb above its native spring. Inculcate, then, the love of freedom and the equal rights of man under the paternal roof ; see to it that they are taught in the schools and in the churcb.es ; reform your own code ; extend a cordial welcome to the fugitive who lays his weary limbs at your door, and defend him as you would your paternal gods. Correct your own error — that slavery has any constitutional guarantee which may not be released, and ought not to be relinquished." And he says further on : " Whenever the public mind shall will the abolition of slavery, the way will open for it. — Mr. Seward's Speech at Cleveland in 1848. " Slavery can be limited to its present bounds ; it can be ameliorated. It can be, and it must be abolished, and you and I can and must do it. — Speech of Mr. Seward." " The task is as simple and easy as its con- summation will be beneficent, and its rewards glorious. It requires to follow only this sim- ple rule of action : To do everywhere and on every occasion, what we can, and not to neg- lect or refuse to do what we can, at any time, because at that precise time and on that par- ticular occasion we cannot do more. Circum- stances determine possibilities." — Speech of Mr. Seward. " Slavery is not, and never can be, perpe- tual. It will be overthrown either peacefully and lawfully under this Constitution, or ii vifl work the subversion of the Constitution to gether with its own overthrow. Then the slaveholders would perish in the struggle. The change can now be made without vio- lence, and by the agency of the ballot-box. The temper of the nation is just, liberal, and forbearing. It will contribute any money and endure any sacrifices to effect this great and important change ; indeed, it is half made already. The House of Representatives is already yours, as it always must be when you choose to have it. The Senate of the United States is equally within, your power, ii 7 von only will persistently endeavor, for two years, to have it. Notwithstanding all the wrong that has been done, not another slave State can now come into the Union. Make only one year's constant, decisive effort, and you can determine what States shall be ad- mitted * * * * * * * * * * " I do not know, and personally I do not greatly care, that it [abolition] shall work out its great ends this year or the next, or in my lifetime; because I know that those ends are ultimately sure, and that time and trial are the elements which make all great reforma- tions sure and lasting." — From the Hon. W. H. Seward's speech at Albany, Oct. 12, 1855. " In the case of the alternative being pre- sented of the continuance of slavery or a dis- solution of the Union, I am for dissolution, and I care not how quick it comes." — Judge Spaulding of Ohio, in the Republican Conven- tion. Senator Sumner, of Massachusetts, in a speech delivered in Faneuil Hall, Boston, on the 2d November, 1855, said : " Not that I love the Union less, but free- dom more, do I now, in pleading this great cause, insist that freedom, at all hazards, shall be preserved. God forbid that for the sake of the Union, we should sacrifice the very thing for which the Union was made." Debate in the Senate on the 26th of June, 1854. " Mr. Butler. I would like to ask the Sena- tor, if Congress repealed the Fugitive Slave Law, would Massachusetts execute the con- stitutional requirements, and send back to the South the absconding slaves ? " Mr. Sumner. Do you ask if I would send back a slave ? " Mr. Butler. Why, yes. " Mr. Sumner. Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing ? " Mr. Butler. Then you would hot obey the constitution. Sir, standing here before this tribunal, where you swore to support it. you rise and tell me that you regard it the office of a dog to enforce it. You stand in my presence as a co-equal Senator, and tell me that it is a dog's office to execute the Constitu tion of the United States?" To which Mr. Sumner said : " I recognise no such obliga- tion." The New York Tribune, a. leading and powerful press in the North, whilst the Ne- braska bill was before Congress, remarked : — " Better that confusion should ensue ; better that discord should reign in the national coun- ABOLITIONISTS AND REPUBLICANS 29 and oils ; better that Congress should break up in wild disorder ; nay, better that the Capitol it- self should blaze by the torch of the incendia- ry, or fall and bury all its inmates beneath its crumbling ruins, than that this perfidy i ■wrong should be finally accomplished." •■ We love (rpioted) the Whig party, but we love its principles more. We dislike Aboli- tiouism ; but we would rather a thousand times vote for Garrison and Tappan as Presi- dent and Vice-President than tamely submit for an hour to the humiliation which the Sen- ate has put upon us by the repeal of the Mis- scuri Compromise. " We are willing (quoted again) to consort with the most rabid Abolitionists in order to restore the Missouri Compromise, and thus redress a great wrong." — Gen. Webb's Netv York Courier and Enquirer. Gen. James Watson Webb was a delegate to. the Republican Convention, at Philadelphia, and delivered a speech, from which we make the following extract : — " Why, I ask, are we here ? We are here because the country is in danger. We are here because a solemn compact, by which the curse of slavery was limited for ever to latitude 36 deg. 30 min. has been violently disruptured, torn asunder, and the people of the North told • y>u shall have this matter forced upon you.' Nc w, what are the people doing ? Our people, loving order and loving law, and willing to abide by the ballot-box, come together from all parts of the Union and ask us to give them a nomination which, when fairly put before the people, will unite public sentiment, and, through the ballot-box, will restrain and repel this pro-slavery extension, and this aggression of the slaveocracy. What else are they doing ? They tell you that they are willing to abide by the ballot-box, and willing to make that the last appeal. If we fail there, what then ? We will drive it back, sword in hand, and, so help me God! believing that to be right, I am with them. [Loud cheers, and cries of ' Good.'] Now, then, gentlemen, on your action depends the result. You may, with God's blessing, present to this country a name rallying around it all the elements of the op- position, and we will thus become so strong that through the ballot-box we shall save the country. But, if a name be presented on which we may not rally, and the consequence is civil Avar — yes, nothing more, nothing less, but civil war — I ask, then, what is our first duty V The lion. Benjamin F. Wade, now a U. S. Senator from Ohio, spoke thus : — " He thought there was but one issue before the people, and that was the question of American slavery. He said the Whig party is not only dead, but stinks. It shows signs occasionally of convulsive spasms, as is some- times exhibited in the dead snake's tail after the head and body have been buried." Senator Wade of Ohio, in a speech to a masa meeting of the Republicans, held in the State of Maine in 1855, according to the Boston Atlas said : — " There was no freedom at the South for either white or black, and he would strive to protect the free soil of the North from the same blighting curse. There was really no Union now between the North and the South, and he believed no two nations upon the earth entertained feelings of more bitter rancor to- wards each other than these two sections of the republic. The only salvation of the Union, therefore, was to be found in divesting it en- tirely from all taint of slavery. There was no Union with the South. Let us have a Union, said he, or let us sweep away this remnant which we call a Union. I go for a Union where all men are equal, or for no Union at all, and I go for right." " Let us remember that more than three millions of bondmen, groaning under name- less woes, demand that w T e shall cease to re- prove each other, and that we labor for their deliverance. ***** " I tell you here to-night, that the agitation of this question of human slavery will continue while the foot of a slave presses the soil of the American republic. "- Staies Senator. -Henry Wilson, United Hear Henry Wilson, Senator, in the Phila- delphia American Convention, June 12, 1850 : " I am in favor of relieving the Federal Government from all connection with, and re- sponsibility for, the existence of slavery. To effect this object I am in favor of the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and the prohibition of slavery in all the Territories." In October of 1855, Senator Wilson of Mass. made a speech at the Tabernacle, in New York, in which he said : — " Every generous impulse of the human heart is with us — every affection of the human conscience is with us ; the great hopes of the human race are all with us, and we shall triumph in the end : we shall overthrow the slave power of the republic; we shall enthrone freedom ; shall abolish slavery in the terri- tories; we shall sever the national government from all responsibility for slavery, and all connection with it; and then, gentlemen, them when we have put the nation, in the words of Mr. Van Buren, openly, actually, and per- petually on the side of freedom, we shall have glorious allies in the South. We shall have men like Cassius M. Clay. [Loud applause.] We shall have generous, brave, gallant men rise upon the South, who will, in their own time, in their own way, for the interest of the master and bondsman, lay the foundation of a policy of emancipation that shall give free- dom to three and a half millions of men, in America. [Enthusiastic applause.] I say, 50 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. gentlemen, these are our objects, and these are our purposes. " We shall change the Supreme Court of the United States, and place men in that Court ■who believe with its pure and immaculate Chief Justice, John Jay, that our prayers will be impious to Heaven while we sustain and support human slavery. We shall free the Supreme Court of the United States from Judge Kane. [Loud applause.] And here let me say there is a public sentiment growing up in this country that regards Passmore Williamson in his prison — [tremendous ap- plause] — in his prison in Philadelphia, as a martyr to the holy cause of personal liberty. [Great applause.] There is a public senti- ment springing up that will brand upon the brow of Judge Kane a mark that will make him exclaim, as his namesake, the elder Cain, a It is too great for me to bear.' " Hon. Henry Wilson spoke in Boston : — " Mr. Chairman and Ladies and Gentlemen : This is not the time nor the place for me to utter a word. You have listened to the elo- quence of my young friend, and here to-night I endorse everv sentiment he has uttered. In public or private life, in majorities or in minorities, at home or abroad, I intend to live and die with unrelenting hostility to slavery on my lips. I make no compromises anywhere, at home or abroad ; I shall yield nothing of my anti-slavery sentiments to advance my own personal interests, to advance party interest, or to meet the demands of any state or section of our country. I hope to be able to main- tain, on all occasions, these principles, to com- prehend in my affections the whole country — and when I say the whole country, I want everybody to understand that I include in that term Massachusetts and the North. This is not the time for me to detain you. You have called on me, most unexpectedly, to say a word, and, having done so, I will retire, thanking you for the honor of this occasion." " I recognise no power under heaven that can make a man a slave. I recognise no con- stitution — no law that can deprive a man of his personal rights and liberty ; and I, a citi- zen of New York, am ready to place this state in that attitude. " Suppose New York takes that ground ; what then? Some talk of revolution, as if that were to be the dreaded result. Sir, I love the word. When this great state, with her three millions and upward of freemen, takes that position, then I know that a deathblow is struck against African slavery. " I would not permit a fugitive from the South to be taken from our limits. What then ? What power can compel us to ac- quiesce ? Will James Buchanan march troops into New York to coerce us into submission? We know that no attempt will be made thus to coerce this state when it takes this posi- tion." — Speaker of the N. Y. House of Dele- gates, on the Dred Scott Case. Adams, John Quiucy. Speech of, on the Admission of Arkansas. Mr. Chairman, I cannot, consistently with my sense of my obligations as a citizen of the United States, and bound by oath to support their Constitution, I cannot object to the ad- mission of Arkansas into the Union as a slave state ; I cannot propose or agree to make it a condition of her admission that a convention of her people shall expunge this article from her constitution. She is entitled to admission as a slave state as Louisiana, and Mississippi, and Alabama, and Missouri have been admit- ted, by virtue of that article in the treaty for the acquisition of Louisiana, Avhich secures to the inhabitants of the ceded territories all the rights, privileges, and immunities of the original citizens of the United States, and sti- pulates for their admission, conformably to that principle, into the Union. Louisiana was purchased as a country wherem slavery was the established law of the land. As Congress have not power in time of peace to abolish slavery in the original states of the Union, they are equally destitute of the power in those parts of the territory ceded by France to the United States, by the name of Louisiana, where slavery existed at the time of the acqui- sition. Slavery is in this Union the subject of internal legislation in the states, and in peace is cognizable by Congress only, as it is tacitly tolerated and protected where it exists by the Constitution of the United States, and as it mingles in their intercourse with other na- tions. Arkansas, therefore, comes, and has the right to come, into the Union with her slaves and her slave laws. It is written in the bond, and however I may lament that it ever was so written, I must faithfully perform its obligations. Aiken, William. Vote of, on last ballot for Speaker of 34th Congress. (See N. P. Banks, Jr.) Letter of, containing his Answers to certain Interrogatories. House of Representatives, Feb. 4, 1856. Dear Sir: — I observe in the Globe of this morning a note appended by Mr. Bar lay to his remarks of Saturday, in which my reply to Mr. A. K. Marshall, of Kentucky, is incor- rectly stated. I .have this moment conferred with Mr. Marshall, and his recollection con- curs with my own, that the following is the substance of his question and of my answer: Mr. Marshall's question : "Are you hostile to, or have you ever denounced the American party ?" My answer was — " It is not my habit to de- nounce anything — either men or measures — and I have friends in the American party. though not a member of it myself." Let me request you to publish this note ir, the Globe, &c. Resp'y yours, William Aiken. John C. Rives, Esq. ALABAMA.— ALIEN SUFFRAGE. 31 Alabama. By Act of Congress of March 3, 1817, the eastern portion of the territory of Mississippi was constituted into a territory, called Ala- bama. This act was silent as to slavery. By Act of March 2, 1819, the people of Alabama territory were authorized to form a state government. This act was also silent on the question of slavery. On the 8th of December, 1819, in the Senate, the bill reported by Mr. Williams, of Missis- sippi, from a committee on the subject, admit- ting Alabama as a state into the Union, was passed by unanimous consent. On the same day it avow parsed by the House without a vote by yeas and nays, and was ap- proved by the President on the 14th of De- cember, 1819. Alien Suffrage. Qualifications of Voters in States and Territories, where Alien Suffrage is allowed. Indiana. — Sec. 1. All elections shall be free and equal. 2. In all elections, not otherwise provided for by this constitution, every white male citizen of the United States, of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, who shall have resided in the state during the six months immediately preceding such election ; and every white male of foreign birth of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, who shall have resided in the United States one year, and shall have resided in this state dur- ing the sis months immediately preceding such election, and shall have declared his in- tention to become a citizen of the United States, conformably to the laws of the United States on the subject of naturalization, shall be entitled to vote in the township or precinct where he may reside. Illinois. — Sec. 1. In all elections, every white male citizen above the age of twenty- one years, having resided in the state one year next preceding the election, shall be en- titled to vote at such election ; and every white male inhabitant of the age aforesaid, who may be a resident of the state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall have the right of voting as aforesaid, but no such citizen or inhabitant shall be entitled to vote except in the district or county in which he shall actually reside at the time of such election. Michigan. — Sec. 1. In all elections, every white male citizen and every white male inhabitant residing in the state on the twenty- fourth day of June, one thousand eight hun- dred and thirty-five ; every white male in- habitant residing in this state on the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and fifty, who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, pur- suant to the laws thereof, six months preced- ing an election, or who has* resided in this state two years and six months, and declared his intention as aforesaid ; and every civilized male inhabitant of Indian descent, a native of the United States and not a member of any tribe, shall be an elector and entitled to vote: 1 but no citizen or inhabitant shall be an elector, or entitled to vote at any election, unless he shall be above the age of twenty-one years, and has resided in this state three months, and in the township or ward in which he offers to vote, ten days next preceding such election. Wisconsin. — Every male person of the age of twenty-one years or upwards, of the follow- ing classes, who shall have resided in this state for one year next preceding any election, shall be deemed a qualified elector at such election. White citizens of the United States. White persons of foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citi- zens, conformably to the laws of the United States on the subject of naturalization. The Ordinance of 1787 provided the follow- ing qualification of voters in the N. W. Terri- tory: " That a freehold in fifty acres of land in the district, having been a citizen of one of the states and being a resident in the dis or the like freehold and two years' residence in the district, shall be necessary to quail: a man as an elector of a representative." Mississippi Territory. — The act of A . ; 7, 1798, extended the above provision of the Ordinance of 1787 to that territory. Indiana Territory. — The act of Mav 7, 1800, retained the above provision of the I nance of 1787, over that portion of the N. W . territory formed into Indiana. Illinois Territory. — The act of May 7, 1800, also retained the above provision of the Ordinance of 1787, over the Illinois portion of Indiana territory. Michigan Territory.— Act of Jan. 11, 1805, retained the above provision of the Ordinance of 1787, over the Michigan portion of Indiana Territory. Oregon Territory — Organic Laic. — Every white male inhabitant above the age of twei I ■ - one years, who shall have been a resident of said territory at the time of the passage of this act, and shall possess the qualifications hereinafter prescribed, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said territory ; but the qualifications of voters and of holding office at all subsequent elections shall be such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative Assembly. Provided that the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citi- zens of the United States above the age of twenty-one years, and those above that age who shall have declared on oath their inten- tion to become such, and shall have taken an 32 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. oath to support the Constitution of the United States. Minnesota Territory. — The organic law passed and approved by Congress, contained ;i similar provision to that of the Oregon bill. The territorial Legislature have passed the following act : — " All free white male inhabitants over the age of twenty-one years, who shall have re- sided within this territory six months next preceding an election, shall be entitled to vote at any election for delegates to Congress and for territorial, county, and precinct officers : Provided, That they shall be citizens of the United States, or shalLhave resided within the United States for a period of two years next preceding such election, and declared on oath before any court of record having a seal and clerk, or in time of vacation before the clerk thereof, his intention to become such ; and shall have taken an oath to support the Con- stitution of the United States, and the provi- sions of an act of Congress entitled ' An act to establish the territorial government of Minnesota,' approved March the third, one thousand eight hundred and forty-nine ; And provided also, That nothing in this chapter shall be so construed as to prohibit all persons of mixed white and Indian blood who have adopted the customs and habits of civilization, from voting." "Washington Territory — Organic Act. — Every white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been aresident of said territory at the time of the passage of this act, and shall possess the qualifications herein- after prescribed, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said territory ; but the qualifica- tions of voters and of holding office at all sub- sequent elections shall be such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative Assembly : Pro- vided, That the right of suffrage and of hold- ing office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States above the age of twenty- one years, and those above that age who shall have declared on oath their intention to be- come such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act. Legislative Act. — That any white American citizen above the age of twenty-one years, and all other white male inhabitants of this territory above that age who shall have de- clared on oath their intention to become citi- s and to support the Constitution of the I i 1 States, at least six months previous to the day of election, and who shall have resided months in the territory, and twenty days in Hie county, next preceding the day of elec- tion, and none others, shall be entitled to hold office or vote at any election in this territory. Nebraska and Kansas — Organic Laic. — Every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, who shall be an actual resident of said territory, and shall possess the qualifications hereinafter pre- scribed; shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said territory ; but the qualifica- tions of voters, and of holding office at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative Assembly : Provided, That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised onhy by citi- zens of the United States and those who shall have declared on oath their intention to be- come such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United State* and the provisions of this act. The Act of May 20, 1812, extended the right of suffrage in Illinois territory to every free white male person of twenty-one years of age, who shall have paid a county or terri- torial tax, and who shall have resided one year in said territory previous to any general election, &c. On the 1st of April, 1836, the bill for the admission of Michigan into the Union being under consideration, Mr. Clay of Kentucky moved to amend the same by inserting, after that part of it declaring that the constitution of Michigan is ratified and confirmed by Con- gress, the words " except that provision of said constitution by which aliens are permitted to enjoy the right of suffrage." The amendment was rejected by the follow- ing vote : — Yeas. — Messrs. Black of Miss., Calhoun of S. C, Clay of Ky., Crittenden of Ky., Davis of Mass., Ewing of 0.. Hen- dricks of Ind.. Leigh of Va.. Naudain of Del., Porter of La., Southard of N. J., Swift of Vt., Tomlinson of Coun., and White of Tenu— 14. Nats.— Messrs. Benton of Mo., Brown of N. C. Buchanan of Pa., Cuthbert of Ga., Ewing of 111., Grundy of Tenu.. Iiiil of N. H., Hubbard of N. II., King of Ala., King of Ga., Linn of Mo., Morris of 0., Nicholas of La., Bives of Va., Robinson of 111., Ruegles of Me., Shepley of Me.. Talmadge of N. Y., Tipton of Ind., Walker of Miss., and Wright of N. Y.— 22. On the 2d of March, 1854, the Clayton amendment to the Kansas-Nebraska bill of the Senate, which prohibited alien suffrage in the territories, was adopted by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Adams, Atchison. Badger, Bell, Benjamin, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Clay. Clayton, Dawson, Dixon. Evans, Fitzpatriek, Houston, Hunter, Johnson, Jones of Teun., Mason, Morton, Pratt, Sebastian, and Slidell. — 23. Nays. — Messrs. Chase, Dodge of Wis., Dodge of la., Dou- glass, Fessenden, Fish, Foot, Gwin, Hamlin, Jones of la., Norris, Pettit, Seward, Shields, Smith, Stuart, Sumner, Tou- cey, Wade, Walker, and Williams. — 21. Democrats in roman, Whigs in italics, Free- Soilers in small caps. In the House of Representatives, on the 22d of May, 1854, the vote on inserting Mr. Richardson's substitute for the Senate Kansas and Nebraska bill was as follows. Mr. Rich- ardson's substitute was the same as the Senate bill, with the exception that it allowed alien suffrage, whilst the Senate bill did not: in other words, the bill of Mr. Richarson omitted the Clayton amendment. Yeas. — Messrs. Abercrombie of Ala., James C. Allen of Til., Willis Allen of 111., Ashe of N. C, David J. Bailey of Ga.. Thomas II. Bayley of Va., Burksdale of Mist., Barry oi ALIEN SUFFRAGE 33 Miss., Bell ol Texas. KococK of Ta.. Boyce of S. C, Brecken- ridge of Ky., Bridges of Fa., Brooks of S. C. Caskie of Va., Chastain of Ga., Chrisman of Ky., Churchwell of Term.. Clark of Mich., Clingman of N. C, Cobb of Ala., Colquitt of Ga., Cox of Ky., Craige of X. C. Cumming of X. Y., Cutting of X. V., John G. Davis of Ind.. Dawson of Pa., Disney of 0., Dewdell of Ala, Dunbar of La., Dunham of Ind.. Edmondson of Va.. John M. Elliott of Ky.. English of Ind., Faulkner of Va., Florence of Pa., Fuller of Me.. Goode of Va., Green of 0., Greenwood of Ark., Grey of Ky., Hamilton of Md.. Samsou W. Harris of Ala.. Hendricks of Ind.. Horner of la., Ilib- bard of X. H., Hill of Ky., Hillyer of Ga., Houston of Ala., Ingcrsoll of Conn., George W. Jones of Tenn., J. Glancy Jones of Pa., Roland Jones of La., Kerr of X. C, Kidwell of Va., Kurtz of Pa., Lamb of Mo., Lane of Ind., Latham of Cal.. Letcher of Va., Lilly of X. J., Lindley of Mo, McDonald of Me., McDougall of Cal.. McXair of Pa., Maxwell of Fla., May of Md., John G. Miller of Mo., Smith Miller of Ind., Olds of 0., Mordecai Oliver of Mo., Orr of S. C, Packer of Pa., John Perkins of La.. Phelps of Mo., Philips of Ala- Powell of Va., Pratt of Conn., Preston of Ky., Rmdy of Tenn., Reese of Ga., Richardson of 111.. Riddle of Del., Rob- bins of Pa., Rowe of X. Y.. Ruffin of X. C, Seymour of Conn., Shannon of 0., Shaw of X. C, Shower of Md., Singleton of Miss., Samuel A. Smith of Tenn., William Smith of Va., William R. Smith of Ala., George W. Smith of Texas, Snod- grass of Va.. Frederick P. Stanton of Tenn., Richard II. Stanton of Ky., Alexander H. Stephens of Ga., Straub of Pa., David Stuart of Mich., John J. Taylor of X. Y., Tweed of X. Y., Vail of X. J., Vansaut of Md., Walbridge of X. Y., Walker of X. Y., Walsh of X. Y., Warren of Ark., Westbrook of X. Y.. Witte of Pa., Daniel Wright of Miss., Hendrick B. Wright of Pa., Zollicoffer of Tenn.— 115. X ays. — Messrs. Ball of 0., Banks of Mass., Belcher of Con., Bewnettaf N.Y.,2fen*J»ofMe., Benton of Mo., BuggofTean., Campbell of 0., Carpenter of X. Y., Chandler of Pa., Crocker of Mass., Qillom of Tenn., Curtis of Pa., Thomas Davis of R. I , Dean of X. Y., De Wilt of Mass., Dick of Pa., Dickinson of Mass., Eastman of Wis., Edgerton of 0., Edmands of Mass., Tlinmas D. Eiliott of Mass., Ellison of 0., Eiheridge of Tenn., Everharl of Pa., Farley of Me., Fenton of X. Y., Flagler of X. Y.. Gamble of Pa., Giddings of 0., Grow of Pa., Goodrich of Mass., Aaron Haslam of 0., Andrew Uaslam of Ind., Har- rison of 0., Hastings of X. Y., Haven of X. Y., Heister of Pa., Howe of Pa., Hughes of X. Y.. Hunt of La.. Johnson of 0., Daniel T. Jones of X. Y., Kittredge of X. II., Knox of 111., Lindsley of 0., Lyon of X. Y.. ilcC'ulloch of Pa.. Mace of Ind., Malteson of X. Y.. Mayall of Me.. Meoxham of Vt., iliddks- v.arth of Pa.. Millson of Va., Morgan of X. Y., Morrison of N. H., Murray of X. Y.. Xichols of 0., Xoble of Mich., Norton of 111., Andrew Oliver of X. Y., Peck of X. Y., Parker of Ind., Pennington of X. J.. Bishop Perkins of X. Y., Pringle. of X. Y., Puryear of X. C, David Ritchie of Pa., Thomas Ritely of 0., Rogers of X. C, Russell of Pa., Sabiti of Vt., Sage of X. Y., Sapp of 0., Simmons of X. Y., Skelton of X. J., Gerrit Smith of X. Y.. Hester L. Stevens of Mich., Stratton of X. J.. Andrew Stuart of 0., John L. Taylor of 0., Xathaniel G. Taylor of Tenn.. Thurston of R. I.. Tracy of Vt., Trout of Pa., Upham of-> Mass., WaUey of Mass., Wade of 0., Elihu B. Washburne of III., Israel Washburne of Me., Wells of Wis., John Wentworth of 111., Tappen Wenlworth, Wheeler of X. Y., Fate of 111— 96. Democrats in roman — Whigs in italics — Free-Soilers in small caps. In Senate, May 25, 1854. The Nebraska and Kansas bill being under consideration, Mr. Pearce, of Md., moved to amend the fifth section by striking out the words : " All those who shall have declared on oath their intention to become such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and the provisions of this act." So that the proviso shall read : " Provided that the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citi- zens of the United States." The amendment of Mr. Pearce, the same as the Clayton amendment, was rejected by yeas \ and nays, as follows : Yeas.— Messrs. Bayard of Del.. Bell of Tenn., Brodhead of Pa., Brown of Mo., Clayton of Del., Pearce of Md., and Thompson of Ky. — 7. Nats. — Messrs. Allen of R. I., Atchison of Mo., Benjamin of La, Butler of S. C, Cass of Mich., Chasb of 0., Clay of I 3 Ala., Dawson of Ga., Dodge of Wis.. Douglass of 111., Fish of X. Y.. Fitzpatrick of Ala.. Foot of Vt., Gillette of Conn., Gwin of Cal., Hunter of Va. James of R. I., Johnson of Ark , Jones of la., Jones of Tenn.. Mallory of Fla., Mason of Va., Morton of Fla.. Xorris of X. H., Pettit of Ind., Pratt of Md., Rusk of Tex., Sebastian of Ark., Seward of X. V.. Shields of 111., Slidell of La., Stuart of Mich., Scmxek of Mass., Thomson of X. J., Ttx>mbs of Ga., Toucey of Conn.. ffadi of <).. Walker of Wis.. Weller of Cal.. Williams of X. H., Wright of X. J.— 41. This vote cannot be considered a test vote, as the friends of the bill determined to vote down all amendments, so as not to send it back to the House. On the 21st of February, 1857, the bill of the House to authorize the people of Minne- sota to form a state government, being before the Senate, Mr. Biggs, of N. C, moved the following amendment to the same : Provided, That only citizens of the United States shall be entitled to vote at the election provided for by this act. The following debate ensued : — Mr. Douglas said. The organic act, creat- ing the territory of Minnesota many years since, provided that — "Every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of the said territory at the time of the passage of this act. shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office in the said territory; but the qualifications of voters and of holding office at all subsequent elections shall be such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative Assembly: Provided, That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States and those who have declared on oath their intention to become such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitu- tion of the United States and the provisions of this act." That was the organic law of the territory. Under that law the territorial legislature have prescribed the qualifications of voters. The present bill provides that the legal voters of Minnesota may assemble and elect delegates to a convention, to form a constitution aDd state government for admission into the Union, leaving the qualifications of voters in the ter- ritory for this purpose, precisely what they have been ever since the territory was organized, and as they are now fixed by lav,'. I see no reason whv we should change the existing law of Minnesota on that point for this one election, when there is no pretence that any evil consequences have grown out of the exercise of the elective franchise under the present law. If my friend from North Caro- lina could show me that any injurious conse- quences had grown out of the law of Minne- sota fixing the qualifications of voters, there would be an argument in favor of the change ; but there is no objection on that score: no consideration of that kind has been urged. The amendment, therefore, is only to carry out a theory of the Senator, and not to remedy any practical existing evil in the territory. My friend from North Carolina is entirely mistaken in the supposition that it has been the uniform practice in laws enabling terri- tories to become states, to restrict the right of voting to citizens of the United States. I have sent for the laws, and will present them if it be necessary, in the course of the discussion. 34 the Political text-book. to show that he is entirely mistaken in that respect. The rule is rather the reverse, if there be any rule on the subject. The fact is, that there has been a variety of laws on that point. In some territories where there was no contest about it, the right was confined to citizens of the United States ; in others, all the inhabitants possessing certain qualifica- tions were allowed to vote. In all the N. W. Territory, in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, aliens, under certain condi- tions, were permitted to vote, not only while those states were territories, but when they became states ; and this provision was not peculiar to the North-Western States, as has been supposed. Mr. Clay. It has not been done at the South. Mr. Douglas. My friend from Alabama is mistaken in saying that it has not been done at the South. I remember well that I served 'some years ago on the committee of elections in the House of' Representatives when there was a contested seat between Mr. John W. Jones and Mr. John M. Botts ; and it turned out that Mr. Jones had received some eighty- nine votes, I think, of foreigners unnaturalized according to the laws of the United States, but who were legal voters according to the laws of Virginia. There certainly was a class of persons in Virginia, who, under her laws, were allowed to vote, although they were not naturalized citizens of the United States, and they did vote in that election between Jones and Botts under the law of Virginia, authoriz- ing them to become voters, although they were not citizens of the United States according to the laws of the United States. It was under some special law. The impression is on my mind firmly, because I was on the committee that investigated this question. Mr. Hunter. Virginia, as you well know, Mr. President, has a naturalization act of her own, making citizens of Virginia, or prescrib- ing the qualifications on which persons shall be citizens of the state of Virginia; but the provisions of that act are quite as stringent as those of the United States. Mr. Douglas. There is the very point. Virginia prescribes who shall be citizens of Virginia, and in some cases has not confined the right of voting to citizens of the United States. That is just what Michigan did when she came into the Union with a constitution, providing that all citizens of the United States should be permitted to vote, and also, all other persons who were inhabitants of the state at the time of the adoption of the constitution. By that constitution, Michigan made those other inhabitants who had not been natu- ralized, but possessed certain specified qualifi- cations, citizens of the state of Michigan, although they were not citizens of the United States. That is precisely what we did in Illi- nois under the old constitution. We allowed an unnaturalized foreigner who possessed cer- tain qualifications to vote in that state, al- though he had not become a citizen of the United States ; in other words, we made him a citizen of the state of Illinois, and authorized him to vote at our elections, notwithstanding the fact that he had not complied with the law of Congress in regard to citizenship. That is all Virginia has done, and I believe it is only in limited cases. But, sir, I did not wish to open a debate on this subject. I referred to the Virginia case only for illustration. The simple question here is, shall we authorize the present legal voters of Minnesota to vote for the election of delegates to form a state constitution ? I hone the amendment will not be adopted. Mr. Brown. I do not know that I quite concur with my friend from Pennsylvania on the point that you have no constitutional power to do this ; I do not know that I am prepared to go quite so far as he goes on that question ; but on the point of its expediency, in every possible sense in which the question can be presented, my mind is entirely free from all doubt. A man who votes in reference to the organization of a state — who settles the institutions of an infant state just coming into the Union, affects not only the rights of that state, but the rights of all the other states ; he adds a new member to the confederacy — he aids in bringing two more votes on this floor. If he does not think well enough of the country to have shown his allegiance to its constitu- tion and to its laws, what business has he, and upon what principle ought he to be allowed to take an active participation in moulding the institutions of a new member of the confe- deracy ? If he desire to vote, let him make himself a citizen, in the manner prescribed by the laws passed in obedience to your constitu- tion. If his heart is in fatherland — if he is so much devoted to the land of his birth that he will not take the oath of allegiance, and will not take the preparatory steps to make himself a citizen of the country, I maintain that he ought to have nothing to do with this government, the making of its laws, or the shaping of the institutions of infant states. Mr. Mason. Under the laws of Virginia, as they existed prior to 1850, there was a mode by which alien friends might become citizens of the state of Virginia. It was a part of her domestic policy. It was an old law, passed in 1792, the purpose of which was to invite emigration of valuable citizens either from without or within the United States to reside in Virginia, and certain privileges were given to them. Under that law, according to my recollection (and I have recently looked at it), it was provided only that, in addition to citizens of the United States under the Con- stitution of the United States, such as the state of Virginia in her own good pleasure might deem proper to consider as her citizens under her laws, should be entitled to certain privileges, but not to all the privileges of citi- zens. It was provided, for instance, that any alien friend, who could give evidence of good character, migrating into Virginia for the ALIEN SUFFRAGE. 35 purpose of residing there, and -who would take an oath of fidelity to the commonwealth of Virginia, should become a citizen of Vir- ginia for certain purposes ; but until he had resided five years after that oath, he was de- clared ineligible to any otfice, judicial, execu- tive, or otherwise ; nor could he hold any office until he had given some evidence of permanent attachment by intermarrying with a citizen of Virginia or a citizen of the United States, or purchasing a freehold estate of a certain value. That was the law of Virginia ; and such people were entitled to vote in the state of Virginia, under the laws of Virginia ; a right that I hold pertains to every state, and which it is not in the power of the Federal Govern- ment to qualify or take from them in any way. The Constitution of the United States has reserved to the government a power to declare uniform rules of naturalization ; and the only effect of that is, when under those laws of naturalization an alien is made a citizen of the United States, to entitle him to what ? To such privileges of citizenship as the Constitu- tion confers, but no further ; nor does it derogate in the slightest degree, in my humble judg- ment, from the right of every state of its sovereign will and pleasure to declare who shall be citizens, and who shall not be citi- zens, within its own limits, subject, of course, and subject only, to so much power as the state may have parted with to the Federal Government. Upon the particular provision now before us, I shall vote certainly for the amendment offered by the honorable Senator from North Carolina, because I deny absolutely that there is any power, or ought to be any power, dele- gated to any territory, or to the people of any territory, to declare who shall, as citizens of the territory, vote to erect themselves into an independent state, and by association with the states in the Union, to take their share in the administration of the government of the United States, and their partition in the policy of the United States. When the territory become a state under the Constitu- tion, she is placed upon the footing of all the states, and has all the power that any other state has ; and then, if in the pleasure of the state she chooses to admit any persons to citi- zenship, or to vote, who are neither natural- ized by the laws of the states, nor the laws of the United States, well and good ; it is her power and her pleasure. Mr. Biggs. It will be recollected that a discussion took place here during the first session of the present Congress in regard to the bill authorizing the people of Kausas to form a state constitution. On that occasion an amendment was offered by the Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. Adams,] differing in form, but in substance precisely the same character as this. That bill, as reported by the Committee on Territories, allowed those persons who were qualified voters by the or- ganic law passed for the territories of Nebras- ka and Kansas to vote for delegates to form a state constitution ; and the organic act autho- rized persons who had declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, and had resided in the territory for twelve months, to vote. The Senator from Mississippi moved to strike out that provision, so as to confine the qualifications of electors for members of the convention to citizens of the United States. A discussion was had on that amendment, and by the vote which I have before me it was adopted. That was the last bill adopted by this body in relation to this matter. The amendment of the Senator from Mississippi was adopted by a vote of twenty-two to fifteen. The votes were : Yeas. — Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Bell of Term., Biggs, Brndhead, Brown, Clay, Clayton, Collamer, Crittenden, Fessendeu, Fitzpatrick, Foot, F'oster, Geyer, Hunter, Iver- son. Mallory, Mason, Reid, Thompson of Ivy., Yulee. Nats. — Messrs. Allen, Bigler, Bright, Cass, Dodge, Doug- las, Jones of la.. Pugh, Seward, Stuart, Slidell, Toucey, Weller, Wilson, Wright. I put it to the Senator from Illinois, now, whether there was any authority by the law creating the Territories of Indiana and Illi- nois, or authorizing them to form a state constitution, to allow any but citizens of the United States to vote ? Mr. Douglas. Clearly. Mr. Biggs. I do not so understand. Mr. Douglas. The organic law of Indiana territory was the ordinance of 1787 ; the or- ganic law of Illinois territory was the ordi- nance of 1787 ; and so with all the north- western territories. The ordinance of 1787, which constituted the organic law of those territories, expressly provided that citizens of the different states residing there and having a certain amount of property should vote ; and it expressly authorized unnatural- ized persons to vote, as well as naturalized citizens, provided they owned property. If my friend will look into the matter he will find that there is no question that, under the organic law of those territories, unnaturalized foreigners could and did vote while they were territories ; and then the acts authorizing those territories to form constitutions and state governments, provided that all citizens of the United States could vote, and also, all such other persons as were qualified to vote in the territories by existing laws, showing clearly that there was an express recognition of the rights of unnaturalized foreigners to vote who were authorized to vote under the territorial laws. That brings those cases ex- actly within the limits of the bill now under consideration. Mr. Toucev. Mr. President, I do not rise f »r the purpose of debating this question: but as I differ from some of my friends on this point, I wish to state the grounds of mv own action. That clause in the Constitution of the United States which prescribes the body of electors for the election of members of the House of Representatives, refers it to the constitution and laws of the several states ; so that every state determines for itself its own electoral 36 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. body. It is a primary act in sovereignty. This government has no power to interfere with it. We cannot go into any state of this Union, and undertake to define who of the people shall constitute the body of voters who shall exercise political power. You may natu- ralize whom you please ; but the power of the legislation of Congress in enacting a natu- ralization law, confers no right of voting in any state of the Union. The subjects are entirely distinct. That right of prescribing the electoral body belongs exclusively to the people of every state, in the formation of its organic law. Thus it is with regard to the election of the most numerous branch of Con- gress. The people of every state say who shall vote and who shall not vote ; and if they see fit, in the exercise of their sovereign power, to confer the right of suffrage on any class of men, we cannot interpose. If they confer it on aliens who have not declared their inten- tions to become citizens, we have no power to interfere or prevent the exercise of that sove- reign right, because, by the arrangement of powers under the Constitution, that sovereign power is left to the states, and it cannot in any manner, either directly or indirectly, be interfered with by Congress. Suppose Con- gress should undertake to say that those in the several states who should vote for electors for President and Vice President should con- sist of only one class of voters — men, if you please, possessed of property to the amount of $1000 — can any one imagine that that legislation of Congress would have any validi- ty ? No, sir. It would be an encroachment on the rights of the several states that would not be tolerated or admitted under the Con- stitution of the United States. In 1849, when you organized the territory of Minnesota, you fixed by the organic law the right of suffrage, leaving it to the people of the territory, in the exercise of the legisla- tive power recognised as in their legislature, to fix the qualification of voters, subject to a restriction that no alien should be admitted to vote until after he had declared his inten- tion to become a citizen of the United States, and sworn to support the Constitution of the United States and the organic law. You con- ferred on the people, or recognized as in the people of the territory, all proper legislative power under the Constitution, subject to that organic law. In the exercise of that power thus recognised as being in them, upon which they have acted — upon which they have passed every law that now governs the territory, fixing all the rights of persons and property in that territory, they have settled for them- selves who shall be lawful voters, and the power has been exercised by them, subject to the Constitution of the United States and to the organic law. Now, then, this bill leaves the body of voters as fixed by the organic law, and by the territorial law ; and the proposi- tion here is to interfere with that. The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted — yeas 27, nays 24 ; as follows : Yeas.— Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Bell of Term., Benjamin, Biggs, Bfodhead, Brown, Butler, Clay, Crittenden, Evans, Fish, Fitzpatrick, Foot, Geyer, Green, Houston. Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of Tenn., Mason, Reid, Kusk, Sli- dell, Thompson of Ky.. and Thomson of New Jersey.— 27. Nays.— Messrs. Allen, Bigler, Bright, Cass, Collamer, Dodge, Douglas, Durkee, Fessenden, Fiteh. 1'oster, Hale, Jones of la., Nourse, l'ugh. Seward, Stuart. Toombs, Toucey, Trumbull, Wade, Weller, Wilson, and Wright.— 24. So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. Pugh. I do not intend to prolong the discussion ; but I wish to correct the Senator- from South Carolina, and several other Sena- tors, in what I think is a very essential mis- take of fact. He alleges, if I understand him, that this is the first instance in which the act authorizing a territory to form a constitution and state government has admitted alien suf- frage. Sir, I can find but two examples to the contrary in the whole history of all the states that have been admitted ; and those two are Iowa and Wisconsin. So far as I have been able to examine the statutes, every other state, without exception, came in with it, Mr. Butler. Did Alabama come in in that way? Mr. Pugh. Yes, sir, with alien suffrage ; and I will show it to the Senator. The ordinance of 1787 expressly allowed it. It required a property qualification both for citizens and aliens. After requiring that citizens should have resided a certain period of time, it went on to say that other persons having a certain residence, and certain property qualifications, should be allowed to vote for members of the Territorial Legislature. That was the ordi- nance of 1787. Under it, the law authorizing Ohio to be admitted, provided that the quali- fication of suffrage for the election of mem- bers of the convention should be the same as for members of the Territorial Legislature. So in Indiana ; so in Illinois. The ordinance of 1787, except the anti-slavery clause, was extended over Tennessee, and Tennessee came in with it. Mr. Bell, of Tenn. Will the honorable Senator allow me to ask him whether, in 1787, there was any question about aliens ? Were not all inhabitants then regarded as citizens ? Mr. Pugh. I do not know whether there was any question ; but it was allowed. Mr. Bell, of Tenn. The question was not made, I think, until the case of Michigan. Mr. Butler. Never. Mr. Bell, of Tenn. The honorable Sena- tor from Michigan perhaps can correct me, but I think I recollect many of the circum- stances under which the question came up then. It was under the very influences I alluded to on Saturday. It was a contest be- tween parties for ascendency, and so it was afterwards in Illinois so long as alien suffrage prevailed there. It was allowed in order to give the Democratic party the ascendency. Never before was any question made, that I know of, or recollect. Mr. Pugh. I agree with the Senator that the question was not made ; and "w hat I ob- ject to is the making of it now. ALIEN SUFFRAGE. 37 Mr. Bell, of Tenn. In 1787 all were re- garded as citizens, and so they were until we made the constitution, and prescribed a uni- form rule of naturalization. Mr. Pogh. Let us see what the ordinance of 1787 says: " Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified to act is a representative uuless he shall have been a citizen of jne of the United States three years, and be a resident in the district, or unless he shall have resided in the district three years ; and in either case he shall likewise hold in his tiwn right, in fee simple, two hundred acres of land within the same: Provided, also, That a freehold of fifty acres of land in the district, having been a citizen of one of the states, and being a resident in the district, or the like free- hold and two years' residence in the district, shall be neces- sary to qualify a man as an elector of a representative." If that is not alien suffrage, I confess my- self unable to understand the English lan- guage. He may be a citizen of the United States or not; and in either case the pro- perty qualification is superadded and a cer- tain residence required — less residence for a citizen than an alien. That is the ordinance of 1787, which I say was extended over Ten- nessee while she was a territory ; and when she formed her constitution, and applied for admission, it was formed by the qualified electors mentioned in that ordinance. Mr. Bell, of Tenn. I ask the honorable Senator again, if, up to the time when the uniform rule of naturalization was passed by Congress under the constitution, aliens were admitted or not at pleasure ? Mr. Pucn. There was a uniform rule of naturalization at the time the act constituting the territorial government of Tennessee was passed. There was an express distinction. Mr. Bell, of Tenn. There was no notice taken of it. It was a mere extension of the provisions of the ordinance, with nothing ex- cepted but a single clause. Mr. Pugh. The Senator is right in saying there was no question about it ; but it is my purpose to show that the question has been raised of late years. Tennessee came in with it. The same ordinance of 1787, with the exception of the anti-slavery clause, was ex- tended over Louisiana, and she came in with it. It was extended over Mississippi and Alabama, and they came in with it. It was extended over Arkansas and Missouri ; and the famous Missouri compromise of 1820 ex- pressly admits alien suffrage. I have it here. Here is the third section of the act of 1820, to authorize the people of Missouri to form a constitution and state government : '• That all free white male citizens of the United States, who shall have arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and have resided in said territory three months previous to the day of election, and all other persons qualified to vote for rep- resentatives to the General Assembly, shall be qualified to be elected, and they are hereby qualified and authorized to vote to choose representatives to form a convention, who shall be apportioned among the several counties as follows." Who are authorized to vote ? All persons who, under the ordinance of 1787, could vote. That was the only territorial law you had. Your whole territorial legislation was in ap- plying the general principles of the ordi- nance of 1787, excepting the anti-slavery elause, to all except certain territories. It was applied with the anti-slavery clause to Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. It was applied, excepting the anti-slavery clause, to every other territory you had, down, I believe, to the case of Florida : and I do not know but that it was extended to Florida. Therefore, when Senators say, as the Senator from South Carolina has said, that here is a proposition different from anything we have heard of before, I say that, until the year 1846, when the proviso was inserted in the Iowa and Wis- consin bills, I have not been able to find a case in which such a prohibition as that was put upon a new state. That is all I have to say on that point. Now, one word to my friend from Missis- sippi, [Mr. Adams.] He refers to the vote taken in the Senate at the last session on the Kansas pacification bill, and says that the Senate, by its vote, struck out the permission to aliens to vote in Kansas. I voted against that ; but I think the Senator will recollect the argument which he himself stated. What was it ? In the Kansas-Nebraska bill we au- thorized aliens to vote at the first election ; but thereafter they were to vote or not as the territorial legislature provided. The first terri- torial legislature, which is said to have repre- sented the pro-slavery party, voted the aliens out. That was the action of that branch of the people. The Topeka constitution, which was said to represent the free-state branch of the people, voted them out, too, so that it was said to be the unanimous vote of the people of Kansas, on both sides, that aliens should not vote; and, therefore, although I voted against striking it out in the Kansa*s pacifica- tion bill, I did not think it of much import- ance. Mr. Adams. It is the vote of sensible men everywhere, in all countries. Mr. Pugh. I do not know that it is. The Senator may think so. In the state I repre- sent, undoubtedly in the territorial organiza- tion aliens were entitled to vote under the ordinance of 1787 ; and the first constitution of the state, by its proper language, would have admitted them, though, in practice, they did not vote to any great extent. By-and-by the legislature passed an election act, and ex- cluded them. The present constitution ex- cludes them. It is not a question in which I have any interest, because there has never been actually alien suffrage in my state since it has been a state. Here is the point: You passed, in 1849, a law organizing a territorial government in Minnesota, and followed nine-tenths of the precedents, overruling the exceptional cases of Iowa and Wisconsin ; and you said to everybody: "Go there and settle, and you may be a citizen of the territory." They have gone over, lived peaceably, and elected a local legislature. You have had no disturb- ance or trouble there. Y r ou have not had to proclaim martial law, as in other territories. You have never had any disturbance. Still, on an abstract proposition, you propose to A2.m 1 n 38 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. condemn these gentlemen in the lump. My friend from Mississippi said they were pau- pers and criminals ; and I believe his col- league [Mr. Brown], the other day, said they were led up in a body to vote. I do not find it so in my neighborhood. I find they are about as much divided in their votes and opinions as native-born citizens. Mr. Adams. My remark was not a general one. I said paupers and criminals came here, and Congress refused to pass any law to pro- hibit them. I did not say the respectable por- tion of them were so, but I said paupers and criminals came here. Mr. Pugh. The criminals will never find their way to your territories. They will never go there to settle. It is peaceable men who go there. The criminal infests your cities. There is no danger of his voting under this bill. As to a pauper, if gentlemen mean by that term a man who has no great amount of property, instead of considering him an injury to the country, I consider him a great benefit, and hope they will all come. Mr. Stuart. We are pretty near the end of this day, and pretty near the end of this session, and therefore, I simply ask the Senate to proceed to a vote. It seems to me we ought to proceed to take a vote on the question. Mr. Butler. I am not to be called to vote suddenly on a matter of this kind when other people introduce it ; and if gentlemen have a mind to introduce this measure again it is not my fault. The time of the Senate would have admonished me not to have it taken up ; but as they have taken it up, the Senator from Michigan *is mistaken if he supposes I will not probe it to the bottom. I say my friend from Ohio is in error ; and when Senators undertake to force me on a matter so deeply affecting us, I shall vote against the admission of Minnesota if they refuse to put in this amendment. I intend to put myself right before the country in rela- tion to what I said, for I do not like, as a lawyer, to say anything that is not maintain- able by the statute. The act in regard to Alabama provides: " And be it further enacted, That all white male citizens of the United States" — that excludes women — " who Bhall have arrived at the age of twenty-one years" — that excludes minors — "and have resided in the said territory three months pre- vious to the day of election — " that excludes all who did not go there and were not there within three months — '■ Mini :ill persons having in other respects the legal qualifi- cations to vote for members of the General Assembly of the eaid territory, be, and they are hereby authorized. " What persons are excluded? Indians, ne- groes, and aliens. If it meant anything, it intended to give the power to vote only to those who had the right to vote. I suppose it was intended to give it to all white persona who had been there longer than three months, and the fact that it enumerated white male citizens twenty-one years of age, showed dis- tinctly that they intended to exclude aliens. This is the act admitting Alabama, and it is the same in the other cases. They never thought in that day of allowing a common- wealth to come into the confederacy under the auspices of alienage. I am opposed to the whole of the doctrine which would pro- scribe the foreigner ; I am his friend ; and I say to the foreigner who conies here with a view to adopt this as his country, " Be jealous of the right which you have to come here ; do not let every one come to compete with you." The foreigners that came here twenty and thirty and forty years ago, came from choice ; they came here on principle, understanding that they were to abide by the institutions and comply with the laws of this country. They did not come here as upstarts to take their place upon the political chess-board be- fore they were invited. When my friend from Ohio undertakes to say that these states were admitted by foreigners, I say it is not so — I speak of the act admitting Alabama, now. Mr. Pugh. I use that very act to prove what I said. The gentleman has only to read it to the Senate to show that I am right. Mr. Butler. I have read it ; and I ven- ture to say there are no two men in the Senate, when you get them in a corner, who will deny my construction. I have no doubt that here, when you have a big crowd with you, you will be sustained; but take them by themselves, and ask them to tell the truth, and every one will agree with me. Feb. 25, 1857, Mr. Green moved to recon- sider the above vote. Mr. Biggs called for the yeas and nays ; and they were ordered ; and being taken, re- sulted — yeas 31, nays 21 ; as follows : Yeas.— Messrs. Allen, liell of N. H_ Bigler, Bright, Cass, Collamer, Dodge, Zfmtglas, Durkee, Fessenden, Fitch. Foot, Foster, Green, Hale, Harlan, James. Johnson, Jones of la., Nourse, Pugh, Sebastian. Seward, Stuart, Toombs, Toucty, Trumbull. Wade, Welter, Wilson, and Tuke — 31. Nats. — Messrs. Adams, Bayard. Benjamin, Biggs. Brail- head, Brotim, Butter, Clay. Crittenden, Evans, Ft^h, Fits- patrick, Geyer, Houston. Hunter, Mason, Pratt, Seid, Busk, Siidell, and Thompson, of Ky.— 21. Democrats in italic, Republicans in roman, Americans in small caps. So the vote adopting the first amendment was reconsidered. The presiding officer, [Mr. Foot in the chair.] The cpi&stion is upon the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, (Mr. Biggs.) Mr. Adams called for the yeas and nays ; and they were ordered ; and being taken, re- sulted — yeas 24, nays 32 ; as follows : Yeas.— Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Beu. of Tenn., Benjamin. Biggs, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Clay, Crittenden, Fish, PiUpatride, Geyer, Gwin, Houston, Hunter, Ivcrson, Jimes o1 Tenn., Mason, 'Pratt, Beid, Busk, Siidell, and Thompson of Ky.— 24. Nats.— Messrs. Allen. Bell of N. H. Bigler, Bright, Cass, Collamer. Dutli/e, Douglas. Durkee, Pessenden, Pitch, Foot, Foster. Green, Hale, Harlan, James, Johnson. Janes of Jo., Mallory. Nourse. Pugh, Sebastian, Seward. Stuart. Toombs, Tawxy, Trumbull, Wade, Writer, Wilson, and Vulee— 32. Democrats in italic, Republicans in roman, Americana in small caps. ALIEN SUFFRAGE. 39 The following speech of the Hon. John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, was delivered in the Senate of the United States, April 2, 1836, on the motion of Senator Porter, of Louisiana, to recommit the bill to establish the Northern boundary of Ohio, and for the admission of Michigan into the Union. The speech will be found in vol. 2d of the Works of Mr. Calhoun, page 496 to 559. Mr. Calhoun said : I regret that my colleague has thought pro- per to raise the question, whether a state has a right to make an alien a citizen of the state. The question is one of great magnitude — pre- sented for the first time, and claiming a more full and deliberate consideration than can be bestowed on it now. It is not necessarily in- volved in the present question. The point now at issue is, not whether a state or terri- tory has a right to make an alien a citizen, but whether Congress has a right to prescribe the qualifications of the voters for members of the convention to form a constitution, pre- paratory to the admission of a territory into the Union. I presume that even my colleague will not deny that Congress has the right. The Constitution confers on Congress the power to govern the territories, and, of course, to prescribe the qualifications of voters within them — without any restriction — unless, in- deed, such as the ordinance and Constitution may enforce — a power that expires only when a territory becomes a state. The practice of the government has been in conformity with these views ; and there is not an instance of the admission of a territory into the Union, in which Congress has not preseri]>ed the qualifications of the voters for members of the state, on its admission. The power which Congress has thus invariably exercised, we claim to exercise on the present occasion, by prescribing who shall be the voters to form the constitution for the govern- ment of Michigan, when admitted into the Union. Michigan is not yet a state. Her constitution is not yet formed. It is, at best, but in an incipient state, which can only be consummated by complying with the consti- tution which we may prescribe for her admis- sion. A convention is to be called, under this bill, to agree to these conditions. On motion of the Senator from New York (Mr. Wright), a provision was introduced into the bill, giving the right to the people of the ter- ritory at large — without limitation or restric- tion, as to age, sex, color, or citizenship — to vote for the members of the convention. The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay), while the amendment of the Senator from New York was pending, moved to amend the amend- ment by striking out people, and inserting free white citizens of twenty-one years of age, thus restricting the voters to the free white citizens of the United States, in conformity with what has been usual on such occasions. Believing that Congress had the unques- tionable right to prescribe the qualification** of voters, as proposed by the Senator from Kentucky, and that the exercise of such right does not involve, in any degree, the question whether a state has a right to confer on an alien the rights of citizenship, I must repeat the expression of my regret, that my colleague has felt it to be his duty to raise a question so novel and important, when we have so little leisure for bestowing on it the attention which it deserves. But, since he considers its deci- sion as necessarily involved in the question before us, I feel it to be my duty to state the reasons why I cannot concur with him in opinion. I do not deem it necessary to follow my col- league and the Senator from Kentucky, in their attempt to define or describe a citizen. Nothing is more difficult than the definition, or even description, of so complex an idea; and hence all arguments resting on one defi- nition, in such cases, almost necessarily lead to uncertainty and doubt. But though we may not be able to say, with precision, what a citi- zen is, we may say with the utmost certainty, what he is not. He is not an alien. Alien and citizen are correlative terms, and stand in contradistinction to each other. They, of course, cannot coexist. They are, in fact, so opposite in their nature, that we conceive of the one but in contradistinction to the other. Thus far all must be agreed. My next step is not less certain. The Constitution confers on Congress the authority to pass uniform laws of naturaliza- tion. This will not be questioned ; nor will it be, that the effect of naturalization is to re- move alienage. I am not certain that the word is a legitimate one. (Mr. Preston said, in a low tone, it was.) _ My colleague says it is. His authority is high on such questions, and with it, I feel my- self at liberty to use the word. To remove alienage is simply to put the foreigner in the condition of a native-born. To this extent the act of naturalization goes, and no further. The next position I assume is no less cer- tain: that when Congress has exercised its authority, by passing a uniform law of natu- ralization (as it has), it excludes the right of exercising a similar authority on the part of the state. To suppose that the states could pass naturalization acts of their own, after Congress had passed an uniform law of natu- ralization, would be to make the provision of the Constitution nugatory. I do not deem it necessary to dwell on this point, as I under- stood my colleague as acquiescing in its cor- rectness. I am now prepared to decide the question which my colleague has raised. I have shown that a citizen is not an alien, and that alien- age is an inseparable barrier, till removed, to citizenship ; and that it can only be removed by complying with the act of Congress. It follows, of course, that a state cannot, of its own authority, make an alien a citizen with- out such compliance. To suppose it can, in- 40 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK volves, in my opinion, a confusion of ideas, which must lead to innumerable absurdities and contradictions. I propose to notice but a few. In fact, the discussion has come on so unexpectedly, and has been urged on so pre- cipitately, through the force of pirty disci- pline, that little leisure has been afforded to trace to their consequence the many novel and dangerous principles involved in the bill. I, in particular, have not had due time for re- flection, which I exceedingly regret. Atten- dance on the sick-bed of a friend drew off my attention till yesterday, when, for the first time, I turned my thoughts on its provisions. The numerous objections which it presented, and the many and important amendments which were moved to correct them, in rapid suc- cession, until a late hour of the night, allowed but little time for reflection. Seeing that the majority had pre-determined to pass the bill, with all its faults, I retired, when I found my presence could no longer be of any service, and remained ignorant that the Senate had rescinded the order to adjourn over till Mon- day, until a short time before its meeting this morning ; so that I came here wholly unpre- pared to discuss this and the other important questions iuvolved in the bill. Under such circumstances, it must not be supposed that, in pointing out the few instances of what ap- pear to me the absurdities and contradic- tions necessarily resulting from the principle against which 1 contend, there are not many others equally striking. I but suggest those which first occurred to me. Whatever difference of opinion there may be as to what other rights appertain to a citi- zen, all must at least agree that he has the right to petition, and also to claim the protec- tion of his government. These belong to him as a member of the body politic, and the pos- session of them is what separates citizens of the lowest condition from aliens and slaves. To suppose that a state can make an alien a citizen of the state — or, to present the ques- tion more specially, can confer on him the right of voting — would involve the absurdity of giv- ing him a direct and immediate controlover the action of the general government, from which he has no right to claim the protection, and to which he has no right to present a petition. That the full force of the absurdity may be felt, it must be borne in mind that every department of the general government is either directly or indirectly under the control of the voters in the several states. The Constitution wisely provides that the voters for the most nume- rous branch of the legislature in the several Btates, shall vote for the members of the House of Representatives — and, as the members of this body are chosen by the legislatures of the states, and the Presidential electors either by the legislatures or voters in the several Btates, it follows, as I have stated, that the action of the general government is either di- rectly or indirectly under the control of the voters in the several states. Now, admit that a state may confer the right of voting en all aliens, and it will follow, as a necessary conse- quence, that we might have among our con- stituents persons who have not the right to claim the protection of the government, or to present a petition to it. I would ask my col- league if he would willingly bear the relation of representative to those who could not claim his aid, as Senator, to protect them from op- pression, or to present a petition through him to the Senate, praying for a redress of griev- ance ? And yet such might be his condition on the principle for which he contends. But a still greater difficulty remains. Sup- pose a war should be declared between the United States and the country to which the alien belongs— suppose, for instance, that South Carolina should confer the right to vote on alien subjects of Great Britain residing within her limits, and that war should be declared between the two countries ; what, in such event, would be the condition of that portion of our voters ? They, as alien enemies, would be liable to be seized under the laws of Con- gress, and to have their goods confiscated, and themselves imprisoned, or sent out of the coun- try. The principle that leads to such conse- quences cannot be true ; and I venture noth- ing in asserting that Carolina, at least, will never give it her sanction. She never will assent to incorporate, as members of her body politic, those who might be placed in so de- graded a condition, and so completely under the control of the general government. But let us pass from these (as it appears to me conclusive) views, and inquire what were the objects of the Constitution in conferring on Congress the authority of passing uniform laws of naturalization— from which, if I mis- take not, arguments not less conclusive may be drawn in support of the position for which I contend. In conferring this power the framers of the Constitution must have had two objects in view: One to prevent competition between the states in holding out inducements for the emi gration of foreigners, and the other to prevent their improper influence over the general gov- ernment, through such states as might natu- ralize foreigners, and could confer on them the right of exercising an elective franchise, before they could be sufficiently informed of the nature of our institutions, or were inter- ested in their preservation. Both of these objects would be defeated, if the states may confer on aliens the right of voting and the other privileges belonging to citizens. On that supposition, it would be almost impossible to conceive what good could be obtained or evil prevented by conferring the power on Con- gress. The power would be perfectly nuga- tory. A state might hold out every improper inducement to emigration as freely as if the power did not exist ; and might confer on the alien all the political rights and privileges be- longing to a native-born citizen ; not only to the great injury of the state, but to an im- proper control of the government of the Union. To illustrate what I have said— suppose th* ALIEN SUFFRAGE. 41 dominant party in New York, finding politi- cal power about to depart from them, should, to maintain their ascendancy, extend the right of suffrage to the thousands of aliens of every language and from every portion of the world, that annually pour into her great emporium- how deeply might the destiny of the whole Union be affected by such a measure ! It might in fact, place the control over the general gov- ernment in the hands of those who know nothing- of our institutions and are indifferent as to the interests of the country. New York gives about one-sixth of the electoral votes in the choice of President and Vice President ; and it is well known that her political institu- tions keep the state nearly equally divided into two great political parties. The addition of a few thousand votes either way might turn the scale, and the electors might, in fact, owe their election, on the supposition, to the votes of unnaturalized foreigners. The Presiden- tial election might depend on the electoral vote of the state, and a President be chosen in reality by them ; that is, they might give us a king, for, under the usurpations of the pre- sent chief magistrate, the President is in fact a king. I ask my colleague if we ought wil- lingly to yield our assent to a principle that would lead to such results, and if there be any danger on the side for which I contend, com- E arable to those which I have stated ? I know ow sincere he is in the truth of the position for which he contends, and that his opinion was founded anterior to this discussion. We have rarely differed in our views on the ques- tions which have come before the Senate ; and I deeply regret, as I am sure he does, that we should differ on this highly important sub- ject. * * * My colleague cites the example of Louisi- ana, which was admitted into the Union with- out requiring the inhabitants, at the time, to conform to the act of naturalization. I must think the instance is not in point. That was the case of the incorporation of a foreign com- munity, which had been acquired by treaty, as a member of our confederacy. At the time of the acquisition they were subjects of France, and owed allegiance to that government. The treaty transferred their allegiance to the Uni- ted States ; and the difficulty of incorporating Louisiana into the Union arose, not under the act of naturalization, but the right of acqui- ring foreign possessions by purchase, and the right of incorporating such possessions into the Union. These were felt, at the time, to be questions of great difficulty. Mr. Jefferson himself, under whose administration the pur- chase was made, doubted the right, and sug- gested the necessity of an alteration of the Constitution to meet the case ; and if the ex- ample of the admission is now to be used to establish the principle that a state may confer citizenship on an alien, we may all live to re- gret that the Constitution was not amended according to the suggestion. My colleague insists that to deny the right for which he contends, would be to confer on Congress the right of prescribing who shotild or should not be entitled to vote in the state, and exercise the other privileges belonging to citizens; and portrayed in strong language the danger to the rights of states from such authority. If his views are correct in this respect, the danger would indeed be imminent, but I cannot concur in their correctness. Un- der the view which I have taken, the authority of Congress is limited to the simple point of passing uniform laws of naturalization, or, as I have shown, simply to remove alienage. To this extent it may clearly go under the Con- stitution ; and it is no less clear that it cannot go an inch beyond without palpably transcend- ing its powers, and violating the Constitution. Every other privilege, except those which ne- cessarily flow from the removal of alienage, must be conferred by the Constitution and the authority of the state. My remarks are, of course, confined to the states ; for within the territories the authority of Congress is as com- plete in this respect as that of the states within their respective limits, with the exception of such limitations as the ordinance to which I have referred may impose. But to pass to the question immediately be- fore us. This, as I have stated, does not involve the question whether a state can make an alien a citizen ; but whether Congress has a right to prescribe the qualifications to be pos- sessed by those who shall vote for members of a convention to form a constitution for Michi- gan. Reason and precedent concur that Con- gress has the right. It has, as I have stated, been exercised in every similar case. If the right does not exist in Congress, it exists no- where. A territory, until it becomes a state, is a dependent community, and possesses no political rights but what are derived from the community on which it depends. Who shall or shall not exercise political power? and what shall be the qualifications possessed by them? and how shall they be appointed? are all ques- tions to be determined by the paramount com- munity ; and in the case under consideration, to be determined by Congress, which has the right under the Constitution, to prescribe all necessary rules for the government of the ter- ritories not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. This very bill, in fact, admits the right. It prescribes that the peo- ple of Michigan shall vote for the convention to form her constitution on becoming a state If it belongs to the territory of Michigan (she is not yet a state) to determine who shall vote for the members of the convention, this at- tempt on our part to designate who shall be the voters would be an unconstitutional in- terference with her right, and ought to be objected to, as such, by those opposed to our views. But if, on the other hand, the view I take be correct, that the right belongs to Congress, and not to the territory, the loose, vague, and indefinite manner in which the voters are de- scribed in the bill affords a decisive reason for its recommitment. I ask, who are the people 42 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of Michigan ? Taken in the ordinary sense, it means everybody, of every age, of every sex, of every complexion, white, black, or red, aliens as well as citizens. Regarded in this light, to pass this bill would sanction the prin- ciple that Congress may authorize an alien to vote, or confer that high privilege on the run- away slaves from Kentucky, Virginia, or else- where ; and thus elevate them to the condition of citizens, enjoying under the constitution all the rights and privileges in the states of the Union which appertain to citizenship. But my colleague says that this must be acqui- esced in, if such should be the case, as it results from the principles of the constitution. I know we are bound to submit to whatever are the provisions of that instrument ; but surely my colleague will agree with me, that the danger of such a precedent would be great ; that the principles on which it is justified ought to be clear and free from all doubt ; and I trust I have, at least, shown that such is not the fact in this case. But, we are told that the people of Michi- gan means, in this case, the qualified voters. Why, then, was it not so expressed? Why was vague and general language used, when more certain and precise terms might have been employed ? But, I would ask, who are the qualified voters? Are they those autho- rized to vote under the existing laws estab- lished for the government of the territory, or are they those who, under the instrument called the constitution, are authorized to vote? Why leave so essential a point in so uncertain a condition, when Ave have the power to re- move the uncertainty ? If it be meant by the people of Michigan, the qualified voters under her incipient constitution (as stated by the Senator from New York), then are we sanc- tioning the rights of aliens to vote. Michi- gan has attempted to confer this right on that portion of her inhabitants. She has no au- thority to confer such right under the consti- tution. I have conclusively shown that a state does not possess it— much less a territory, which possesses no power except such as is conferred by Congress. Congress has con- ferred no such power on Michigan — nor, in- deed, could confer it — as it has no authority, under the Constitution, over the subject, ex- cept to pass uniform laws of naturalization. Debate in the House of Representatives, MayGtii and 11th, 1858, on the Question of Alien Suffrage, as allowed in the Constitution of the State of Minne- sota. Mr. William Smith, of Virginia, said: — What is requisite to give a foreigner the right of suffrage? lie must make his declaration ; he must be five years in the country, and that must be proved by two citizens of the United States ; he must show himself to be a man of probity and good demeanor, and to have borne an unquestionable character ; he must show that he is acquainted with our institutions, and attached to the principles of our Government. Suppose that the foreigner should ask to be naturalized, and should fail in any of these requisites, can he acquire the right of citizen- ship ? Suppose that he turns out to be a man of bad character ; suppose it is notorious that he is anything but friendly to our free institu- tions ; suppose, instead of showing he is at- tached to the principles of our Government, that it is shown that he is still a monarchist: he cannot acquire the rights of naturalization ; and thus it is, sir, he may be rejected in the very last moment, after having been five years in the country, and when he appears in court to perfect his right to citizenship. Congress, then, does not lose its hold of him until the last hour : and, until he becomes an American citi- zen, the State has no power to confer upon him the rights of suffrage in any Federal election. I think that this is one of those propositions which cannot be controverted ; and I think that, as Congress controls him until all the condi- tions required by the naturalization laws are fully complied with, it is conclusive evidence that the State has no power to confer upon him any political right under the Federal Constitu- tion whatever. It is said, in this connection, that the States have always exercised this power. That was said by some gentlemen who have preceded me in this debate. Allow me to say, that I think that is a great mistake. You know that this subject anxiously engaged the attention of those who preceded us ; and without dwelling upon it, I beg leave to call the attention of the House to what, in debating the naturalization laws in 1795, Mr. Gallatin said. The question came up in connection with the right of suffrage in his own State. There were many persons naturalized under the State law who were ex- cluded from all the rights of United States citi- zenship. I get what I extract from Gales & Seaton's Annals : " Mr. Gallatin wished to know whether the provisions of this act are intended to extend to persons who were in the country previous^ to the passing of the law of January, 1795, which requires a residence of five years before an alien can become a citizen, but who have ne- glected to become citizens, aswell as to all those aliens who have come to this country since January, 1795 ? " Again, he said, one reason which led him to mention this circumstance was, that there are a great number of persons in the state of Pennsylvania, and many in the district from whence he came, who, though they are not citizens of the United States, really believe they are. This mistake has arisen from (an error common to most of the districts of the United States) a belief that an alien's being naturalized by the laws of a state government, since the act of 1790, made him a citizen of ALIEN SUFFRAGE. 43 the United States. He always thought that construction to be wrong, Congress having the power to pass, and having passed, a uniform naturalization law, which, in his opinion, ex- cluded the idea of admission to citizenship on different terms by the individual states. But he knew the contrary opinion, till lately, gene- rally prevailed. Indeed, he knew that at the late election in that city, the votes of respecta- ble merchants, who had obtained American registers for their vessels, on a presumption of their being citizens, were refused on this ground. The same mistake had extended to other parts of the Union. "Mr. G. supposed that since the year 1790, from ten to fifteen thousand emigrants had come into the state of Pennsylvania, two- thirds of whom believed, till lately, that they were citizens of the United States, from their having been naturalized by the laws of that state. It has now been discovered that they are not citizens ; but since that discovery was made, they have not had an opportunity of being admitted according to the law of the United States." Here you see, in reference to naturalization under State laws, Mr. Gallatin concedes that those thus naturalized were not citizens, and that consequently the right of suffrage should be denied them. He himself was of foreign birth, and of course interested in the question, and would not hastily have decided as he did. Mr. Bliss. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment ? Mr. Smith, of Virginia. Certainly. Mr. Bliss. I rise simply for the purpose of asking the gentleman from Virginia to give us, if he has the act before him, the language of the Pennsylvania statute upon that sub- ject. Mr. Smith, of Virginia. I have it not. I have read from the debate of 1795. Mr. Bliss. I asked the question because I did not know exactly what that statute was. Mr. Smith, of Virginia. The debate was upon the subject of naturalization. Mr. Bliss. The question is this: whether the Pennsylvania statute, to which the gentle- man refers, conferred the elective franchise, or undertook to naturalize generally ? Mr Reagan. I desire to say a word upon the point on which the gentleman from Ohio has interrupted the gentleman from Virginia. I will call the attention of the gentleman from Virginia to the fact that, by an early decision of the courts of Pennsylvania, it was held that a State had concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Government in the matter of the natu- ralization of foreigners; and to the debate grow- ing out of that matter, I apprehend that the clause which the gentleman read referred. It "did not relate to the question of the right of a citizen to vote, but related alone to the power to naturalize. Mr. Smith, of Virginia. What is naturali- zation? It is the giving to foreigners rights which they did not previously possess, and among them the right to vote. Did the Penn- sylvania law confer that right? If it be the decision of a statute, I care not ; but did the Pennsylvania law give that right. The answer is at hand. Says Mr. Gallatin: " Indeed, we know that, in the late election in this city, the votes of respectable merchants, who had obtained American registers for their vessels on a presumption of their being citi- zens, were refused on this ground. The same mistake had extended to other parts of the Union." On what ground were they refused the right of suffrage ? Gentlemen talk about this Penn- sylvania law not conferring the right of suff- rage ; and yet here it is expressly said that it did confer the right of suffrage, and these men sought to exercise that right under the Penn- sylvania naturalization law. I may not under- stand it ; but here it is, and " he who runs may read." If a man who came forward to vote under the provisions of that law, was excluded, he was excluded upon the ground that he was not a citizen of the United States ; and if he was permitted to vote, it would be upon the presumption that he was a citizen of the United States ; and I undertake to say, and I have no doubt such will be the fact, that this Pennsyl- vania law was passed prior to the adoption of the Constitution. It was, no doubt, the old Pennsylvania Constitution regulating this ques- tion, which was superseded, as was decided in a case in the State of Maryland, by the adop- tion of the Federal Constitution. That will no doubt be found to be the state of things, and those respectable merchants were denied the right of suffrage, though located permanently in the country, because they were not citizens of the United States, and not because of any other provision, citizenship being the funda- mental condition to the exercise of this high attribute of popular sovereignty. I think it will be found that this is the clew to the sub- ject. But without dwelling at large uponthis sub- ject, let me proceed. In a case which came directly before the Supreme Court of the United States, as reported in second Wheaton, the court went into a discussion of the question of property, and they superseded the law of the State of Maryland, and gave the property a different direction from what it would have taken if the party claiming it had been a citi- zen of the United States. And why ? Because it was the purpose of the founders of the Re- public to confine the right of suffrage, that great fundamental political right of popular liberty, to those who were citizens of the United States, whether native or foreign born. I will now proceed to call the attention of the House to the sentiments of our fathers. — Gentlemen have extraordinary notions upon this subject. They have the notion that any- body who comes here is at once entitled to par- 44 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ticipate in the right of suffrage. Every year adds some three hundred thousand foreigners to our population, and they are not required to wait the period of time specified by the act of Congress, prescribing the rule of naturaliza- tion, but they are precipitated in hot haste upon the ballot-box, and introduced into the political struggles of the day. Is that right? I beg, in this connection, to call the attention of the House to what passed in the Federal convention. I know it is thought that there was a policy in that day which required us to encourage emigration. Yes, sir, there was a policy which required it to a limited extent. But how ? To that matter I now call your attention. Colonel Mason, of Virginia, then one of the leading members of Congress, who was for opening a wide door for emigrants, but did not choose to let foreigners make laws for us, said : — " Were it not that many, not natives of this country, had acquired great credit during the Revolution, he should be for restraining the eligibility into the Senate to natives." Mr. Butler, a very distinguished man of that day, said that he, — " was decidedly opposed to' the admission of foreigners without a long residence in the country. They bring with them, not only attachments to other countries, but ideas of government so distinct from ours that in every point of view the} 7 are dangerous. He acknow- ledged that, if he himself had been called into public life within a short time after his coming to America, his foreign habits, opinions, and attachments, would have rendered him an im- proper agent in public affairs." " Mr. Randolph did not know but it might be problematical whether emigrants to this country were, on the whole, useful or not." " Mr. Gerrf wished that in future the eligi- bility might be confined to natives." "Mr. Williamson moved to insert nine years instead of seven. He wished this country to acquire, as fast as possible, national habits. Wealthy emigrants do more harm, by their luxurious habits, than good by the money thev brins; them." "Mr. Butler was strenuous against admit- ting foreigners into our public councils." " Mr. Sherman. The United States have not invited foreigners, nor pledged their faith that they should enjoy equal privileges with native citizens. The individual states alone have done this. The former, therefore, are at liberty to make any discriminations they may judge requisite." "Mr. Madison animadverted on the pecu- liarity of the doctrine of Mr. Sherman. It was a subtilty by which every national engagement might be evaded." "Ci lonel Mason was struck, not, like Mr. Mad is 'in. with the peculiarity, but the propri- ety of the doctrine of Mr. Sherman. The States have formed different qualifications themselves for enjoying different rights of citizenship." I read these remarks for the purpose of let- ting the House see and understand what was the temper and tone and sentiment of those who framed our organic law. I want the House to understand that even at that day, when we were in a state of almost political dissolution — a weak and feeble people, threat- ened with the anger of the British lion — even then the rights of American citizens were highly appreciated, and the privilege of for- eigners sharing in them was guarded with jealousy and care. Nor is that all. I pro- pose to read, for the information of the House, the debate on the first bill passed on the sub- ject of naturalization, in which the healthy tone of public sentiment, on the part of our fathers, cannot fail to be highly refreshing to us, their sons. On the first bill establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, a protracted debate sprang up, in which the following sentiments were expressed, in which it was assumed that natu- ralization was necessary to give the right of suffrage. The debate commenced February 3, 1790, Mr. Hartley said : " The policy of the old nations of Europe has drawn a line between citizens and aliens ; that policy has existed, to our knowledge, ever since the foundation of the Roman Empire. Experience has proved its propriety, or we should have found some nation deviating from a regulation inimical to its welfare. From this it may be inferred that we ought not to grant this privilege on terms so easy as is moved by the gentleman from South Carolina. If he had gone no further in his motion than to give aliens a right to purchase and hold lands, the objection would not have been so great ; but if the words are stricken out that he has moved for, an alien will be entitled to join in the election of your officers at the first moment he puts his foot on shore in America, when it is impossible, from the nature of things, that he can be qualified to exercise such a talent." Mr. Madison said : "I should be exceedingly sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame that really meant to in- corporate himself into our society ; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but such as would be a real adition to the wealth or strength of the United States." Here is the doctrine, as laid down by Mr.. Madison, that I maintain. This is the posi- tion '.[ occupy. This is the ground upon which I can stand before the country, to proceed : But ALIEN SUFFRAGE. 45 ' Mr. Smitii, of South Carolina, thought pome restraint proper, and that they would tend to raise the Government in the opinion of good men, who are desirous of emigrating ; as for the privilege of electing or being elected, he conceived a man ought to be some time in the country before he could pretend to exer- cise it. " He said the intention of the present mo- tiou is, to enable foreigners to come here, purchase and hold lands ; but this will go beyond what the mover has required ; and therefore, it will be better to draft a separate clause, admitting them to purchase and hold lands upon a qualified tenure and pre-emption right, than thus admit them at once to inter- fere in our politics. The quality of being a freeholder is requisite, in some States, to give a man a title to vote for corporation and parish officers. Now, if every emigrant who pur- chases a small lot, but perhaps for which he has not paid, becomes in a moment qualified to mingle in their parish or corporation poli- tics, it is possible it may create great uneasi- ness in neighborhoods which have been long accustomed to live in peace and unity. " Mr. Hartley said, an alien has no right to hold lands in any country ; and if they are admitted to do it in this, we are authorized to annex to it such conditions as we think pro- per. " He also said, with respect to the policy of striking out the words altogether from the clause, and requiring no residency before a man is admitted to the rights of election, the objections are obvious. If, at any time, a number of people emigrate into a seaport town — for example, from a neighboring colony into the State of New York — will they not, by taking the oath of allegiance, be able to decide an election contrary to the wishes and incli- nations of the real citizens?" " Mr. Madison said, whether residence is, or is not, a proper quality to be attached to the citizen, is the question. In his own mind, he had no doubt bat residence was a proper prerequisite, and he was prepared to decide in favor of it." " Mr. Sedgwick said, some kind of proba- tion, as it has been termed, is absolutely requisite, to enable them to feel and be sensi- ble of the blessing. Without that probation, he should be sorry to see them exercise a right which we have gloriously struggled to at- tain." " Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, said, for his part, he was of opinion, that a uniform rule of naturalization would tend to make a uniform rule of citizenship pervade the whole continent, and decide the right of a foreigner to be admitted to elect, or be elected, in any of the States." " Mr. Tucker said, he was otherwise satis- fied with the clause, so far as to make resi- dence a term of admission to the privilege of election." Mr. Bisnop. Do I understand the gentle- man to take the ground that no person is en- titled to vote in any state except he be a citizen of the United States ? Mr. Smith, of Virginia. Yes, sir, in all Federal elections. Mr. Bishop. And that a person born out of the country must be in the United States a certain number of years - before he is a citizen, according to the laws of the country ? Mr. Smith, of Virginia. Yes, sir, he must be naturalized. Mr. Bishop. I would now like to inquire how, on that ground, when Texas was admit- ted into the Union, the persons living in Texas could be entitled to vote in that state until Texas had been in the Union for a period of five years ? Mr. Smith,, of Virginia. That was under a separate clause, and a power altogether differ- ent in its character, providing for such a case. Mr. Stevenson. I would like to propound this question to the gentleman from Virginia. I find, by the Constitution of the United States, that there is a limitation on the quali- fications of electors for President and Vice President of the United States ; but I find, by the same clause, that under the Constitution of the United States the whole number of the electors may be aliens ; that there is no re- striction of citizenship in any part of the Con- stitution. Although there is a limitation as to offices, there is none as to citizenship as a qualification of electors for President and Vice President ; and I should like to hear from the gentleman on that point. Mr. Smith, of Virginia. I am very much obliged to t^e, gentleman for bringing me to that point. He is an American citizen. He has a country which extends its wings over him. He has a country's flag to stand by, and sustain him ; and will he ever forget that thai country is composed of those who are the people of the United States, and the citizens thereof? The Constitution had no more idea of providing against the man in France, or the man in Turkey, being an elector, than against any other absurdity. In speaking of electors, and declaring, in the preamble and elsewhere, that the people of the United States have formed this Constitution, its framers, ex vi termini, restricted its character, and confined it jn all its relations to the people for whom it was formed. Will the gentleman remember that the rights of for- eigners are grants — that even the right to gentle treatment is strictly social, and particu- larly that political rights are never his except by express grant, and that presumptions are always against and never for him? Why, sir, I am amazed — perfectly amazed— • that here, in this government of ours, under our Constitution, in this glorious land, there should be an idea that, because a Constitution framed for the people or citizens of the United States does not exclude foreigners from the 4G THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. highest functions of government, therefore that foreigners have a right to them. Foreign- ers have no rights except what are granted to them. They have no right even to hold land in the United States, or in the States thereof, without the power is conferred. They are aliens outside of our system, and are as utterly destitute of power as the man in the moon. Instead of showing that there is nothing against it, you have to show that the power exists and is granted. I lay it down that the Federal Constitution gives to this government the exclusive power of saying who of the foreign-born shall be citizens, and having ex- ercised that authority and said who shall be citizens, the exclusive power is iu the state government to say who of her citizens shall exercise the right of suffrage. I might pro- duce authorities if I had time. I might refer to Chancellor Kent, who assumes, as a matter of course, that nobody but a citizen has a right to exercise the right of suffrage. It is a political postulate which he does not consider it worth while to argue. Having stated the principles — all that I can do in the present exigency, my time being nearly exhausted — I now apply them. Let us look at the evils which this system is to inau- gurate. A majority of foreigners settle one of the states of the American Republic. They give form to the fundamental organization of that state. That is not all ; they say who shall vote. Here is the section of this Minne- sota constitution upon the subject of suffrage : " Sec. 1. Every male person of the age of twenty-one years or upwards, belonging to either of the following classes, who shall have resided in the United States one year, and in this state for four months next preceding any election, shall be entitled to vote at such elec- tion, in the election district of which he shall at the time have been for ten days a resident, for all officers that now are, or hereafter may be, elective by the people : '• 1. White citizens of the United States. " 2. White persons of foreign birth, who shall have declared their intentions to become citizens, conformably to the laws of the United States upon the subject of naturalization. " 3. Personsof mixedwhiteandlndian blood, who have adopted the customs and habits of civilization. " 4. Persons of Indian blood residing in this state, who have adopted the language, customs, and habits of civilization, after an examination before any district court of the state, in such manner as may be provided by law, and shall have been pronounced by said court capable of enjoying the rights of citizenship within the state." Now, for whom are they to vote? They are to vote for a member of the House of Representatives. He comes here, and we have a right to look into the qualifications of the voters who sent him here, and we have a direct right to ascertain whether he has been duly elected by citizens of the United States. That is not all, sir. By their voteo the legis- lature of the state is elected, which elects Uni- ted States Senators, and we have a right to ascertain whether those Senators have been elected by proper persons. But that is not all. These same persons have a right, it is contended, to cast their suffrages for electors of the President of the United States. They may decide a presidential election. And that is not all. The election of President may come into this House, and may turn upon the vote of a single state, and the election in that state may have depended on the vote of one individual, and that an unnaturalized foreign- er just landed. Will any gentleman say that the introduction of such a system, affecting as it does the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency of the United States, would not lead to a frightful mass of evils to the Federal organization ? If such an idea could have been thought of, dreamed of, or imagined by those who framed the Federal Constitution, when they were seeking to secure uniformity in social intercourse among the states, is it to be supposed for an instant that they would not have provided against it ? But no man ever dreamed that voters were to be made out of any but citizens of the United States ; that the law for the naturalization of foreigners was itself to be practically repealed, and that foreigners, before they had remained here five years, and had acquired the morai and intellectual qualifications required, were to be put into full fellowship with our native- born citizens, and allowed to wield as large a mass of political power. Look at the consequences of such a condi- tion of things. From three to five hundred thousand foreigners — many of them, I admit, very meritorious and unexceptionable per- sons — come into this country every year, and settle in our new states and territories ; and under this system they are to be permitted at once to organize themselves into states, to send representatives to this House and to the Senate, and to participate in the election of the Presi- dent of the United States, without ever having cortformed to the requisition of the naturali- zation laws. In the name of God! is it not necessary to put a stop to this state of things? We are running downwards with hot haste. We are disregarding our ancestors and their wise and patriotic example. A new element of progress has been introduced, but all progress is not improvement — -facilis de- scensus Averni, sed revocare gradum, &c. 1 insist upon it, then, that in view of the princi- ples and doctrines of the Constitution, w< ought not to tolerate the introduction of a system of franchise that must be productive of such consequences, and which admits to the ballot-box men who, it may be, are unable to speak our language, unacquainted with our ALIEN SUFFRAGE. 47 institutions, and unfriendly to the principles of our government. My time will not allow me to expand this subject, and give other views which I would be glad to lay before the country. Mr. Millson. I desire, Mr. Speaker, to make a few remarks suggested by the remarks of my colleague (Mr. Smith), in regard to what he characterizes as alien suffrage. Now, Mr. Speaker, if I supposed that it was at all compe- tent for Congress to pass upon the constitution of a state applying for admission into the Union to the extent of approving or disapproving any provisions that might be contained in that con- stitution, I should see more direct application than I now suppose there is in my colleague's remarks. In what I am about to say I do not wish to be understood as approving of the extension of the right of suffrage ro unnaturalized for- eigners ; for many in the House may remember that it was on my motion in the last Congress that the House adopted an amendment to the Oregon bill, restricting the suffrage to the citi- zens of the United States. But if my colleague objects to the admission of a state into the Union because of an objection of that character to her constitution, I beg leave to suggest that we are travelling far beyond our appropriate sphere ; and I would suggest to him, farther, that in making animadversions on the Consti- tution of Minnesota, he is animadverting upon the constitution of his own state. I ask my colleague whether he did not vote for the con- stitution of Virginia, adopted in 1831 ? I would ask him whether he did not vote for the con- stitution of Virginia adopted four or five years ago? and now I beg leave to remind him that from the earliest period of the history of the commonwealth of Virginia alien votes have been taken at all of the elections, and are still taken. Does not the gentleman know that? Mr. Smith, of Virginia. I do not, nor do I admit it. Mr. Millson. I am surprised that my col- league does not admit that to be so ; for if he will lcok to the old constitution of Virginia, he will find that it expressly admits to the right of suffrage citizens of Virginia. If he will look to the constitution of 1831, he will find that the same provision is made there — " citi- zens of this commonwealth." And if he will look to the very last constitution, he will find the very same phraseology is preserved, and all are entitled to vote who are citizens of the commonwealth of Virginia. Mr. Smith, of Virginia. Of course, that is proper phraseology ; but, sir, citizens of Vir- ginia are citizens of the United States. Mr. Millson". And now, sir, to deprive my eolieagueof the benefit he thinks he has secured by the last explanation, I will tell him that if he will look at the statutes of Virginia, he will find a law coeval with the earliest history of the commonwealth of Virginia and existing in the statute-book until four or five years ago, in which the mode is pointed out for admitting aliens to be citizens of the state of Virginia. Mr. Smith, of Virginia. I wish to ask my colleague whether he does not know that the act to which he refers was ante-revolutionary, and passed before the adoption of the consti- tution, and whether it is not unrecognised in the revised code of Virginia? Mr. Millson. So far from it, I will tell my colleague that it was enacted in 1792, reenacted and continued in the revisal of 1819, and con- tinued under the constitution of 1831, and it was only dropped from the revised code under the revision of Messrs. Patten and Robertson, some four or five years ago. That law, I will tell my colleague, has never been repealed to this day, although omitted in that code. I beg leave to say only this— as I do not wish to detain the House, having promised to occupy its attention for a few moments only — that I have myself, in my capacity as attorney and counsellor at law, assisted in the conferring of citizenship upon many foreign voters ; and that nothing was more common, before a warmly-contested election in Virginia, than for the* county court to meet two or three days before the opening of election, and sometimes an hour or two before the election, for the ex- press purpose of admitting aliens to the right of voting, who never had been naturalized under any act of the United States. And, again, I will tell my colleague that I do not know that this right was ever questioned in the Congress of the United States, or else- where, but once. It was once questioned in a contested election, originating in the district which I now represent — the contested election between Newton and Lawyer. The sitting member, Mr. Newton, contested a number of votes in the poll of Mr. Lawyer, upon the ground that the voters were not entitled to vote, not having been naturalized under the laws of the United States. The case turned upon that question. I well remember it, sir, for it was about the earliest political election I ever remember to have witnessed. I remem- ber that the majority of Mr. Xewton was about eleven or thirteen, and that about forty or fifty votes of the character I have referred to were given for Mr. Lawyer. The House of Repre- sentatives in that case determined that these votes were valid and legal, and Mr. Lawyer took his seat, ousting Mr. Newton. Mr. Smith, of Virginia. I will ask my col- league if he knows of any other district? I will ask my other colleagues if they know of a single case in which any foreigner but a naturalized foreigner has exercised the right of suffrage in Virginia, except in the Norfolk district? If there is one, let us hear it. I cannot be accountable for what my colleague may do as Commonwealth's attorney, but I bt-g him to look to the law and the authorities which I have quoted. Mr. Millson. In reply, I can only say that as I have never been a resident of any district 48 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. in Virginia, or in the United States, except the district which I now represent, I cannot, of course, give my colleague any personal infor- mation in regard to the practice at elections in other districts. But I give him the law and the constitution of the State of Virginia. I show him that these constitutions have always ad- mitted to the right of voting citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and I point him to the law under which these aliens may be admitted to citizenship in the Commonwealth of Virginia. What more could my colleague reasonably demand ? I have risen only for the purpose of suggest- ing to my colleague that however strong may be his objections, (and I admit their force,) when he undertakes to exclude a state from this Union because of the exercise of a right which his own state constantly exercised from the beginning of the Union to the present day, it strikes me that he is taking a position not in accordance with the doctrine of state rights, which has heretofore been one of his charac- teristics. Mr. PniLLirs, of Pennsylvania. I will do no more than refer to the Constitution of the United States, and assert what I believe to be the right of my state — a state which, though she has not paid as much about state rights as the state of Virginia, Avill stand up equally firmly in re- sistance to Federal usurpation. The gentle- man says that the powers reserved to the states are enumerated powers. I insist that those given up to the general government are the enumerated powers, and all others are ex- pressly reserved and retained. It cannot be sustained that a state can exercise only enu- merated powers. Sovereignty includes all power ; and such part of a state's sovereignty only as she has contributed to the national stock is lost to her. If the Constitution of the United States shows no delegation of authority to Congress to regulate the qualifica- tions of electors in the states, it cannot be seriously argued that Congress can exercise such right. I want the gentleman to tell me where such a right exists. I ask him to show me in the Ci institution of the United States, if he can, where any state of this Union has surrendered to the Federal Government the right to pre- scribe the qualifications of electors ; for such ought to be his task. But I will take the labour on myself, and save the gentleman the trouble, and show him the contrary thereof. 1 will show him that, by that very Constitu- tion, there are recognised, as among the people of the United States, the ''people" of the Uni- ted States, and also "citizens" of the United States ; and it is not asking too much to sup- ]) is© that those who made the Constitution, who studied it for hours, days, weeks, and months, did not put into it words which were not well studied and thought over, and that they had not as much intelligence, and did not as well understand the meaning and bearing of them, as ourselves. I ask the gentleman's attention to the very first article of the Constitution, and he will find that the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every two years by the people of the several states. And must the electors have the qualifications of being citizens of the United States ? No ; they shall only have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. That is to say, recognising that each state will have a legislature, as being the republican form of government, whosoever you, gentlemen, who govern the State of Vir- ginia, or we, who help to govern the State of Pennsylvania, shall consider entitled to vote for members of the House of Representatives of our several states, may vote for members of the House of Representatives of the United States. There are no words of exclusion there. And now, if the gentleman will look at the next section, he will find that no person shall be a representative who shall not have attaine I the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States — not of the state, Mr. Speaker, but of the United States. Those who made that Constitution recognised the difference. Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, [May 11, 1858.] I now come to the main question in this de- bate — the alien suffrage clause, as it is called, in this constitution. I have said that it was no new question. It is a grave and important one, but it is coeval with the government. Mr. Speaker, if there was any subject which was seriously watched and guarded, in the forma- tion of the Constitution of the United States, above all others, it was that the Federal Government should not touch the right of suffrage in the states. The question of who should vote in the several states was left for each state to settle for itself. And so far as I am concerned, I say for myself that there is nothing in the doctrine of state rights that I would defend and stand by longer, and fight for harder, than that which denies the right of the Federal Government, by its encroach- ments, to interfere with the right of suffrage in my state. The ballot-box — that is what each state must guard and protect for itself — that is what the people of the several states never delegated to this government, and of course it was expressly, under the Constitu- tion, reserved to the people of the states. Upon the subject of alien suffrage, about which we have heard so much lately, I wish in this connection to give a brief history. I state to this House that the principle was recognised by the ordinance of 1787, which was before the government was formed. [Mr. Stephens after referring to the various acts of Congress recognising alien suffrage which have been previously quoted in this book, continued,] Of the Presidents of the United States who, in some form or other, gave the principle their ALIEN SUFFRAGE. 4'J sanction either in the territories or states, may be mentioned Washington, the elder Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Polk, Fillmore, and Pierce. Reference, sir, has been made in this debate to a speech made by Mr. Calhoun on this sub- ject, in the Senate, in 1836, on the act provid- ing for the admission of Michigan, upon which comments have been made by several gentle- men. The views of that distinguished states- man have been presented as authority on their side. I have simply this to say about that speech : I cannot find it in the Globe. I can- not find it in the debates of the day. *Mr. Ricaud. I think it is in his published speeches. Mr. Stephens, of Georgia. I have seen it in his published works, but I cannot find it in the published reports of Congress. It is stated to have been made in 1836, on the bill authorizing Michigan to form a constitution. Michigan was admitted with alien suffrage in her constitution, on the 3d March, 1837 ; and Mr. Calhoun does not appear to have made any objection to her admission on that ground. I find speeches made by him upon that bill, but none objecting to this clause. I find he offered a substitute for the bill admitting Michi- gan without objection to the alien suffrage clause in her constitution. Still, it is stated that this speech of his was made the year before, on the occasion referred to, and I do not wish to be understood as questioning it. That was on Congress conferring the right. lie did not raise any objection to the admis- sion of the state as far as I can find, because of alien suffrage being allowed in her consti- tution. Again: on the 26th of July, 1848, the Clayton compromise bill for the organization of certain territorial governments passed the Senate. The fifth section of the act provides— "That every free white male inhabitant, above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of said "Territory at the tune of the passage of this act, shall be enti- tled^ vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office in said Territory ; but the qualification of voters, and of holding office, at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative Assem- bly : Provided, That the right of suffrage, and of holding office, shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States, and those who shall hare declared on oath their intention to become such, and shall hare taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act.'' gan, Houston, Hunter, Johnson of Maryland, Johnson o' Louisiana, Johnson of Georgia, King, Lewis, Mangum, Mason Phelps, Rusk, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon, W ney, Westcott, and Yulee— 33. ' " Nays.— Messrs. Allen. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Brartburv, Uark, Corwin. Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton. Dix, Dodge, Felon* itzgerald, Greene, Hale. Hamlin, Metcalfe, Miller IS lies, Underwood, Upham, and Walker.— 22." On the engrossment of this bill, the vote was — n ", Yeas -— Mws: '-s. Atchison. Atherton, Benton, Berrien, B ° r i?. u,:1 .- Breest; - B'-'ght, Butler. Calhoun, Clayton. Davis of Mississippi, Dickinson, Douglas, Downs, Foote, Hanne- • This speech will be found on page 39 of this work. 4 Mr. Calhoun was on the committee which reported this provision, and he does not appear as having objected to it. And though he may have made that speech in 1836, yet it is equally certain and true that twelve years afterwards he voted for the very principle he had pre- viously opposed. His vote for the principle in 1848, in my opinion, is a sufficient answer to his speech against it in 1836. This is, there- fore, Mr. Speaker, no new question. The same principle, as I have said, was in- corporated in the same words, I think, in the bill for the organization of Washington Terri- tory in 1853, and in the Kansas-Nebraska bill in 1854. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. May- nard] put this question to some gentleman the other day : whether, if this bill should pass, Minnesota might not confer the right of votino- upon an alien enemy ? By no means, sir ; the person of foreign birth, who is entitled to vote under this constitution, has first to purge him- self of his aMegiance to other powers. He must have declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and sworn to support the Constitution of the same. This is the condi- tion precedent. By no possibility, therefore, could an alien enemy legally vote in Minnesota. Now, Mr. Speaker, the decision of the Su- preme Court of the United States has been read and commented on by the gentleman fron> Maryland [Mr. Davis], who led off in this dis- cussion, and whose speech I listened to with t» great deal of interest — an argument as well got up and made on that side of the question as 3 think it possible for ingenuity, ability and tal ent, united with eloquence, to present. He rested his argument mainly on the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case where Judge Taney says that the word* " people of the United States/' in fch* Consti tutiou, are synonymous with •' cukens." Aftej reading that part of the (JeoLion, the gentle man quoted an article in the Constitution wbicK says that " the House oj" Lepiesentatives shalJ be composed of member t chosen every second year by the people of ibt several state's;" anti his argument was, that as the Supreme Court had defined that the *,ord " people " was synon- ymous, in the Coiotitution of the United States, to " citizo:.g," therefore members of this House could bo elected by none but " citi zens of the United States." That was the gen- tleman's argument; but I am far from con- curring with him in it. His argument rests upon the assumption that the Constitution of the Inited Svates, in the clause quoted, in- tended to ivfine the class of voters in the seve- ral statoj, and to limit suffrage. I think that 50 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. it will take me but a moment, by recurring to that clause of the Constitution and comparing it with others, to show that the object of that clause was simply to point out the mode of the election of the members of this House in con- tradistinction from the mode of electing Sena- tors, and not the class of voters. The House was to be elected by the people by a popular vote, by the masses ; while the Senate was to be elected by the State Legislatures. That is all that is meant in that clause. The Consti- tution is in these words : "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States," — There the gentleman stopped. What follows ? — " and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legisla- ture." There, coupled with what the gentleman read, is the right which I say that the people insisted upon beyond all others — the reserved right that the General Government should never interfere with suffrage in the States ; not even for members of this House. Immedi- ately after the words he read, sir, without a semicolon separating them, is the express decla- ration that the states shall fix the qualification of electors or voters. Who shall say to each state in this particular, thus far mayest thou go, and no further? Who shall say to the sovereignties where they shall stop? The states, over this subject, have never parted with any of their sovereignty. It is their right, therefore, to fix the qualifications of voters un- restrictedly and absolutely. If they say an alien may vote, it is their right to do so. The other clause of the Constitution to which I referred, showing what was meant in the first part of the one read by the gentleman, is in these words : " The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof." The first clause the gentleman read the other day refers simply, as it clearly appears, to the manner of the election, the mode of the elec- tion, the constituency of those elected — to dis- tinguish them from the constituency of the Senators. The one was to be the people, con- tra-distinguished from the legislatures of the states ; this was one of the points of difficulty in forming the Federal Constitution. It was finally determined that the House should repre- sent the people, and the Senate should repre- sent the states. I will refer briefly to the same authority on that point. I read from Yates's Minutes of the Debates in the Federal Convention, the fourth resolve : " That the members of the first branch of the national Legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several States, was op- posed ; and, strange to tell, by Massachusetts and Connecticut, who supposed they ought to be chosen by the Legislatures ; and Virginia supported the resolve, alleging that this ought to be the democratic branch of the govern- ment, and, as such, immediately vested in the people." Again, Mr. Pinckney moved : " That the members of the first branch (that is, this House,) be appointed In such manner as the several State Legislatures shall direct." Mr. Madison said : " I oppose the motion." Mr. Mason said : " I am for preserving inviolably the demo- cratic branch of the government. True, we have found inconveniences from pure demo- cracies ; but if we mean to preserve peace and real freedom, they must necessarily become a component part of a national government. Change this necessary principle, and if the government proceeds to taxation the States will oppose your power." The idea that prevailed at the formation of our constitution was, that representation and taxation should go together. It was mainly upon that ground that the men of that day went to the war with the mother country ; it was because the colonies were taxed and not allowed representation ; and if you trace the history of this government down, you will find this great American idea running throughout — that taxation and representation should go to- gether. Whoever pays taxes should vote — that is the idea. Great confusion seems to exist in the minds of gentlemen from the association of the words citizen and suffrage. Some seem to think that rights of citizenship and rights of suffrage necessarily go together ; that one is dependent upon the other. There never was a greater mistake. Suffrage, or the right to vote, is the creature of law. There are citizens in every state of this Union, I doubt not, who are not entitled to vote. So, in several of the states there are persons who by law are entitled to vote, though they be not citizens. If there be citizens who cannot vote, why may there not be individuals, who are not citizens, who may nevertheless be allowed to vote, if the sovereign will of the state shall so determine? In all the states nearly there are other qualifications for voting, even with the native-born, besides citizenship. Residence for a certain length of time. Virginia, for instance, requires of all citizens of other states, native-born citizens of Maryland or North Carolina, a certain term of residence. They shall not vote in Virginia unless they have been there twe/ve months. In Alabama, I think, the provision is the same. Why, sir, in my own state, where we have universal suffrage, as it is called, no man can vote unless he has paid his taxes, and resided in the county six months. There are thousands of citizens in Georgia, and I suppose in every other state, who are not entitled to the right ALIEN SUFFRAGE. 51 of suffrage under our constitution and laws. Citizenship and suffrage by no means go toge- ther in all cases. My time will not allow me to enlarge on that idea. I will only refer briefly again to what was said in the Federal convention on the subject of the states retain- ing the control over the subject of suffrage, showing how vigilantly this was watched aud guarded by the state-rights men. Gouverneur .Morris had proposed to restrain the right of suffrage to freeholders. This gave rise to a long debate. Mr. Ellsworth said : " The qualification of electors stood on the most proper footing. The right of suffrage was a tender point, and strongly guarded by most of the state constitutions. The people will not readily subscribe to the national con- stitution if it should subject them to be dis- franchised. The states are the best judges of the circumstances and temper of their own people." Again, he says, (I read from the Madison Papers) : " Ought not every man who pays a tax to vote for the representative who is to levy and dispose of his money ? Taxation and repre- sentation ought to go together." I barely refer to this to show that I am sus- tained in my view by the highest authority. This subject of the qualification of electors, and who should determine it, was mooted at the settlement of the government ; and it was left to the state legislatures, under state con- stitutions. Now, sir, a few moments on the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Taney, in my judgment, fully confirms everything I have said. He says : " The words ' people of the United States,' and ' citizens,' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body, who, according to our republi- can institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what are familiarly called the sovereign people; and every citizen is one of this people, and a con- stituent member of this sovereignty. The ques- tion before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement [Dred Scott was a negro] compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereign- ty. We think they are not ; and were not in- tended to be included under the word ' citizens' in theconstitution.and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instru- ment provides for, and secures to citizens of the United States." It was the first words of this clause of the decision the gentleman from Maryland relied on, but he did not pursue the' argument far enough. The object of the Chief Justice was to show that persons of the African race descended from those who were bought and sold as slaves, were not in the original body-politic, and could not, by state laws, incorporated into that body-politic. But now mark what imme- diately follows that part of his decision : " In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a state may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union." Here is the distinction. By naturalization. Congress can confer citizenship throughout the Union. What are the rights created by that? Three in all. The right to hold land is one; the right to sue in the Federal courts is another ; and the right to claim the protec- tion of this government, or the right of pass- port abroad, is the other. No state can confer these rights throughout the Union ; but each state may confer them within her limits. Each state may confer upon an alien the right to hold lands. No man can question that ; but if Indiana or Georgia confers this right upon an alien, he cannot go into South Caro- lina and hold land there by virtue of that. If he were naturalized he could. So each state may give the right to an alien to sue in its own courts ; but, therefore, he does not acquire a right to sue in r.ny other state court or the Federal courts. Each state may guaranty her protection within her limits, but not through- out the Union. She cannot pledge the protec- tion of the common government. But the court goes right on with this lan- guage : " It does not by any means follow, because he has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, that he must be a citizen of the Uni- ted States. He may have all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other state ; for, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer ou whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights ; but this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the state, and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states. Nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Consti- tution of the United States. Each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons ; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other states. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the state which gave them." I ask, then, if the constitution of Minne- sota, according to this Dred Scott decision, ha? an iota, or a single clause in it, so far as alien suffrage is concerned, which Chief Justice Taney has not said she has a right under the 52 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Constitution of the United States to put in it? This is a right none of the states have ever surrendered. Every state in this Union has the right of fixing the status of all its consti- tuent elements absolute^, as each state may determine for itself, and also the right of de- termining who may and who may not vote at elections for public officers under her autho- rity. What part of the constitution of Min- nesota, then, is in violation of the Constitu- tion of the United States ? Why, then, should i»he not be admitted ? Let me say, in conclusion, that the consti- tution of Illinois has such a clause. Is not she an equal in this Union ? Why not rule her out? Indiana has such a clause. Why not rule her out ? Michigan has such a clause. Why not rule her out ? Wisconsin has such a clause. I have the Journal here. When Wis- consin was admitted, in 1848, Mr. Calhoun was in his seat and he did not even call the yeas and nays on it. And yet we are told that this is a great and dangerous example we are setting, if we admit Minnesota on an equal footing with Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wis- consin, and all of the states. Deprive her of this great right, would she be their equal? Are Illinois and South Carolina now equal ? Are Indiana and Massachusetts now equal? Why, then, if you deny Minnesota the power that Illinois and Indiana have, will she be equal to them ? Things equal to one another are equal to each other. If those in the Union now are equal, will not Minnesota be unequal if you deprive her of this right? If you put upon her a condition you have never put upon these others, will not you make her unequal ? and if you bring her in, would she be upon an equal footing with her sister states ? If she confers suffrage upon those born abroad, who purge themselves of their foreign allegiance and swear to support the Constitution of the United States, she has the right to do so. Any state in the Union now has the same right, if any see fit to exercise it. The several states cannot confer citizenship of the United States upon any body or class of persons ; but every state, in her sovereign capacity, has a right to say who shall vote at elections in that state. Let us, then, drop this objection ; let us admit Minnesota, and let her come in clothed with all the sovereignty that the other states possess. Alien and Sedition Laws. An Act concerning Aliens. Sec. 1. Be it enacted, &c, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, at any time during the continuance of this act, to order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the government thereof, to depart out of the territory of the United States, within such time as shall be expressed in such order ; which order shall be Berved on such alien by delivering him a copy thereof, or leaving the same at his usual abode, and returned to the office of the Secretary of State, by the marshal or other person to whom the same shall be directed. And in case any alien, so ordered to deport, shall be found a"t large within the United States, after the time limited in such order for his departure, and not having obtained a license from the Presi- dent to reside therein, or, having obtained such license, shall not have conformed thereto, every such alien shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years, and shall never after be admitted to become a citizen of the United States: Pro- vided always, and be it further enacted, that if any alien, so ordered to depart, shall prove, to the satisfaction of the President, by evi- dence to be taken before such person or per- sons as the President shall direct, who are for that purpose hereby authorized to administer oaths, that no injury or danger to the United States shall arise from suffering such alien to reside therein, the President may grant a license to such alien to remain within the United States, for such time as he shall judge proper, and at such place as he shall designate. And the President may also require of such alien to enter into a bond to the United States, in such penal sum as he may direct, with one or more sufficient sureties, to the satisfaction of the person authorized by the President to take the same, conditioned for the good be- havior of such alien during his residence in the United States, and not violating his license, which license the President may revoke when- ever he shall think proper. Sec. 2. That it shall be lawful for the Presi- dent of the United States, whenever he may deem it necessary for the public safety, to order to be removed out of the territory thereof any alien who may or shall be in prison in pursuance of this act ; and to cause to be ar- rested, and sent out of the United States, such of those aliens as shall have been ordered to depart therefrom, and shall not have obtained a license as aforesaid, in all cases where, in the opinion of the President, the public safety requires a speedy removal. And if any alien, so removed or sent out of the United States by the President, shall voluntarily return thereto, unless by permission of the President of the United States, such alien, on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned so long as, in the opinion of the President, the public safety may require. Sec. 3. That every master or commander of any ship or vessel which shall come into any port of the United States after the first day of July next, shall, immediately on his ar- rival, make report, in writing, to the collector or other chief officer of the customs of such port, of all aliens, if any, on board his vessel, specifying their names, age, the place of na- tivity, the country from which they shall have come, the nation to which they belong and owe allegiance, their occupation, and a de- scription of their persons, as far as he shall be informed thereof; and, on failure, every ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS. 53 such master and commander shall forfeit and pay three hundred dollars ; for the payment whereof, on default of such master or com- mander, such vessel shall also he holden, and may, by such collector or other officer of the customs, be detained. And it shall be the duty of such collector, or other officer of the customs, forthwith to transmit to the office of the Department of State true copies of all euch returns. Sec. 4. That the Circuit and District Courts of the United States shall, respectively, have cognisance of all crimes and offences against this act. And all marshals and other officers of the United States are required to execute all precepts and orders of the President of the United States, issued in pursuance or by virtue of this act. Sec. 5. That it shall be lawful for any alien who may be ordered to be removed from the United States, by virtue of this act, to take with him such part of his goods, chattels, or other property, as he may find convenient ; and all property left in the United States, by any alien who may be removed as aforesaid, shall be and remain subject to his order and disposal, in the same manner as if this act had not been passed. Sec. 6. That this act shall continue and be in force for and during the term of two years from the passing thereof. [Approved : June 25, 1798.] The legislative history of the above act is this : — On the 25th of April, 1798, in the Senate of the United States, Mr. Hillhouse, a Senator from Connecticut, offered a resolution for a committee to inquire what provision of law ought to be made, &c, as to the removal of such aliens as may be dangerous to the peace of the country, &c. This resolution was adopted the next day, and Messrs. Livermore of N. H., Hillhouse of Conn., Read of S. C, Sedgewick of Mass., and Lawrence of N. Y., were appointed the committee. On the 4th of May, 1798, Mr. Livermore, from said committee, reported a bill concern- ing aliens. It passed the Senate on the 8th of June, 1798, by yeas and nays, as follows : — TEAS.— Messrs. Bingham of Pa.. Chipmnn of Vt, Clayton of Del.. Foster of K. I., Goodhue of Mass.. nillhouse of Conn., Latimer of Del., Lawrence of X. Y.. Livermore of N. H., Lloyd of Md.. Martin of N. C. North of N. Y., I'aine of Vt., Head of S. C, Stockton of N. J., and Tracy of Conn.— 10. N A ys. Messrs. Anderson of Tenn.. Blood worth of N. C, Brown of Ky.. Marshall of Ky., Mason of Va., Tattnal of Ga., and Tazewell of Va.— 7. On the same day on which the Senate bill passed that body, a bill to the same effect was reported in the House by Mr. Sewall of Mass., from the Committee for the Protection of Com- merce, ore. Both it and the Senate bill were debated in the House. Messrs. Gallatin of Pa., Baldwin of Geo., Williams of N. C, Livingston of N. Y., McDowell of N. C, J. Smith of Md., spoke against the principle of the bills. Messrs. Otis of Mass., Sewall of N. Y., Harper of S. C, Gordon of N. II., Dayton of N. J., and Kittera of N. H., defended it. The bill of the Senate eventually passed the House on the 21st of June, 1798, with some few amendments which were concurred « in by the Senate, and became a law. The vote on it by yeas and nays in the House was as follows : Yeas.— Messrs. Allen of Conn., Baer of Ind., Bartlett of Mass., Bayard of Del., Brooks of N. Y., Bullock of Mass., Champlin of Conn., Chapman of Pa., Cochran of N. Y., Coit •of Conn., Craik of Md., Dana of Vt, Edmond of Conn., Evans of Va., Foster of Miss., Foster of N. H., Freeman of Mass., Glen of N. Y., Goodrich of Vt., Gordon of N. IL. Greswould of Conn., Grove of N. C, Harper of S. C, Hindman of Md., Hosmer of N. Y., Imlay of N. J.. Kittera of Pa.. Lyman of Mass., Matthews of Ind., Morris of N. Y., Otis of Mass., Parker of Mass., Reed of Mass., Rutledge of S. C, Schure- man of N. J., Sewall of Mass., William Shepard of Mass., Sinuickson of N. J., Sitgreaves of Pa., Smith of Conn., Thatcher of Mass., Thomas of Pa., Thomson of Del., Tilling- hast of R. I., Van Alen of N. Y., Wadsworth of Mass.— 46. Nays.— Baldwin of Ga., Bard of Pa., Benton of S. C, Blount of N. C, Brent of Va., Burges of N. C, Claihorne of Va., William Claiborne of Tenn., Cloptou of Va., Davis of Ky., Dawson of Va., Dent of Ind., Fowler of Ky., Gallatin of Pa.. Gillespie of N. C, Gre^g of Ky., Hana of Pa., Harris- son of Va., Havens of N. Y., Huster of Pa., Holmes of Va., Jones of Va., Levingston of N. Y., Locke of N. C. Lyon of Vt, Macon of N. C, MeClennachan of Pa., McDowell of N. C, Milledge of Ga., New of Va., S. Smith of Md., William Smith of S. C, Spregg of Md., Stanford of N. C, Sumpter of S. C, A. Trigg of Va., I. Trigg of Va., Varnuni of Mass., Veuable of Va., Williams of N. Y.— 40. An Act in addition to the Act, entitled "An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the united states." Sec. 1. Be it enacted, &c, That if any per- sons shall unlawfully combine or conspire to- gether with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by pro- per authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person, holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing, or exe- cuting his trust or duty, and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall coun- sel, advise, or attempt to procure, any insur- rection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combina- tion, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt, shall have the pro- posed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and, on convic- tion before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months, nor exceeding five years ; and further, at the discretion of the court, may be holden to find sureties for his good behavior. in such sum and for euch time as the said court may direct. Sec. 2. That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, or shall, knowingly and willingly, assist or aid 54 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing or writings against the government of the Uni- ted States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either House of the said Con- gress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute ; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the Uni- ted States ; or to stir up sedition within the United States ; or to excite any unlawful com- binations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pur- suance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the Constitution of the United States; or to resist, oppose, or defeat, any such law or act: or to aid, encourage, or abet, any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government; then such person, being there- of convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years. Sec. 3. That if any person shall be prose- cuted, under this act, for the writing or pub- lishing any libel, as aforesaid, it shall be law- ful for the defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in evidence, in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in the publica- tion charged as a libel ; and the jury who shall try the cause, shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases. Sec. 4. That this act shall continue and be in force until the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and one, and no longer : Provided, That the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat a prosecution and punishment of any offence against the law during the time it shall be in force. [Approved : July 14, 1798.] The history of this act is as follows — It originated in the Senate of the United States. A bill having been introduced on leave, by Mr. Lloyd of Maryland, it was referred to a com- mittee consisting of that gentleman, Messrs. Tracy of Conn., Stockton of X. J., Chipman of Vt., and Read of S. C. The bill passed the Senate on the 4th day of July, 1798, by yeas and nays as follows : Y !-.*«.— Messrs. Chipman of Vt.. Clayton of Del., Foster of R. I.. Cm, m(Ii ii" of Mass., Greene of R. I., Hillhouse of Conn.. Latimer of Del., Lawrence of N. Y., Livcrmore of N. II., Lloyd of Md.. M trtin of N. C, North of N. Y., Paine of Vt.. Read of S. 0., Rutherford of N. J.. Sedgewick of Mass., Stockton of N. J., Tracy of Conn.— is. Nats.— Messrs. Anderson of Tenn., Brown of Ky.. Howard, Langdon of N. II.. Mason of Va., Tazewell of Va. — ti. The bill was opposed in the House by Messrs. Nicholas of Va., Livingston of N. Y., Macon of N. C, McDowell of N. C, Gallatin of Pa., Craik of Md., Claiborne of Va., a\ d Smith oi Md., and defended by Messrs. Allen of Conn., Harper of S. C, Otis of Mass., Dana of Vt., and Kitteia of Pa. It finally passed the House with amend- ments on the 10th of July, 1798, which amend- ments were concurred in, and it became a law. The vote on it in the House was as follows: — Yeas. — Messrs. Allen of Conn.. Baer Jr of Ind.. Bartlett of Mass.. Bayard of Del., Brooks of N. Y.. ( 'hamplin of Conn., Chapman of Pa., Cochran of N. Y.. Coit of Conn., Dana of Vt., Edmond of Cona.. Evans of Va., Foster of Mass., Foster of N. II., Freeman of Mass., Glen of N. Y., Goodrich of Vt.. Cordon of N. II.. Griswold of Conn.. Grove of N. C. Harper of S. C. Hartley of Pa., Hindman of Md., Hernierof N. Y., Imby of N. J., Kittera of Pa., Lyman. Otis of Mass., Parker of Mass., Reed of Mass., Rutledge of Pa.. Schureuian of N J. Sewall of Mass., Shepard of Mass., Sinnickson of >.. .)., Sitgreaves of Pa., Smith of Conn.. Sprague of N. II., Thatcher of Mass.. Thomas of l'a., Thomson of Del., Til- linghast of R. I., Van Alen of N. Y., Wadsworth of Mass.— 44. NAYS.— Messrs. Baldwin of G»., Bard of Pa., Benton. Blount of N. J., Brent of Va.. Bullock of Mass.. Burgi N. C, Thomas Claiborne of Va.. \\ m. Claiborne of Tenn.. Clopton of Va., Dawson of Va.. Dent of Ind., Fowler of Ky., Gallatin of l'a.. Gillespie of N. C, Gregg of Ky.. liana of Pa., Harrison of Va., Havens of N.Y„ lleister of Pa., Holmes of Va.. Jones of A'a., LiTingston of N. Y., Locke of N. I'., Lyon of Vt., Macon of N. C. Maltbeus of Ind., MeClena- chan of l'a.. McDowell of N. C New of Va., Nicholas of Va., Smith of S. C. Smith of Ind.. Spriggs Jrof Md., Stanford of N. C, Sumter of S. C, J. Trigg of Va., Van Cortland* of N, Y., Varnum of Mass.. Venable of Va., Williams of N. Y. — 41. Allen, James C, of Illinois. Mr. Allen was returned as a member of the 34th Congress from the State of Illinois, elected by onevote. Mr. W. B. Archer, his opponent, contested his seat on the ground that two votes cast for him were improperly rejected. The case was referred to the Committee on Elec- tions of the House, consisting of Messrs. Washburne of Me., Watson of Ohio, Spinner of N. Y., Colfax of Indiana, and Bingham of Ohio, Republicans : Stephens of Geo., Savage of Tennessee, and Hickman of Pa., Democrats; and Smith of Ala., Ameridan. Mr. Washburne, on behalf of the majority of the committee, that is, the Republican mem- bers of it, reported the following resolutions : — Resolved, that Jas. C. Allen was not elected and is not entitled to a seat in this house. Resolved, that W. B. Archer was elected and is entitled to a seat in this House. The question was decided on the 18th of July, 1856, by the adoption of the first reso- lution and the rejection of the second. As the ejection of Mr. Allen from his seat is claimed to have been done by a party vote, Mr. Allen being a Democrat and Mr. Archer a Republican, the vote is given, on the first re- solution as follows : — ALLEN, JAMES C— AMERICAN PLATFORMS. 55 Damrell of Mass.. Timothy Davis of Mass , Day of 0.. Dean of Conn., Dewitt of Mass., Dickson of N. Y.. Dodd of N. Y.. Dunn of Ind., Durfee of R. I.. Edwards of X. Y., Enirie of O., Giddings of 0., Gilbert of N. Y., Granger of X. Y..Grow of Pa., Robert B. Hall of Mass., Harlan of 0., Harrissox ot 0.. Haven of N. Y., llolloway of Ind., Thomas K. Horton of N. V., V. B. Horton of 0., Hughston of N. Y., Kelsey of X. Y., King of X. Y.. Knappof Mass., Knight of Fa., Knowlton of Me., Knox of 111., Leiter of O., Matteson of X. Y.. McCartyof N. Y., Meachaui of Vt., Killiau Miller of X. Y.. Moore of 0., Morgan of N.Y., Morrill of Vt., Murray of X.Y., Norton of 111., Parker of X. Y.. Helton of X. Y., Pennington of X. J., Perry of Me.. 1'ettit of Ind., Pike of X. H., Pringle of X. Y„ Pur- Tianee of Pa., Ritchie of Pa., Bobbins of X. J., Roberts of Pa_, Sabin of Vt.. Sapp of 0.. Scott of Ind., Sherman of 0., Simmuns of X. Y.. Spinner of N. Y.. Stanton of 0.. Strana- ban of X. Y..Tappan of X. II., Thorington of la., Thurston Of R. I., Todd of Pa., Trafton of Mass.. Tyson* of Pa., Wade of Ohio, Wakeman of N. Y., Waldridge of Mich.. Waldron of Mich., Elihu B. Washhurne of 111. /Israel Washburne of Me., Welch of Conn., and Wood of Me.— 91. NAYS. — Messrs. Aiken of S. C, Barksdale of Mis6., Bell of Tex., Bennett of Mi.-s., Broom of Pa., Burnett of Ky., Cad- wilader of Pa.. John P. Campbell of Ky., Carlisle of Va., CaruUiers of Mo., Caskie of Ya., Bayard Clark of X. Y, Clingman of X. C, Cubb of Ga., Cobb of Ala., Cox, of Ky., Craige of X. C, Crawford of Ga., Cullex of Del., Davidson of La., Denver of Call, Dowdell of Ala., Edmundson of Va., Elliott of Ky., English of Ind., Etheridge of Tenn.. Florence of Pa., Foster of Ga., Fuller of Me., Goode of Va., Greenwood of Ark.. Hall of la., Harris of Ala.. Harris of 111., Hoffman of Md., Houston of Ala.. Je.weti of Ky., Jones of Tenn., Jones of Pa , Kelly of X. Y., Kenxett of Mo.. Kidioell of Va., Lake Of Miss., Letcher of Va., Lumpkin of Ga., Marshall of Ky., Marshall of 111., Maxwell of Fla., McMullin of Va., McQueen of S. C, Miller of Ind., Milson of Va., Packer of Pa., Peck of Mich., Phelps of Mo., Porter of Mo., Powell of Va., Pur- year of X. C, Quitman of Miss., Reade of X. C, Ready of Tenn.. Ricaud of Md., Rivers of Tenn., Rufi'in of X. C, Rust of Ark , Savage of Tenn., Seward of Ga., Shorter of Ala., Smith of Tenn., Smith of Va., Sneed of Tenn., Stephens of Ga., Stewart of Md., Swope of Ky., Talbot of Ky., Taylor of La.. Tripps of Ga., Underwood of Ky., Vail of X. J., Yalk of X. Y.. Warner of Ga., Walking of Tenn., WeUs of Wis., mieder of X. Y., Whitney of X. Y., Williams of X. Y., D. B. WrigJtt of Miss., J. V. Wright of Tenn., Zollicoffer of Tenn. —90. Democrats in italics; Republicans in re- man ; Fillmore Americans in small caps. The vote on the second resolution rejecting it was yeas 89, nays 91. Messrs. Day, Haven, Moore, and Tyson, who voted for the first resolution, voted against this. Mr. Giddings, who voted on the first resolution, did not vote on this. American Platforms. Platform of 1855. 1. The acknowledgment of that Almighty Be- ing who rules over the universe — who presides over the Councils of Nations — who conducts the affairs of men, and who, in every step by which we have advanced to the character of an independent nation, has distinguished us by some token of Providential agency. 2. The cultivation and development of a sentiment of profoundly intense American feeling ; of passionate attachment to our country, its history and its institutions ; of admiration for the purer days of our national existence ; of veneration for the heroism that precipitated our Revolution, and of emulation of the virtue, wisdom, and patriotism that framed our Constitution, and first successfully applied its provisions. 3. The maintenance of the union of these United States, as the paramount political good ; or, to use the language of Washington, * Mr. Tyson has since supported Mr. Buchanan. " the primary object of patriotic desire." And hence — First. Opposition to all attempts to weaken or subvert it. Second. Uncompromising antagonism to every principal of policy that endangers it. Third. The advocacy of an equitable adjust- ment of all political differences which threaten its integrity or perpetuity. Fourth. The suppression of all tendencies to political division, founded on "geographical discriminations, or on the belief that there is a real difference of interests and views" be- tween the various sections of the Union. Fifth. The full recognition of the rights of the several states, as expressed and reserved in the Constitution ; and a care fulavoidance by the general government, of all interference with their rights by legislative or executive action. 4. Obedience to the Constitution of these United States as the supreme law of the land, sacredly obligatory upon all its parts and members ; and steadfast resistance to the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. Avowing that in all doubtful or disputed points it may only be legally ascertained and expounded by the judicial power of the United States. First. A habit of reverential obedience to the laws, whether national, state, or munici- pal, until they are repealed or declared un- constitutional by the proper authority. Second. A tender and sacred regard for those acts of statesmanship, which are to be contradistinguished from acts of ordinary legislation, by the fact of their being of the nature of compacts and agreements ; and so, to be considered a fixed and settled national policy. 5. A radical revision and modification of the laws regulating immigration, and the set- tlement of immigrants — offering the honest immigrant, who, from love of liberty or hatred of oppression, seeks an asylum in the United States, a friendly reception and protection, but unqualifiedly condemning the transmis- sion to our shores of felons and paupers. 6. The essential modification of the naturali- zation laws. The repeal by the legislatures of the re- spective states, of all state laws allowing for- eigners not naturalized to vote. The repeal, without retrospective operation, of all acts of Congress making grants of land to unnatu- ralized foreigners, and allowing them to vote in the territories. 7. Hostility to the corrupt means by which the leaders of party have hitherto forced upon us our rulers and our political creeds. Implacable enmity against the present de- moralizing system of rewards for political subserviency, and of punishments for political independence. Disgust for the wild hunt after office which characterizes the age. These on the one hand. On the other — Imitation of the practice of the purer days 56 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of the republic ; and admiration of the maxim that " office should seek the man, and not man the office," and of the rule that the just mode of ascertaining fitness for office is the capa- bility, the faithfulness, and the honesty of the incumbent candidate. 8. Resistance to the aggressive policy and corrupting tendencies of the Roman Catholic Church in our country by the advancement to all political stations — executive, legislative, judicial, or diplomatic — of those only who do not hold civil allegiance, directly or indirectly, to any foreign power, whether civil or eccle- siastical, and who are Americans by birth, education, and training — thus fulfilling the maxim, " Americans only shall govern Ame- rica." The protection of all citizens in the legal and proper exercise of their civil and religious rights and privileges : the maintenance of the right of every man to the full, unrestrained, and peaceful enjoyment of his own religious opinions and worship, and a jealous resistance of all attempts by any sect, denomination, or church, to obtain an ascendancy over any other in the state, by means of any special privilege or exemption, by any political com- bination of its members, or by a division of their civil allegiance with any foreign power, potentate, or ecclesiastic. 9. The reformation of the character of our National Legislature, by elevating to that dignified and responsible position men of higher qualifications, purer morals, and more unselfish patriotism. 10. The restriction of executive patronage — especially in the matter of appointments to office — so far as it may be permitted by the Constitution, and consistent with the public good. 11. The education of the youth of our coun- try in schools provided by the state ; which schools shall be common to all, without dis- tinction of creed or party, and free from any influence or direction of a denominational or partisan character. And, inasmuch as Christianity, by the con- stitutions of nearly all the states : by the de- cisions of the most eminent judicial authori- ties, and by the consent of the people of America, is considered an element of our political system, and as the Holy Bible is at once the source of Christianity, and the depo- sitory and fountain of all civil and religious freedom, we oppose every attempt to exclude it from the schools thus established in the states. 12. The American party, having arisen upon the ruins, and in spite of the opposition of the Whig and Democratic parties, cannot be held in any manner responsible for the obnoxious acts or violated pledges of either. And the systematic agitation" of the slavery question by those parties having elevated sec- tional hostility into a positive clement of political power, am! brought our institutions into peril, it has, therefore, become the im- perative duty of the American party to inter- pose, for the purpose of giving peace to th» country and perpetuity to the Union. And as experience has shown it impossible to re- concile opinions so extreme as those which separate the disputants, and as there can be no dishonor in submitting to the laws, the National Council has deemed it the best guar- antee of common justice and of future peace, to abide by and maintain the existing laws upon the subject of slavery, as a final and conclusive settlement of that subject, in fact and in substance. And, regarding it the highest duty to avow their opinions upon a subject so important in distinct and unequivocal terms, it is hereby declared as the sense of this National Council, that Congress possesses no power, under the Constitution, to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the states, where it does or may exist, or to exclude any state from admission into the Union because its constitution does or does not recognise the institution of slavery as a part of its social system : and expressly pretermitting any expression of opinion upon the power of Congress to establish or prohibit slavery in any territory, it is the sense of the National Council that Congress ought not to legislate upon the subject of slavery within the territory of the United States, and that any interference by Congress with slavery as it exists in the District of Columbia, would be a violation of the spirit and intention of the 'compact by which the state of Maryland ceded the District to the United States, and a breach of the national faith. 13. The policy of the government of the United States, in its relations with foreign go- vernments, is to exact justice from the strong- est, and do justice to the weakest; restraining, by all the power of the government, all its citizens from interference with the internal concerns of nations with whom we are at peace. 14. This National Council declares that all the principles of the order shall be henceforth everywhere openly avowed ; and that each member shall be at liberty to make known the existence of the order, and the fact that he himself is a member ; and it recommends that there be no concealment of the places of meeting of subordinate councils. E. B. Bartlett of Ky. President of National Council. C. D. Deshler of N. J., Corresponding Secretary. James M. Stephens of Md., Recording Secretary. Platform of the American Party, adopted at the session of the national council, February 21, 1856. An humble acknowledgment to the Supreme Being, for his protecting care vouchsafed to our fathers in their successful Revolutionary strug- gle, and hitherto manifested to us, their des- cendants, in the preservation of the liberties, the independence, and the union of these states. AMERICAN PLATFORMS.— AMERICAN RITUAL. 57 2d. The perpetuation of the Federal Union, as the palladium of our civil and religious liberties, and the only sure bulwark of Ameri- can independence. 3d. Americans must rule America, and to this end, native-born citizens should be selected for all state, federal, and municipal offices, or government employment, in preference to all others : nevertheless 4th. Persons born of American parents residing temporarily abroad, should be enti- tled to all the rights of native-born citizens ; but 5th. No person should be selected for poli- tical station (whether of native or foreign birth), who recognises any allegiance or ob- ligation of any description to any foreign prince, potentate or power, or who refuses to recognise the federal and state constitutions (each within its sphere) as paramount to all other laws as issues of political action. 6th. The unqualified recognition and main- tenance of the reserved rights of the several states, and the cultivation of harmony and fraternal good will, between the citizens of the several states, and to this end, non-interference by Congress with questions appertaining sole- ly to the individual states, and non-inter- vention by each state with the affairs of any other state. 7th. The recognition of the right of the native-born and naturalized citizens of the United States, permanently residing in any territory thereof, to frame their constitution and laws, and to regulate their domestic and social affairs in their own mode, subject only to the provisions of the Federal Constitution, with the privilege of admission into the Union whenever they have the requisite population for one representative in Congress. Provided always, that none but those who are citizens of the United States, under the Constitution and laws thereof, and who have a fixed resi- dence in any such territory, ought to partici- pate in the formation of the constitution, or in the enactment of laws for said territory or states. 8th. An enforcement of the principle that no state or territory ought to admit others than citizens of the United States to the right of suffrage, or of holding political office. 9th. A change in the laws of naturaliza- tion, making a continued residence of twenty- one years, of all not hereinbefore provided for, an indispensable requisite for citizenship hereafter, and excluding all paupers, and per- sons convicted of crime, from landing upon our shores ; but no interference with the vested rights of foreigners. 10th. Opposition to any union between Church and State : no interference with religi- ous faith, or worship, and no test oaths for office. 11th. Free and thorough investigation into any and all alleged abuses of public func- tionaries, and a strict economy in public ex- penditures. 12th. The maintenance and enforcement of all laws constitutionally enacted, until said laws shall be repealed, or shall be declared null and void by competent judicial authority. 13th. Opposition to the reckless and unwise policy of the present administration in the general management of our national affairs, and more especially as shown in removing " Americans" by designation and conser- vatives in principle, from office, and placing foreigners and ultraists in their places ; as shown in a truckling subserviency to the stronger, and an insolent and cowardly bra- vado towards the weaker powers ; as shown in re-opening sectional agitation, by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise ; as shown in granting to unnaturalized foreigners the right of suffrage in Kansas and Nebraska : as shown in its vacillating course on the Kan- sas and Nebraska question ; as shown in the corruptions which pervade some of the depart- ments of the government ; as shown in dis- gracing meritorious naval officers through prejudice or caprice ; and as shown in the blundering mismanagement of our foreign relations. 14th. Therefore, to remedy existing evils, and prevent the disastrous consequences other- wise resulting therefrom, we would build up the "American party" upon the principle hereinbefore stated. 15th. That each state council shall have authority to amend their several constitutions, so as to abolish the several degrees, and in- stitute a pledge of honor, instead of other ob- ligations for fellowship and admission into the party. 16th. A free and open discussion of all political principles embraced in our platform American Ritual. Constitution of the National Council op the United States of North America. Art. 1st. This organization shall be known by the name and title of The National Council of the United States of North America, and its jurisdiction and power shall extend to all the states, districts, and territories of the United States of North America. Art. 2d. The object of this organization shall be to protect every American citizen in the legal and proper exercise of all his civil and religious rights and privileges ; to resist the insidious policy of the Church of Konie, and all other foreign influence against our re- publican institutions in all lawful ways ; to place in all offices of honor, trust, or profit, in the gift of the people, or by appointment, none but native-born Protestant citizens, and to protect, preserve, and uphold t he union of these states and the constitution of the same. Art. 3d. Sec. 1. — A person to become a mem- ber of any subordinate council must be twenty- one years of age ; he must believe in the existence of a Supreme Being as the Creator and preserver of the universe. He must be a 58 THE POLITICAL TEXT-COOK. native-born citizen ; a Protestant, either born of Protestant parents, or reared under Pro- testant influence ; and not united in marriage with a Roman Catholic ; provided, neverthe- less, that in this last respect, the state, district, or territorial councils shall be authorized to so construct their respective constitutions as shall best promote the interests of the Ameri- can cause in their several jurisdictions ; and provided, moreover, that no member who may have a Roman Catholic wife shall be eligible to office in this order ; and provided, further, should any state, district, or territorial council prefer the words " Roman Catholic" as a dis- qualification to membership, in place of " Pro- testant" as a qualification, they may so con- sider this constitution and govern their action accordingly. Sec. 2. — There shall be an interval of three weeks between the conferring of the first and second degrees ; and of three months between the conferring of the second and third degrees — provided, that this restriction shall not ap- ply to those who may have received the second degree previous to the first day of December next ; and provided, further, that the presi- dents of state, district, and territorial councils may grant dispensations for initiating in all the degrees, officers of new councils. Sec. 3. — The national council shall hold its annual meetings on the first Tuesday in the month of June, at such place as may be de- signated by the national council at the pre- vious annual meeting, and it may adjourn from time to time. Special meetings may be called by the President, on the written request of five delegations representing five state coun- cils ; provided, that sixty days' notice shall be given to the state councils previous to said meeting. Sec. 4. — The national council shall be com- posed of seven delegates from each state, to be chosen by the state councils ; and each dis- trict or territory where a district or territorial council shall exist, shall be entitled to send two delegates, to be chosen from said council — provided, that in the nomination of candi- dates for President and Vice President of the United States, and each state shall be entitled to cast the same number of votes as they shall have members in both houses of Congress. In all sessions of the national council, thirty-two delegates, representing thirteen states, terri- tories, or districts, shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Sec. 5. — The national council shall be vested with the following powers and privileges : It shall be the head of the organization for the United States of North America, and shall fix and establish all signs, grips, passwords, and such other secret work, as may seem to it necessary. It shall have the power to decide all mat- ters appertaining to national politics. It shall have the power to exact from the state councils, quarterly or annual statements as to the number of members under their ju- risdictions, and in relation to all other matters necessary for its information. It shall have the power to form state, territo- rial, or district councils, and to grant dispensa- tions for the formation of such bodies, when five subordinate councils shall have been put in operation in any state, territory, or district, and application made. It shall have the power to determine upon a mode of punishment in case of any dereliction of duty on the part of its members or officers. It shall have the power to adopt cabalistic characters for the purpose of writing or tele- graphing. Said characters to be communi- cated to the presidents of the state councils, and by them to the presidents of the subordi- nate councils. It shall have the power to adopt any and every measure it may deem necessary to se- cure the success of the organization ; provided, that nothing shall be done by the said national council in violation of the constitution ; and provided further, that in all political matters, its members may be instructed by the state councils, and if so instructed, shall carry out such instructions of the state councils which they represent until overruled by a majority of the national council. Art. 4. — The President shall always preside over the national council when present, and in his absence the Vice President shall pre- side, and in the absence of both the national council shall appoint a president pro tempore ; and the presiding officers may at all times call a member to the chair, but such appointment shall not extend beyond one sitting of the na- tional council. Art. 5, Sec 1. — The officers of the National Council shall be a President, Vice President, Chaplain, Corresponding Secretary, Recording Secretary, Treasurer, and two Sentinels, with such other officers as the national council may see fit to appoint from time to time ; and the secretaries and sentinels may receive such compensation as the national council shall de- termine. Sec. 2. — The duties of the several officers created by this constitution shall be such as the work of this organization prescribes. Art. 6, Sec. 1. — All officers provided for by this constitution, except the sentinels, shall be elected annually by ballot. The president may appoint sentinels from time to time. Sec. 2. — A majority of all the votes cast shall be requisite to an election for an office. Sec. 3. — All officers and delegates of this council, and of all state, district, territorial, and subordinate councils, must be invested with all the degrees of this order. Sec. 4. — All vacancies in the elective offices shall be filled by a vote of the national coun- cil, and only for the unexpired term of the said vacancy. Art. 7, Sec. 1.— The national council shall entertain and decide all cases of appeal, and it shall establish a form of appeal. Sec. 2. — The national council shall levy a AMERICAN RITUAL. 59 tax upon the state, district, or territorial coun- cils, for the support of the national council, to be paid in such manner and at such times as the national council shall determine. x Vrt. 8. — This national council may alter and amend this constitution at its regular an- nual meeting in June next, by a vote of the majority of the whole number of the members present. (Cincinnati, Nov. 24, 1854.) Rules and Regulations. Rule 1. — Each state, district, or territory, in which there may exist five or more subordi- nate councils working under dispensations from the National Council of the United States of North America, or under regular dispensations from some state, district, or ter- ritory, are duly empowered to establish them- selves into a state, district, or territorial coun- cil, and when so established, to form for themselves constitutions and by-laws for their government, in pursuance of, and in con- sonance with the Constitution of the National Council of the United States; provided, how- ever, that all state, district or territorial consti- tutions shall be subject to the approval of the National Council of the United States. (June, 1854.) Rule 2. — All state, district, or territorial councils, when established, shall have full powei 1 and authority to establish all subordi- nate councils within their respective limits ; and the constitutions and by-laws of all such subordinate councils must be approved by their respective state, district, or territorial councils. (June, 1854.) Rule 3. — All state, district, or territorial councils, when established and until the for- mation of constitutions, shall work under the constitution of the National Council of the United States. (June, 1854.) Rule 4. — In all cases where, for the con- venience of the organization, two state or ter- ritorial councils may be established, the two councils together shall be entitled to but thir- teen delegates* in the National Council of the United States — the proportioned number of delegates to depend on the number of mem- bers in the organizations ; provided, that no state shall be allowed to have more than one state council, without the consent of the Na- tional Council of the United States. (June, 1S54.) Rule 5. — In any state, district, or territory, where there may be more than one organiza- tion working on the same basis, (to wit, the lodges and "councils"), the same shall be re- quired to combine ; the officers of each organi- zation shall resign and new officers be elected; and thereafter these bodies shall be known as state councils, and subordinate councils, and new charters shall be granted to them by the national council. (June, 1854.) Rule 6. — It shall be considered a penal offence fur any brother not an officer of a subordinate council, to make use of the sign * Note. — See Constitution, Art. 3, Sec. 4, p. 5. or summons adopted for public notification, except by direction of the president ; or for officers of a council to post the same at any other time than from midnight to one hour be- fore daybreak, and this rule shall be incorpo- rated into the by-laws of the state, district, and territorial councils. (June, 1854.) Rule 7. — The determination of the necessity and mode of issuing the posters for public no- tification shall be intrusted to the state, dis- trict, or territorial councils. (June, 1854.) Rule 8. — The respective state, district, or territorial councils shall be required to make statements of the number of members within their respective limits, at the next meeting of this national council, and annually thereafter, at the regular annual meeting. (June, 1854.) Rule 9. — The delegates to the National Council of the United States of North Ame- rica shall be entitled to three dollars per day for their attendance upon the national council, and for each day that may be necessary in going and returning from the same ; and five cents per mile for every mile they may neces- sarily travel in going to, and returning from the place of meeting of the national council ; to be computed by the nearest mail route : which shall be paid out of the treasury of the national council. (November, 1854.) Rule 10. — Each state, district, or territorial council shall be taxed four cents per annum for every member in good standing belonging to each subordinate council under its jurisdic- tion on the first day of April, which shall be reported to the national council, and paid into the national treasury, on or before the first day of the annual session, to be held in June ; and on the same day in each succeeding year. And the first fiscal year shall be considered as commencing on the first day of December, 1854, and ending on the fifteenth day of May, 1855. (November, 1854.) Rule 11. — The following shall be the key to determine and ascertain the purport of any communication that may be addressed to the president of a state, district, or _ territorial council by the president of the national coun cil, who is hereby instructed to communicate a knowledge of the same to said officers : — E F G II I J K L M 25 2 8 14 20 26 3 9 15 RSTUVWXYZ 22 5 11 17 23 6 12 18 24 Rule 12. — The clause of the article of the constitution relative to belief in the Supreme Being is obligatory upon every state and sub- ordinate council, as well as upon each indi- vidual member. (June, 1854.) Rule 13. — The following shall be the com pensation of the officers of this council : — 1st. The corresponding secretary shall be paid t.wo thousand dollars per annum, from the 17th day of June, 1854. 2d. The treasurer shall be paid five hundred dollars per annum, from the 17th dav of June, 1854. 3d. The sentinels shall be paid five dollars A B C D 1 7 13 19 N P Q, 21 4 10 16 60 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. for every day they may be in attendance on the sittings of the national council. 4th. The chaplain shall be paid one hun- dred dollars per annum, from the 17th day of June, 1854. 5th. The recording secretary shall be paid five hundred dollars per annum, from the 17th day of June, 1854. 6th. The assistant secretary shall be paid five dollars per day, for every day he may be in attendance on the sitting of the national council. All of which is to be paid out of the national treasury, on the draft of the president. (November, 1854.) Special Voting. Vote 1st. — This national council hereby grants to the state of Virginia two state coun- cils, the one to be located in Eastern and the other in Western Virginia, the Blue Ridge the geographical line be- urisdictions. (June, 1854.) being Mountains tween the two Vote 2d. — The president shall have power, till the next session of the national council, to grant dispensations for the formation of state, district, or territorial councils, in form most agreeable to his own discretion, upon proper application being made. (June, 1854.) Vote 3d. — The seats of all delegates to and members of the present national council shall be vacated on the first Tuesday in June, 1855, at the hour of sis o'clock in the forenoon ; and the national council convening in annual ses- sion upon that day, shall be composed exclu- sively of delegates elected under and in ac- cordance with the provisions of the constitu- tion, as amended at the present session of this national council : provided, that this resolu- tion shall not apply to the officers of the na- tional council. (November, 1854.) Vote 4th. — The corresponding secretary of this council is authorized to have printed the names of the delegates to this national coun- cil ; also, those of the presidents of the several state, district, and territorial councils, together with their address, and to forward a copy of the same to each person named ; and further, the corresponding secretaries of each state, district, and territo^ are requested to forward a copy of their several constitutions to each other. (November, 1854.) Vote 5th. — In the publication of the consti- tution and the ritual, under the direction of the committee — brothers Deshler, Damrell, and Stephens — the name, signs, grips, and passwords of the order shall be indicated by [***], and a copy of the same shall be fur- nished to each state, district, and territorial council, and to each member of that body. (November, 1854.) Vote 6th. — A copy of the constitution of each state, district, and territorial council, Khali be submitted to this council for examina- tion. (November, 1854.) Vote 7th. — It shall be the duty of the trea- surer, at each annual meeting of this body, to make a report of all moneys received or ex- pended in the interval. (November, 1854.) Vote 8th.— Messrs. Gifford of Pa., Barker of N. Y., Deshler of N. J., Williamson of Va., and Stephens of Md., are appointed a com- mittee to confer with similar committees that have been appointed for the purpose of con- solidating the various American orders, with power to make the necessary arrangements for such consolidation — subject to the approval of this national council, at its next session. (November, 1854.) Vote 9th. — On the receipt of the new ritual by the members of this national council who have recei » 7 ed the third degree, they or any of them may, and they are hereby empowered to. confer the third degree upon members of this body in their respective states, districts, ar,d territories, and upon the presidents and other officers of their state, district, and territorial councils. And further, the presidents of the state, district, and territorial councils shall in the first instance confer the third degree upon as many of the presidents and officers of their subordinate councils as can be assembled to- gether in their respective localities ; and after- wards the same may be conferred upon officers of other subordinate councils, by any presid- ing officer of a council who shall have pre- viously received it under the provisions of the constitution. (November, 1854.) Vote 10th. — To entitle any delegate to a seat in this national council, at its annual ses- sion in June next, he must present a properly- authenticated certificate that he was duly elected as a delegate to the same, or appointed a substitute in accordance with the require- ments of the constitutions of state, territorial, or district councils. And no delegate shall be received from any state, district, or territorial council which has not adopted the constitution and ritual of this national council. (Novem- ber, 1854.) Vote 11th. — The committee on printing the constitution and ritual is authorized to have a sufficient number of the same printed for the use of the order. And no state, district, or territorial council shall be allowed to reprint the same. (November, 1854.) Vote 12th. — The right to establish all sub- ordinate councils in any of the states, districts, and territories represented in this national council, shall be confined to the state, district, and territorial councils which they represent (November, 1854.) Constitution for the Government of Sub- ordinate Councils. Art. I. Sec. 1. — Each subordinate council shall be composed of not less than thirteen members, all of whom shall have received all the degrees of the order, and shall be known and recognised as Council, No. , of the of the county of , and State of North Carolina. Sec. 2. — No person shall be a member of any subordinate council in this state, unless he possesses all the qualifications, and comes up to all the requirements laid down in the AMERICAN RITUAL. 61 constitution of the national council, and whose wife (if he has one), is not a Roman Catholic. Sec. 3. No application for membership shall be received and acted on from a person residing out of the state, or resides in a county where there is a council in existence, unless upon special cause to be stated to the council, to be judged of by the same ; and such person, if the reasons be considered sufficient, may be initiated the same night he is proposed, pro- vided he resides five miles or more from the place where the council is located. But no person can vote in any council, except the one of which he is a member. Sec. 4. Every person applying for member- ship, shall be voted for by ballot, in open council, if a ballot is requested by a single member. If one-third of the votes cast he against the applicant, he shall be rejected. If any applicant be rejected, he shall not be again proposed within six months thereafter. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the initiation of applicants pri- vately, by those empowered to do so, in locali- ties where there are no councils within a convenient distance. Sec. 5. Any member of one subordinate council wishing to change his membership to another council, shall apply to the council to which he belongs, either in writing or orally through another member, and the question shall be decided by the council. If a majority are in favor of granting him an honorable dismission, he shall receive the same in writ- ing, to be signed by the president and counter- signed by the secretary. But until a member thus receiving an honorable dismission has actually been admitted to membership in another council, he shall be held subject to the discipline of the council from which he has received the dismission, to be dealt with by the same, for any violation of the requirements of the order. Before being received in the council, to which he wishes to transfer his membership, he shall present said certificate of honorable dismission, and shall be received as new members are. Sec. 6. Applications for the second degree shall not be received except in second degree councils, and voted on by second and third degree members only, and applications for the third degree shall be received in third degree councils, and voted on by third degree mem- bers only. Art. II. — Each subordinate council shall fix on its own time and place for meeting : and shall meet at least once a month, but where not very inconvenient, it is recommended that they meet once a week. Thirteen members shall form a quorum for the transaction of business. Special meetings may be galled by the president, at any time, at the request of four members of the order. Art. III. — Sec. 1. The members of each sub- ordinate council shail consist of a president, vice president, instructor, secretary, treasurer, marshal, inside and outside sentinel, and shall hold their offices for the term of six months, or until their successors are elected and in- stalled. Sec. 2. The officers of each subordinate council (except the sentinels, who shall be appointed by the president), shall be elected at the first regular meetings in January and July, separately, and by ballot ; and each shall receive a majority of all the votes cast to entitle him to an election. No member shall be elected to any office, unless he be present and signify his assent thereto at the time of his election. Any vacancy which may occur by death, resignation, or otherwise, shall be filled at the next meeting thereafter, in the manner and form above described. Sec. 3. The President.— It shall be the duty of the president of each subordinate council, to preside in the council, and enforce a due observance of the constitution and rules of the order, and a proper respect for the state council and the national council ; to have sole and exclusive charge of the charter and the constitution and ritual of the order, which he must always have with him when his council is in session, to see that all officers perform their respective duties ; to announce all bal- lotings to the council ; to decide all questions of order ; to give the casting vote in all cases of a tie ; to convene special meetings when deemed expedient ; to draw warrants on the treasurer for all sums, the payment of which ordered by the council ; and to perform is such other duties as are demanded of him by the constitutions and ritual of the order. Sec. 4. The vice president of each sub- ordinate council shall assist the president in the discharge of 'his duties, whilst his council is in session ; and in his absence, shall per- form all the duties of the president. Sec. 5. The instructor shall perform the duties of the president, in the absence of the president and vice president, and shall, under the direction of the president, perform such duties as may be assigned to him by the ritual. Sec. 6. The secretary shall keep an accu- rate record of the proceedings of the council. He shall write all communications, fill all notices, attest all warrants drawn by the pre- sident for the payment of money ; he shall keep a correct roll of all the members of the council, together with their age, residence, and occupation, in the order in which they have been admitted ; he shall, at the expiration of every three months, make out a report of all work done during that time, which report he shall forward to the secretary of the state coun- cil ; and when superseded in his office shall deliver all books, papers, &c, in his hands, to his successor. Sec. 7. The treasurer shall hold all moneys raised exclusively for the use of the state council, which he shall pay over to the secre- tary of the state council at its regular sessions, or whenever called upon by the president of the state council. He shall receive all moneys for the use of the subordinate council, and pay all amounts drawn for on him, by the presi- 62 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. rlent of the subordinate council, if attested by the secretary. S ec . g. — The marshal shall perform such duties, under the direction of the president, as may be required of him by the ritual. y ec . 9. — The inside sentinel shall have charge of the inner door, and act under the directions of the president. He shall admit no person, unless he can prove himself a mem- ber of this order, and of the same degree in which the council is opened, or by order of the president, or is satisfactorily vouched for. Sec. 10. — The outside sentinel shall have charge of the outer door, and act in accordance with the orders of the president. He shall permit no person to enter the outer door un- less he give the password of the degree in which the council is at work, or is properly vouched for. Sec. 11. — The secretary, treasurer, and sen- tinels, shall receive such compensation as the subordinate councils may each conclude to allow. Sec. 12. — Each subordinate council may levy its own fees for initiation, to raise a fund to pay its dues to the state council, and to defray its own expenses. Each council may, also, at its discretion, initiate without charg- ing the usual fee, those it considers unable to pay the same. Sec. 13. — The president shall keep in his possession the constitution and ritual of the order. He shall not suffer the same to go out of his possession under any pretence what- ever, unless in case of absence, when he may put them in the hands of the vice-president or instructor, or whilst the council is in session, for the information of a member wishing to see it, for the purpose of initiation, or con- ferring of degrees. Art. IV. — Each subordinate council shall have power to adopt such by-laws, rules, and regulations, for its own government, as it may think proper, not inconsistent with the consti- tutions of the national and state councils. Form of Application for a Charter to Organize a new Council. that we will, in all things, conform to the rules and usages of the order. Names. Residences. Form of Dismission from one Council to another. This is to certify that Brother , a mem- ber of Council No. , having made an application to change his membership from this council to that of Council, No. , at , in the county of , I do hereby declare, that said brother has received an honorable dismission from this council, and is hereby recommended for membership in Council, No. , in the county of , N. C. ; provided, however, that until Brother has been admitted to membership in said council, he is to be considered subject to the discipline of this council, to be dealt with by the same for any violation of the requirement* of the order. This the day of , 185 — , and the - - year of American Inde- pendence. Post Office Date county, To President of the State Council of North Carolina : — We, the undersigned, members of the Third Degree, being desirous of extending the influ- ence and usefulness of our organization, do hereby ask for a warrant of dispensation, instituting and organizing us as a subordinate branch of the order, under the jurisdiction of the State Council of the State 'of North Caro- lina, to be known and hailed as Council No. , and to be located at , in the county of- State of North Carolina. And we do hereby pledge ourselves to be governed by the Constitution of the State Council of the State of North Carolina, and of the Grand Council of the U. S. N. A., and President, Secretary. No. Council, Form of Certificate for Delegates to tub State Council. Council, No. county of , N. C. This is to certify that and were at the regular meeting of this council, held on the , 185 — , duly elected delegates to re- present this council in the next annual meeting of the state council, to be held in , on the 3d Monday in November next. And by virtue of the authority in me reposed, I do hereby declare the said and to be invested with all the rights, powers, and privileges of the delegates as aforesaid. This being the day of , 185—, and the - - year cf our national independence. President of Secretary. Council, No. Form of Notice from the Subordinate Coun- cils to the State Council, whenever any Member of a Subordinate Council is ex- pelled. Council, No. county of , N. C. To the President of the State Council of North Carolina: Sir: — This is to inform you that at a meet- ing of this council, held on the day of , 185 — , was duly expelled from membership in said council, and thus deprived of all the_ privileges, rights, and benefits of this organization. In accordance with the provision of the constitution of the state council, you are here- by duly notified of the same, that you may officially notify all the subordinate councils of the state to 'be upon their guard against the ga ij j as one unworthy to associate with AMERICAN RITUAL. 63 patriotic and good men, and (if expelled for violating his obligation) as a perjurer to God and his country. The said is about years of age, and is by livelihood a . Duly certified, this the • day of 185 — , and in the year of our national independence. President of Secretary. Council, No. First Degree Council. To be admitted to membership in this order, the applicant shall be — 1st. Proposed and found acceptable. 2d. Introduced and examined under the guarantee of secrecy. 3d. Placed under the obligation which the order imposes. 4th. Required to enroll his name and place of residence. 5th. Instructed in the forms and usages and ceremonies of the order. 6th. Solemnly charged as to the objects to be obtained, and his duties. [A recommendation of a candidate to this order shall be received only from a brother of approved integrity. It shall be accompanied by minute particulars as to name, age, calling, and residence, and by an explicit voucher for his qualifications, and a personal pledge for his fidelity. These particulars shall be re- corded by the secretary in a book kept for that purpose. The recommendation may be referred, and the ballot taken at such time and in such a manner as the state council may prescribe ; but no communication shall be made to the candidate until the ballot has been declared in his favor. Candidates shall be received in the ante-room by the marshal and the secretary.] OUTSIDE. Marshal. — Do you believe in a Supreme Being, the Creator and Preserver of the uni- verse. Ans. — I do. Marshal. — Before proceeding further, we require a solemn obligation of secrecy and truth. If you will take such an obligation, vou will lay your right hand upon the Holy Bible and cross. (When it is known that the applicant is a Protestant, the cross may be omitted, or affirmation may be allowed.) OBLIGATION. You do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will never reveal anything said or done in this room, the names of any persons present, nor the existence of this society, whether found worthy to proceed or not, and that all your declarations shall be true, so help you God? Ans.—-' I do." Marshal. — Where were you born? Marshal. — Where is your permanent resi- dence? (If born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, the answer shall be written, the can- didate dismissed with an admonition of se- crecy, and the brother vouching for him sus- pended from all the privileges of the order, unless upon satisfactory proof that he has been misinformed.) Marshal. — Are you twenty-one years of age? Ans.—" I am." Marshal. — Were you born of Protestant parents, or were you reared under Protestant influence ? Ans.— " Yes." Marshal. — If married, is your wife a Ro- man Catholic ? (" No" or " Yes" — the answer to be valued as the Constitution of the State Council shall provide.) Marshal. — Are you willing to use your in- fluence and vote only for native-born Ameri- can citizens for all offices of honor, trust, or profit in the gift of the people, to the exclu- sion of all foreigners and aliens, and Roman Catholics in particular, and without regard to party predilections ? Ans.— " I am." INSIDE. (The marshal shall then repair to the coun- cil in session, and present the written list of names, vouchers, and answers to the presi- dent, who shall cause them to be read aloud, and a vote of the council to be taken on each name, in such manner as prescribed by its by-laws. If doubts arise in the ante-room, they shall be referred to the council. If a candidate be dismissed, he shall be admon- ished to secrecy. The candidates declared elected shall be conducted to seats within the council, apart from the brethren. When all are present the president, by one blow of the gavel, shall call to order and say : ) President. — Brother marshal, introduce the candidates to the vice president. Marshal. — Worthy Vice President, I present to you these candidates, who have duly an- swered all questions. Vice President, rising in his place. — Gentle- men, it is my office to welcome you as friends. When you shall have assumed the patriotic vow by which we are all bound, we will em- brace you as brothers. I am authorized to declare that our obligations enjoin nothing which is inconsistent with the duty which every good man owes to his Creator, his country, his family, or himself. We do not compel you, against your convictions, to act with us in our good work ; but should you at any time wish to withdraw, it will be our duty to grant you a dismissal in good faith. If satisfied with this assurance, you will rise upon your feet (pausing till they do so), place the left hand upon the breast, and raise the right hand to- wards heaven. (The brethren to remain seated till called up.) G4 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. OBLIGATION. In the presence of Almighty God and these witnesses, you do solemnly promise and swear, that you will never betray any of the secrets of this society, nor communicate them even to proper candidates, except within a lawful council of the order ; that you never will per- mit any of the secrets of this society to be written, or in any other manner made legible, except for the purpose of official instruction ; that you will not vote, nor give your influ- ence for any man, for any office in the gift of the people, unless he be an American born citizen, in favor of Americans ruling America, nor if he be a Roman Catholic ; that you will in all political matters, so far as this orderis concerned, comply with the will of the majo- rity, though it may conflict with your personal preference, so long as it does not conflict with the Constitution of the United States of Ame- rica, or that of the state in which you reside ; that you will not, under any circumstances whatever, knowingly recommend an unworthy person for initiation, nor suffer it to be done, if in your power to prevent it ; that you will not, under any circumstances, expose the name of any member of this order, nor reveal the existence of such an association ; that you will answer an imperative notice issued by the proper authority ; obey the command of the state council, president, or his deputy, while assembled by such notice, and respond to the claim of a sign or a cry of the order, unlessit be physically impossible ; and that you will acknowledge the State Council of . — as the legislative head, the ruling authority, and the supreme tribunal of the order in the state of , acting under the jurisdiction of the National Council of the United States of North America. Binding yourself in the penalty of excom- munication from the order, the forfeiture of all intercourse with its members, and being denounced in all the societies of the same, as a wilful traitor to your God and your country. (The president 'shall call up every person present, by three blows of the gavel, when the candidates shall all repeat after the vice president in concert:) All this I voluntarily and sincerely promise, with a full understanding of the solemn sanc- tions and penalties. Vice President. — You have now taken solemn oaths, and made as sacred promises as man t-an make, that you will keep all our secrets inviolate; and we wish you distinctly to un- derstand that he that takes these oaths and makes these promises, and then violates them, leaves the foul, the deep and blighting stain of perjury resting on his soul. President. — (Having seated all by one blow of the gavel.) — Brother Instructor, these new brothers having complied with the demands of the order, are entitled to the secrets and privileges of the same. You will, therefore, invest them with everything appertaining to the first degree. Instructor. — Brothers: the practices and proceedings in our order are as follows : We have pass-words necessary to be used to obtain admission to our councils ; forms for our conduct while there ; means of recognising each other when abroad ; means of mutual protection ; and methods for giving notices to members. At the outer door you will* [make any or- dinary alarm to attract the notice of the out- side sentinel). When the wicket is opened you will pro- nounce the (words — what's the pass), in a whisper. The outside sentinel will reply ( Give it), when you will give the term pass-word and be admitted to the ante-room. You will then proceed to the inner door and give (one rap). When the wicket' is opened, give your name, the number of, and location of your council, the explanation of the term pass, and the degree pass-word. If these be found correct, you will be ad- mitted ; if not, your name will be reported to the vice president, and must be properly vouched for before you can gain admission to the council. You will then proceed to the centre of the room and address the (President) with the countersign, which is performed thus (placing the right hand diagonally across the mouth). When this salutation is recog- nized, you will quietly take your seat. This sign is peculiar to this degree, and is never to be used outside of the council room, nor during the conferring of this degree. When retiring, you will address the ( Vice President) in the same manner, and also give the degree pass-word to the inside sentinel. The " term pass-word" is ( We are).^ (The pass-word and explanation is to be established by each State Council for its re- spective subordinates.) The " explanation" of the " term-pass," to be used at the inner door, is (our country's hope.) The " degree pass-word" is (Native). The " travelling pass-word" is (The memory of our pilgrim fathers ) . (This word is changed annually by the Pre- sident of the National Council of the United States, and is to be made and used only when the brother is travelling beyond the jurisdic- tion of his own state, district, or territory. It and all other pass-words must be communi- cated in a whisper, and no brother is entitled to communicate them to another, without authority from the presiding officer.) " The sign of recognition" is (grasping the right lappel of the coat with the right hand, the forefinger being extended inwards.) * In the Ritual the words in parentheses are omitted. In the key to the Ritual, they are written in figures— the alphabet used being the same as printed below. So through- out. Key to Unlock Communications, ABCDEFGHIJKLM 1 7 13 19 25 2 8 14 20 26 3 9 15 NOPQKSTUVWXY Z 21 4 10 16 22 5 11 17 23 6 12 18 24 AMERICAN RITUAL. 65 The " answer" is given by (a similar action with the left hand). The " grip" is given by (an ordinary shake of the hand). The person challenging shall (then draio the fore finger along the palm of the hand). The answer will be given by (a similar action forming a link by hooking together the ends of the forefinger); when the following conversa- tion ensues — the challenging party first say- ing (is that yours?) The answer, (it is.) Then the response (how did you get it?), fol- lowed by the rejoinder (it is my birth-right). Public notice for a meeting is given by means of a (piece of white paper the shape of a heart). (In cities* the *** of the *** where the meeting is to be held, will be written legibly upon the notice ; and upon the election day said *** will denote the *** where your pre- sence is needed. This notice will never be passed, but will be *** or thrown upon the sidewalk with a *** in the centre.) If information is wanting of the object of the gathering, or of the place, &c, the in- quirer will ask of an undoubted brother '(where' s when?) The brother will give the information if possessed of it ; if not, it will be yours and his duty to continue the inquiry, and thus disseminate the call throughout the brotherhood. If the color of the paper (be red), it will de- note actual trouble, which requires that you come prepared to meet it. The " cry of distress" — to be used only in time of danger, or where the American in- terest requires an immediate assemblage of the brethren — is (oh, oh, oh.) The response is (hio, hio, h-i-o.) The " sign of caution" — to be given when a brother is speaking unguardedly before a stranger — is (drawing the fore finger and lllltmb together across the eyes, the rest of the hand being closed), which signifies " keep dark." Brothers, you are now initiated into and made acquainted with the work and organiza- tion of a council of this degree of the order ; and the marshal will present you to the worthy president for admonition. President. — It has, no doubt, been long ap- parent to you, brothers, that foreign influence and Roman Catholicism have been making steady and alarming progress in our country. You cannot have failed to observe the signifi- cant transition of the foreigner and Romanist from a character quiet, retiring, and even abject, to one bold, threatening, turbulent, and despotic in its appearance and assump- tions. You must have become alarmed at the systematic and rapidly augmenting power of these dangerous and unnatural elements of our national condition. So it is, brothers, with others beside yourselves in every state * Concerning what is said of cities, the key to the Ritual lays: "Considered unnecessary to decipher what is said in regard to cities." of the Union. A sense of danger has struck the great heart of the nation. In every city, town, and hamlet, the danger has been seen and the alarm sounded. And hence true men have devised this order as a means of dissemi nating patriotic principles, of keeping alive the fire of national virtue, of fostering the na- tional intelligence, and of advancing America and the American interest on the one side, and on the other of checking the strides of the foreigner or alien, or thwarting the ma- chinations and subverting the deadly plans of the papist and Jesuit. Note. — The President shall impress upon the initiates the importance of secrecy, the manner of proceeding in recommending can- didates for initiation, and the responsibility of the duties which they have assumed. Second Degree Council. Marshal. — Worthy President : These bro- thers have been duly elected to the second degree of this order. I present them to you for obligation. President. — Brothers : You will place your left hand upon your right breast, and extend your right hand towards the flag of our coun- try, preparatory to obligation. (Each council room should have a neat American flag fes- tooned over the platform of the President.) OBLIGATION. You, and each of you, of your own free will and accord, in the presence of Almighty God and these witnesses, your left hand resting upon your right breast, and your right hand extended to the flag of your country, do solemnly and sincerely swear, that you will not under any circumstances disclose in any manner, nor suffer it to be done by others, if in your power to prevent it, the name, signs, passwords, or other secrets of this degree, ex- cept in open council for the purpose of in- struction ; that you will in all things conform to all the rules and regulations of this order, and to the constitution and by-laws of this or any other council to which you may be at- tached, so long as they do not conflict with the Constitution of the United States, nor that of the state in which you reside ; that you will under all circumstances, if in your power so to do, attend to all regular signs or sum- mons that may be thrown or sent to you by a brother of this or or any other degree of this order ; that you will support in all political matters, for all political offices, members of this order in preference to other persons ; that if it may be done legally, you will, when elected or appointed to any official station conferring on you the power to do so, remove all foreigners, aliens, or Roman Catholics from office or place, and that you will in no case appoint such to any office or place in your gift. You do also promise and swear that this and all other obligations which you have previously taken in this order, shall ever be kept through life sacred and inviolate. All this you promise and declare, as Ameri- cans, to sustain and abide by, without any on THE TOLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. hesitation or mental reservation whatever. So help you God and keep you steadfast. (Each will answer "I do.") President. — Brother Marshal, you will now present the brothers to the instructor for in- structions in the second degree of the order. Marshal. — Brother Instructor, by direction of our worthy president, I present these brothers before you that you may instruct them in the secrets and mysteries of the second degree of the order. Instructor. — Brothers, in this degree we have an entering sign and a countersign. At the outer door proceed (as in the first degree). At the inner door you will make (two raps), and proceed as in the first degree, giving the second degree pass-word, which is American, instead of that of the first degree. If found to be correct, you will then be ad- mitted, and proceed (to the centre of the room), giving the countersign, which is made thus (extending the right arm to the national fag over the president, the palm of the hand being upwards). in this degree is with the The sign of recognition the same as in the first degree, addition of (the middle finger), and the response to be made in a (similar manner). Marshal, you will now present the brothers to the worthy president for admonition. Marshal. — Worthy President, I now present these candidates to you for admonition. President. — Brothers, you are now duly initiated into the second degree of this order. Renewing the congratulations which we ex- tended to you upon your admission to the first degree, we admonish you by every tie that may nerve patriots, to aid us in our efforts to restore the political institutions of our country to their original purity. Begin with the youth of our land. Instil into their minds the lessons of our country's history — the glorious battles and the brilliant deeds of patriotism of our fathers, through which we received the inestimable blessings of civil and religious liberty. Point them to the example of the sages and the statesmen who founded our government. Implant in their bosoms an ardent love for the Union. Above all else, keep alive in their bosoms the memory, the maxims, and the deathless example of our illustrious Washington. Brothers, recalling to your minds the solemn obligations which you have severally taken in this and the first degree, I now pronounce you entitled to all the privileges of member- ship in this the second degree of our order. Third Degree Council. Marshal. — Worthy President, these brothers having been duly elected to the third degree of this order, I present them before you for obligation. President. — Brothers, you will place your- selves in. a circle around me, each one crossing your arms upon your breasts, and grasping firmly each other's hands, holding the right hand of the brother on the right, and the left I hand of the brother on the left, so a»s to form a circle, symbolical of the links of an un- broken chain, and of a ring which has nt end. Note. — This degree is to be conferred with the national flag elevated in the centre of the circle, by the side of the president or instructor, and not on less than five at any one time, in order to give it solemnity, and also for the formation of the circle — except in the first in- stance of conferring it on the officers of the state and subordinate councils, that they may be empowered to progress with the work. The obligation and charge in this degree may be given by the president or instructor, as the president may prefer. OBLIGATION. You, and each of you, of your own free will and accord, in the presence of Almighty God and these witnesses, with your hands joined in token of that fraternal affection which should ever bind together the states of this Union — forming a ring, in token of your de- termination that, so far as your efforts can avail, this Union shall have no end — do so- lemnly and sincerely swear [or affirm] that ' you will not under any circumstances disclose in any manner, nor suffer it to be done by others if in your power to prevent it, the name, signs, pass-words, or other secrets of this de- gree, except to those to whom you may prove on trial to be brothers of the same degree, or in open council,, for the purpose of instruction ; that you do hereby solemnly declare your de- votion to the Union of these states ; that in the discharge of your duties as American citizens, you will uphold, maintain, and defend it ; that you will discourage and discountenance any and every attempt, coming from any and every quarter, which you believe to be designed or calculated to destroy or subvert it, or to weak- en its bonds ; and that you will use your influ- ence, so far as in your power, in endeavoring to procure an amicable and equitable adjust- ment of all political discontents or differences which may threaten its injury or overthrow. You further promise and swear [or affirm] that you will not vote for any one to fill any office of honor, profit, or trust of a political character, whom you know or believe to be in favor of a dissolution of the Union of these states, or who is endeavoring to produce that result ; that you will vote for and support for all political offices, third or union degree mem- bers of this order in preference to all others : that if it may be done consistently with the constitution and laws of the land, you will, when elected or appointed to any official sta- tion which may confer on you the power to do so, remove from office or place all persons whom you know or believe to be in favor of a dissolution of the Union, or who are endeavor- ing to produce that result ; and that you will in no case appoint such persons to any politi- cal office or place whatever. All this you pro- mise and swear [or affirm] upon your honor as American citizens and friends of the Ame- AMERICAN RITUAL. 61 rlcan Union, to sustain and abide by without any hesitation or mental reservation whatever. You also promise and swear [or affirm] that this and all other obligations which you have previously taken in this order, shall ever be kept sacred and inviolate. To all this you pledge your lives, your fortunes, and your sa- cred honors. So help you God and keep you steadfast. (Each one shall answer, " I do.") President. — Brother Marshal, you will now present the brothers to the instructor for final instruction in this the third degree of the order. MarsJial. — Instructor, by direction of our worthy president, I present these brothers be- fore you that you may instruct them in the secrets and mysteries of this the third degree of our order. Instructor. — Brothers, in this degree as in the second, we have an entering password, a degree password, and a token of salutation. At the outer door (make any ordinary alarm. The outside sentinel will say U; you say ni ; the sentinel will rejoin on). This will admit you to the inner door. At the inner door you will make (three) distinct (raps). Then an- nounce your name, with the number (or name) and location of the council to which you be- long, giving the explanation to the password, which is {safe) . If found correct, you will then be admitted, when you will proceed to the cen- tre of the room, and placing the (hands on the breast with the fingers interlocked), give the to- ken of salutation, which is (by bowing to the president). You will- then quietly take your seat. The sign of recognition is made by the same action as in. the second degree, with the addi- tion of (the third finger), and the response is made by (a similar action with the left hand). (The grip is given by taking hold of the hand in the usual way, and then by slipping the fingers around on the top of the thumb ; then extending the little finger and pressing the inside of the tvrist. The person challeng- ing shall sa^y, do you know what that is? The answer is yes,, The challenging party shall say, further, what is it f The answer is, Union.) [The instructor will here give the grip of this degree, with explanations, and also the true password of this degree, which is (Union.)] CHARGE. To be given by the president. Brothers, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate you upon your advancement to the third degree of our order. The responsi- bilities you have now assumed, are more seri- ous and weighty than those which preceded, and are committed to such only as have been tried and found worthy. Our obligations are iutended as solemn avowals of our duty to the land that gave us birth ; to the memories of our fathers ; and to the happiness and wel- fare of our children. Consecrating to your •ountry a spirit unselfish and a fidelity like that which distinguished the patriots of tho Revolution, you have pledged your aid in ce- menting the bonds of a Union which we trust will endure for ever. Your deportment since your initiation has attested your devotion to the principles we desire to establish, and has inspired a confidence in your patriotism, of which we can give no higher proof than your reception here. The dangers which threaten American liberty arise from foes without and from enemies within. The first degree pointed out the source and nature of our most imminent peril, and indicated the first measure of safety. The second degree defined the next means by which, in coming time, such assaults may be rendered harmless. The third degree, which you have just received, not only reiterates the lessons of the other two, but it is intended to avoid and provide for a more remote, but no less terrible clanger, from domestic enemies to our free institutions. Our object is briefly this: — to perfect an or- ganization modelled after that of the Constitu- tion of the United States, and co-extensive with the confederacy. Its object and principles, in all matters of national concern, to be uni- form and identical, whilst in all local matters the component parts shall remain independent and sovereign within their respective limits. The great result to be attained — the only one which can secure a perfect guarantee as to our future — is union ; permanent, endur- ing, fraternal union ! Allow, me, then, to impress upon your minds and memories the touching sentiments is of the Father of Country, in his Farewell Address : — " The unity of government which consti- tutes you one people," says Washington, "is justly dear to you, for it is the main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, of your peace abroad, of your safety, your prosperity — even that liberty you so justly prize. " * * It is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of 3 r our National Union, to your collective and individual happiness. You should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it ; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it, as the palladium of your political safety and prosperity ; watching for its pre- servation with jealous anxiety ; discounte- nancing whatever may suggest even a suspi- cion that it can in any event be abandoned ; and indignantly frowning upon the dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now bind together the varir ous parts." Let these words of paternal advice and warning, from the greatest man that ever lived, sink deep into your hearts. Cherish them, and teach your children to reverence them, as you cherish and reverence the memo- ry of Washington himself. The Union of these states is the great conservator of that 68 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. liberty so dear to the American heart. With- out it, our greatness as a nation would disap- pear, and our boasted self-government prove a signal failure. The very name of liberty, and the hopes of struggling freedom through- out the world, must perish in the wreck of this Union. Devote yourselves, then, to its maintenance, as our fathers did to the cause of independence ; consecrating to its support, as you have sworn to do, your lives, your for- tunes, and your sacred honors. Brothers: Recalling to your minds the solemn obligations which you have severally taken in this and the preceding degrees, I now pronounce you entitled to all the privi- leges of membership in this organization, and take pleasure in informing you that you are now members of the order of (the American Union). Officers of the National Council— President, James W. Barker, of New York, N. Y. Vice President, "VV. W. Williamson, of Alexandria, Va. Corresponding Secretary, C. P. Peshler, of New Brunswick, N. J. Recording Secre- tary, James M. Stephens, of Baltimore, Md. Treasurer, Henry Crane, of Cincinnati, Ohio. Inside Sentinel, John P. Hilton, of Washing- ton, P. C. Arkansas. At the second session of the 15th Con- gress, the subject of erecting the southern part of Missouri territory into a new terri- tory, to be called Arkansas, engaged the at- tention of Congress. A bill to that effect was reported to the House. Mr. Taylor of N. Y., on the 18th of Feb., 1819, moved to amend the same by inserting the following proviso therein : — " That the further introduction of slavery, or involuntary servitude, be prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. " And that all children born within the said state, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be free at the age of 25 years." The question was divided and taken on the first branch first, with the following result :— Yeas.— Messrs. Adams and Allen of Mass., Anderson of Pa., Barber of Ohio, Bateman of N. J., Bennett of N. J., Boden of Pa., Boss of R. I., Comstock of N. Y., Crafts of Vt, Cushman of N. Y., Darlington of Pa., Drake of N. Y., Folger of Mass., Fuller of Mass., Hall of Del., Hasbrouck of N. Y.. Hendricks of Ind.. Herrick of 0., Heister of Pa.. Hitch- rock of 0.. Ilostetter of Pa.. Hubbard of N. Y., Hunter of Vt, Huntinu'ton of Conn., Irving of N. Y., Lawyer of N. Y., Lincoln of Mass., Linn of N. J., Livermore of N. II ., W. Maclay of Pa.. W. P. Maclay of Pa., Marchand of Pa.. Mason of K. L. Morrill of Vt, Robert Moore of Pa., Samuel Moore of Pa., Morton of Mass., Moseley of Conn., Murray of Pa., .1. Nelson of Mass., Ogle of Pa., Orr of Mass., Palmer of N. Y., Patterson of Pa., Pawling of Pa., Rice of Mass., Rich of Vt, Richards of Vt., Rogers of Pa., Ruggles of Mass.. Samp- son of Mass., Savage of N. Y., Scudder of N. Y., Seybert of Pa., Sherwood, Southard of N. J, Spencer of N. Y.. Tall- madge of N. Y., Tarr of Pa., Taylor of N. Y.. Terry of Conn., Tompkins of N. Y., Townsend of N. Y.. Wallace of Pa., Wen- dover of N. Y., Whiteside of Pa., Williams of Conn., Wil- liams of N. Y.. and Wilson of Pa.— 70. Nats.— Messrs. Anderson of Ky., Austin of Va., Ball of Va.. Barbour of Va.. Bassett of Va., Bayley of Md., Beecbet of 0., Bloomfield of N. J., Blount of Tenn., Bryan of N. ('., Burwell of Va., Butler of La.. Cobb of Geo., Cook of Geo., Crawford of Geo., Culbreth of Md., Desha of Ky., Karl of S C. Edwards of N. C, Garnett of A'a.. Hall of N. C. Harrison of 0.. Hogg of Tenn., Holmes of Mass., Johnson of Va., Johnson of Ky., Jones of Tenn., Kinsey of N. J., Lewis of Va., Little of Md., Lowndes of S. C. McCoy of Va., Marrof Tenn.. Mason of Mass., H. Nelson of Va., T. M. Nelson of Va.. New of Kv., Newton of Va., Ogden of N. Y., Owen of N. C, Parrott of X. IL. Pegram of Va., Peter of Md., Pindall of Va.. Pleasants of Va., Porter of N. Y., Quarles of Ky.. Reed of Geo., Rhea of Tenn., Robertson of Ky.. Sawyer of N. C. Settle of N. C, Shaw of Mass., Simpkins of S. ('., Slocum of N. C, L. Smith of Md., A. Smyth of Va.. I. S. Smith of N. C, Speed of Ky., Stewart of N. C, Storrs of N. Y., Stuart of Md., Terrell of Geo., Trimble of Ky., Tucker of Va., Tucker of S. C, Tyler of Va., Walker of N. C, and Williams of N. C— 71. So the first part of the proviso was lost. The second part of it was adopted by a vote of yeas 75, nays 73. All who voted for the first amendment voted for this, except Mr. Allen of Mass., who waa absent and not voting. In addition thereto, Messrs. Ellicott of N. Y., Gilbert of Conn., Kirtland of N. Y., Mills of Mass., Schuyler of N. Y., Westerlo of N. Y., Williams of N. C, voted in the affirmative on this amendment. Mr. Williams of N. C. had voted in the affirmative for the purpose of moving a re- consideration, which he did; but which was lost by a vote of yeas 77, navs 79. On the 19th of Feb., 1819, Mr. Robertson moved to recommit the bill to a select com- mittee, with instructions to strike out the amendment freeing slave children born in said territory, after they had reached the age of 25 years. The vote on Mr. Robertson's motion was yeas 88, navs 88. The Speaker voted in the affirmative, so the motion was carried. The committee was appointed by the Speak- er, and they amended the bill according to in- structions, and struck* out the amendment before referred to. Upon the motion to concur with the select committee in striking out, the vote was yeas 89, nays 87 ; so the house resolved to strike out the said amendment. But one Southern man, Mr. Hale of Pela- ware, voting no. The entire North, with the exception of Messrs. Baldwin of Pa., Beecher of Ohio, Campbell of Ohio, Cruger of N. Y., Harrison of Ohio, Holmes of Mass., Kinsey of N. Y., Mason of Mass., Ogden of N. Y., Parrott of N. II., Shaw of Mass., and Storrs of N. Y., who voted aye, voted in the negative on this vote. Mr. Taylor of N. Y. then moved an amend- ment "that during the existence of the terri- torial government of Arkansas, no slaves shall lie brought into the said territory to remain for a longer time than nine months from the date of their arrival." Mr. Taylor's amendment was lost by yeas 86, nays 90. It is not deemed necessary to grre this vote, its character being so similar to the pr* nou? one. ARKANSAS.— ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. 69 Mr. Taylor then moved an amendment in the shape of what was afterwards known as the Missouri Compromise, which amendment he afterwards withdrew. The bill passed the house on the 20th of February, 1819. In the Senate, on the 1st of March, 1819, Mr. Bun-ill of R. I. moved to recommit the bill with instructions to amend the same, so as to prohibit slavery in the said territory. The ayes and noes on the adoption of Mr. Burrill's amendment were as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Burrill of It. I., Daggett of Conn., Dana, Dickenson of N. J., Lacock of Pa., Mellen of Mass.. Noble of lad., Roberts of l'a.. Rugglea of 0.. Sanford of N. Y., Storer of N. H.. Tickener of Vt.. Wilson of N. J.— 14. Nays.— Messrs. Barbour of Va., Crittenden of Ky.. Eaton of Tenn.. Edwards of 111., Eppes of Va., Fromentin of La., Gaillard of S. C. Goldsborough of Md., Johnson of La.. Leake of Miss.. Macon of N. C, Morrow of ()., Stokes of N. C, Tait of Ga., Talbot of Kv.. Taylor of ln.1., Thomas of 111., Wil- liams of Miss., Williams of Tenn. — 19. The bill was then passed and approved by the President on the 2d of March, 1819. On the 22d of March, 1836, the bill for the admission of Arkansas into the Union was re- ported in the Senate by Mr. Buchanan from a select committee, to whom had been referred the memorial of the territory of Arkansas on the subject. On the 4th of April, 1836, the bill was passed by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Benton of Mo., Brown of N. C. Buchanan of Pa., Calhoun of S. C, Clayton of Del.. Cuthbert of (ia.. Kwing of 111.. Ewing of 0., Grundy of Tenn., Hendricks of Ind., Hill of N. H., Hubbard of N. Y., Kin;,' of Ala., King of Ga., Linn of Mo., MeKean of Pa.. Mangum of N. C, Moore of Ala., Morris of 0., Nicholas of La., Mies of Conn.. Preston of S. C., Rives of Va., Robinson of 111., Ruggles of Mr., Sheplev of Me.. Tallmadge of N. Y., Tipton of Ind.. Walker of Miss., White of Tenn-., Wright of N. Y.— 31. Nats. — Messrs Clay of Ky.. Knight, of K. I., Porter of La., 1'rentiss of Vt., Robbuns of R. I., Swift of Vt.— 6. On the 9th of June, 1836, the bill from the Senate fur the admission of Arkansas into the Union being under consideration in the com- mittee of the whole of the House of Repre- sentatives, Mr. Adams moved to amend the bill by introducing a clause, " that nothing in the act shall be construed as to an assent, by Congress to the article in the constitution of said state in relation to slavery and the eman- cipation of slaves." Mr. Cushing of Mass. addressed the com- mittee against the admission of Arkansas with her pro-slavery constitution, as did also Mr. Briggs of the same state. The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. Adams, and it was rejected by a vote of yeas 98, nays 32. There were no yeas and nays in committee of the whole, so this vote was not taken in that way. Mr. Adams endeavored to bring his amend- ment before the House when the bill was taken out of committee, but failed to get the floor for Ihat purpose. The bill was passed on the 13th of June, 1836, by a vote of yeas 143, nays 50. The negative vote was as follows: — Messrs. Adams of Mass., Allen of Vt, Anthony of Pa., Bailey of Me., Bond of 0., Borden of Mass.. Briggs of Mass.. Calhoun of Mass., Childs of N. Y., Clark of Pa.. Crane of 0., Cashing of Mass., Darlington of Pa., Denuy of Pa., Evans of Me., Everett of Vt. P. C. Fuller of N. Y.. Grennell • •;' Mass., Hall of Vt, Hard of N. V., Harper of Pa., Hazletine of N. Y., Henderson of N. Y.. Heister of Pa., Hoar of Mass., Jackson of Mass., Janes of Vt. Jones of Va.. Laporte of Pa., Lawrence of Mass.. Lay. of N. Y.. Lincoln of Mass.. Love of N. Y., Mason of Ohio, McCarty of Ind., McKeunan of Pa., Morris of Pa.. Parker of N. J., Pearce of Md.. Phillips of Mass., Potts of Pa.. Reed of Mass., Russell of N. Y.. Shinn of X. J., Slade of Vt, John Thomson of 0.. Underwood of Ky., Vinton of 0., Whittlesey of 0., and Williams of N. C. by On the 16th of June the act was approved the President, and became a law. Articles of Confederation, &c. To all to whom these presents shall come. We, the undersigned, delegates of the States affixed to our names, send greeting : — Whereas, the Delegates of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, did, on the fifteenth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-seven, and in the second year of the independence of America, agree to certain articles of confederation and perpetual union between the States of New Hampshire, Mas- sachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, in the words following, viz. : — Articles of confederation and perpetual union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Pro- vidence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Mary- land, Virginia, North Carolina, South Caro- lina, and Georgia. Article 1. The style of this confederacy shall be " The United States of America." Art. 2. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled. Art. 3. The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare ; binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretext whatever. Art. 4. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states ; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions, as the in- 70 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. habitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state to any other state, of which the owner is an inhabitant ; provided, also, that no imposition, duties, or restriction, shall be laid by any state on the property of the United States, or either of them. If auy person guilty of or charged with treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor, in any state, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the governor, or executive power of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, and removed to the state having jurisdic- tion of his offence. Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these states to the records, acts, and judi- cial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other state. Art. 5. For the more convenient manage- ment of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislature of each state shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each state to recall its delegates or any of them, at any time, within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year. No state shall be represented in Congress by less than two nor more than seven mem- bers ; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding an office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees, or emolument of any kind. Each state shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the states, and while they act as members of the committee of the states. In determining questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each state shall have one vote. Freedom of speech and debate in Congress >'iall not be impeached or questioned in any eourt or place out of Congress; and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests and imprisonments, daring the time of their going to and from, and attendance on Congress, except for trea- son, felony, or breach of the peace. Art. (x No state, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send an embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance, or treaty, with any king, prince, or state ; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept of any present, emolu- ment, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility. No two or more states shall enter into any treaty, confederation, or alliance whatever be- tween them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying ac- curately the purpose for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall con- tinue. No state shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties entered into by the United States in Congress assembled, with any king, prince, or state, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress to the courts of Franco and Spain. No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace, by any state, except such number as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defence of such state or its trade ; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any state in time of peace, except such number only as, in the judgment of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garri- son the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, suffi- ciently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and have constantly ready for use, in public stores, a number of field-pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage. No state shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, unless such state be actually in- vaded by enemies, or shall have received cer- tain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such state, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the United States in Congress assembled can be consulted ; nor shall any state grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, or letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the United. States in Congress assembled, and then only against the kingdom or state, and the sub- jects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the United States in Con- gress assembled, unless such state be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be -fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States in Congress assembled shall determine otherwise. Art. 7. When land forces are raised by any state for the common defence, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each state respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such state shall direct; and all vacancies shall be filled up by the state which first made the appointment. Art. 8. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the com- mon defence or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall bo supplied by the several states in proportion to the value of all land within each state granted to or surveyed for any per- son, as such land and the buildings and im ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. 71 provements thereon shall be estimated, ac- cording to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled shall from time to time direct and appoint. The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direc- tion of the legislatures of the several states, within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled. Art. 9. The United States in Congress as- sembled shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixtli article : of sending and receiving am- bassadors : entering into treaties and alli- ances : provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective states shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or im- portation of any species of goods or commodi- ties whatsoever : of establishing rules for de- ciding, in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or appropriated : of granting letters of marque and reprisal, in times of peace : appointing c mrts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures ; provided, that no member of Congress shall be ap- pointed a judge of any of the said courts. The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting, or that hereafter may arise between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever ; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner fol- lowing: whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any state in con- troversy with another shall present a petition to Congress, stating the matter in question, and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to the legisla- tive or executive authority of the other state in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties, by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determin- ing the matter in question ; but if they cannot agree, Congress shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen ; and from that number not less than seven nor more than nine names, as Congress shall direct, shall, in the presence of Congress, be drawn out by lot ; and the persons whose names shall be so drawn, or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges, who shall hear the cause, shall agree in the determination ; and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons which Congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each state, and the secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgment and sentence of the court to be appointed in the manner be- fore prescribed, shall be final and conclusive : and if any of the parties shall refuse to sub- mit to the authority of such court, or to ap- pear, or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sen- tence or judgment, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgment or sen- tence, and other proceedings, being in either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress for the security of the parties concerned : provided, that every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, shall take an oath, to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the state, where the cause shall be tried, " well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgment, without favor, affection, or hope of reward :" provided also, that no state shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States. All controversies concerning the private right of soil, claimed under different grants of two or more states, whose jurisdiction as they may respect such lands and the states which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall, on the petition of either party to the Congress of the United States, be finally determined, as near as may be, in the same manner as is before pre- scribed for deciding disputes respecting terri- torial jurisdiction between different states. The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective states ; fixing the stand- ard of weights and measures throughout the United States : regulating the trade and ma- naging all affairs with Indians not members of any of the states ; provided, that the legis- lative right of any state within its own limits be not infringed or violated ; establishing and regulating post-offices from one state to anoth- er, throughout all the United States, and exact- ing such postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office: appointing all oiii- cers of the land forces in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers : appointing all the officers of the naval force.-, and commissioning all officers whatever in tl service of the United States ; making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations. 72 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee to .sit in the recess of Congress, to be denomi- nated " a committee of the states ;" and to consist of one delegate from each state, and to appoint such other committees and civil offi- cers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States, under their direction: to appoint one of their num- ber to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years : to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defray- ing the public expenses : to borrow money or emit bills on the credit of the United States, transmitting every half year to the respective states an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted ; to build and equip a navy : to agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each state for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in each state ; which re- quisition shall be binding, and thereupon the legislature of each state shall appoint the re- gimental officers, raise the men, and clothe, arm, and equip them in a soldier-like manner, at the expense of the United States ; and the officers and men so clothed, armed, and equip- ped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled ; But if the United States in Congress assembled, shall, on consideration of circumstances, judge pro- per that any state should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number than its quota, and that any other state should raise a great- er number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall be raised, officered, clothed, armed, and equipped, in the same manner as the quota of such state, unless the legislature of such state shall judge that such extra number cannot safely be spared out of the same ; In which case they shall raise, offi- cer, clothe, arm, and equip, as many of such extra number as they judge can safely be spared. And the officers and men so clothed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled. The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque and reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor as- certain the sums and expenses necessary for the defence and welfare of the United States or any of them, nor emit lulls, nor borrow money on the credit of the United States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the num- ber of vessels of war to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine states assent to the same ; nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day, be determined unless by the votes of a majo- rity of the United States in Congress assem- bled. The Congress of the United States shall have power to adjourn to any time within the year, and to any place within the United States, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of six months ; and shall publish the journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances, or military ope- rations, as in their judgment require secrecy ; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each state on any question shall be entered on the journal when it is desired by any delegate : and the delegates of a state, or any of them, at his or their request, shall be furnished with a transcript of the said journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the several states. Art. 10. The committee of the states, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to exe- cute in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of nine states, shall, from time to time, think expe- dient to vest them with ; provided that no power be delegated to the said committee, for the exercise of which, by the articles of confe- deration, the voice of nine states in the Congress of the United States assembled is requisite. Art. 11. Canada, acceding to this confedera- tion, and joining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to, all the advantages of this Union, but no other colony shall be admitted into the same unless such admission be agreed to by nine states. Art. 12. All bills of credit emitted, moneys borrowed, debts contracted, by or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the pre- sent confederation, shall be deemed and con- sidered as a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged. . Art. 13. Every state shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which, by this confederation, are submitted to them. And the articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual ; nor shall any altera- tion at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be after- wards confirmed by the legislature of every state. And whereas it has pleased the Great Gover- nor of the world to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Con- gress, to approve and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpe- tual union: Know ye, That we, the under- signed delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do, by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.— ATHERTON, CHARLES G. 73 articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained ; and we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Con- gress assembled, on all questions which, by the said confederation, are submitted to them ; and that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the states we respectively repre- sent ; and that the union shall be perpetual. In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia, in the state of Pennsylvania, the ninth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight, and in the third year of the independence of America. Ou the part and behalf of the State of New Hampshire. Josiah Bartlett, John Wentworth, Jr., August 8, 1778. On the part and behalf of the State of Massachusetts Bay. John Hancock, Francis Dana, Samuel Adams, James Lovell, El bridge Gerry, Samuel Ilolten. On the part and behalf of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. William Ellery, John Collins. Jleury Marchant, On the part and behalf of the State of Connecticut. Roger Sherman, Titus Hosmer, Samuel Huntington, Andrew Adams. Oliver Wolcott, Ou the part and behalf of the State of New York. Jas. Dunne, Wm. Duer, Fra. Lewis, Gouv. Morris. On the part and behalf of the State of New Jersey. Jno. Witherspoon, Nath. Scudder, Nov. 26, 1778. On the part and behalf of the State of Pennsylvania. Robt. Morris, William Clingan, Daniel Roberdeau, Joseph Reed, 22d July, 177S. Jona. Bayard Smith, On the part and behalf of the State of Delaware. Tho. M'Kean, Feb. 13, 1779. Nicholas Van Dyke. Johu Dickinson. May 5, 1779. On the part and behalf of the State of Maryland. John Hanson, Mar. 1, 1781. Daniel Carroll, Mar. 1, 1781. On the part and behalf of the State of Virginia. Richard Henry Lee, Jno. Harvie, John Banister, Francis Lightfoot Lee. Thomas Adams, On tiie part and behalf of the State of North Carolina. John Penn, July 21, 1778, Jno. Williams. Corns. Harnett, On the part and behalf of the State of South Carolina. Henry Laurens, Richard Hutson, William Henry Drayton, Thos. Heyward, Jr. Jno. Matthews, On the part and behalf of the State of Georgia. Jno. Walton, July 24, 1778. Edwd. Langworthy. Edwd. Telfair. [Note.— From the circumstance of delegates from the same state having signed the articles of confederation at different times, as appears by the dates, it is probable they affixed their names as they happened to be present in Congress, after they had been authorized by their constituents.]" [The above articles of confederation continued in force until the 4th day of March, 1789, when the Constitution of the United States took effect.] Atherton, Charles G. Celebrated Resolutions of. In the House of Representatives, on the 1 1th Dec, 1838, Mr. Atherton, a Democratic member from New Hampshire, asked leave to introduce the following resolutions : — '■ Resolved, That this government is a government of limited powers, and that by the Constitution of the United States, Congress has no jurisdiction whatever over the insti- tution of slavery in the several states of the confederacy. "Resolved, That petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia and the territories of the 1 Stairs, and against the removal of .-laves from one state to another, are a part of a plan of operations set on foot to affect the institution of slavery in the several states, an I thus indirectly to destroy that institution within thiir limits. " Resolved, That < ongrt ss has no rigid to do thai in Hi which it cannot do directly; and that the agitation of the subjectof slavery iu the District of Columbia or the territories as a means, and with the view of disturbing or overthrow- ing that institution in the several states, is against the true spirit and meaning of the Constitution, au infringement of the right of the states affected, and a breach of the public faith upon which they entered iuto the confederacy. " Resolved, That the, Constitution rests on the l/road principlt of equality among the members of this confederacy, and that Congress, in the exercise of its acknowledged powers, has no right to discriminate between the institutions of one portion of the states and another, with a view of abolishing the one and promoting the other. " Resolved, therefore, That all attempts on the port of Con- gress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia or the terri- tories, or to prohibit the removal of slaves from state to state, or tn discriminate bet ween the institutions of one portion of ttut confederacy and another with the views aforesaid, are in vio- lation of the Constitution, destructive of the. fundamental principle on which the union of these states rests, and beyond the jurisdiction of Congress ; and that every petition, memo- rial, resolution, proposition, or paper, touching or relating in any way or to any extent whatever to slavery as afore- said, or the abolition thereof, shall, on the presentation thereof, without any further action thereon, be laid upon the table without being debated, printed, or referred." Mr. dishing, of Mass., objected to their introduction. Mr. Atherton moved to suspend the rules, which was carried. Mr. Wise of Va., repudiated them as Southern resolutions, denounced them as a plot sprung upon the South, and said as a Southern repre- sentative he was not there on the subject of abolition. Mr. Biddle of Pa., declined to vote upon the second resolution, as it designed to place him in a false light for the mere transient pur- poses of party. Mr. Wise refused to vote on any of the reso- lutions, and said the fifth resolution admitted the right to petition on the subject. Mr. Kennedy of Md., endeavored to correct the bad grammar of the fourth resolution. Mr. Wise moved to strike out the words "with the views aforesaid," in the fifth resolu- tion ; but the motion was ruled out of order. Mr. Wise theu remarked that " these are the words that sold the South." Mr. Dawson of Ga., said, that in voting for the fifth resolution, he would do so omitting the words "with the views aforesaid." Congress had no constitutional power for any " views," or for any purposes whatever, to interfere with the question. Messrs. Pope and Chambers of Ky., de- clined voting on the second branch of the last resolution, for the reason that they did not wish to affirm the reception of abolition peti- tions, and because it was inconsistent with the propositions already adopted. That part of the third, fourth, and fifth reso- lutions italicised being the first branch, and that part not italicised being the second branch of each. The following Table shows the vote adopt- ing the first and second, and each branch of the remaining resolutions : — 74 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Adams of Mass. Alexander of Ohio Mien nt'Vt. Allen of Ohio Anderson of Me._ A-ndreWS of X. V. Mherton of N T . II. Aycrigg oi N r . J. Banks of Va. Beatty of fa. Beers of N. Y. Beirne of Va. Bell of Tenn. Bicknell of N. Y. Biddle of Pa. Birdsall of X. Y. Boud of Ohio Borden of Mass. Bouldin of Va. Briggs of .Mass. Bood of Ind. Brodhead of N. Y Bron son of N. Y. Buchanan of Fa. Bynum of N. G. Culhoon of Ky. Calhoun of Mass. CambrelingofN.Y. Campbell of Tenn. Campbell of S. C. Carter of Tenn. Casey of 111. Chambers of Ky. Chaney of Ohio Chapman of Ala. Cheatham of Tenn. Childs of N. Y. Clarke of N. Y. ' Cleveland of Geo. Clowney of S. C. Coffin of Ohio Coles of Va. Conner of N. C. Corwiu of Ohio Crabb of Ala. Craig of Va. Crary of Mich. Cranston of H. I. Crockett of Tenn. Curtis of N. Y. Cushiug of Mass. Cushman of Mass. Darlington of Pa. Dawson of Geo. Davoe of Maine Davies of Pa. Deberry of N. C. De Graff of N. Y. Dennis of Md. Dromgoole of Va. Duncan of Ohio Dunn of Ind. Edwards of N. Y. Elmore of S. C. Evans of Maine Everett of Vt. Ewing of Ind. Farriugton of N.II. Fairfield of Maine Fletcher of Vt. Fletcher of Mass. Fillmore of N. Y. Foster of N. Y. Fry of Pa. Gallup of X. Y. Garland of Va. Garland of La. Giddings of Ohio Glascock of I leo. Goode of Ohio Graham of S. C. Graham of Ind. Srantland of Geo. Grant of X. Y. Graves of Ky. yea yea nay nay nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea I yea yea nay nay yea yea yea I yea nay I nay nay yea yea I yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea I Gray of X. Y. (irennell of Mass. Griffin of S. C. Haley of Coun. Hall of Vt. Halstead of N. J. Hammond of Pa. Hamer of Ohio Harlan of Ky. Harrison of Mo. Harper of Ohio Hastings of Mass. Haves of Ky. Hawkins of N.C. Haynes of Ga. Henry of Pa. Herod of Ind. Hoffman of N. Y. Holt of Conn. Hopkins of Va. Howard of Md. Hubley of Pa. Hunter of Ohio Hunter of Va. Ingersoll of Pa. Ingham of Conn. Jackson of N. Y. Jenifer of Md. Jackson of Geo. Johnson of La. Johnson of Bid. Johnson of Va. Jones of X. Y. Jones of Va. Keim of Pa. Kembleof N. Y. Kennedy of Md. Klingensmith, Pa. Legare of S. C. Leadbetter of Ohio Lewis of Ala. Lincoln of Mass. Logan of Pa. Lootnis of N. Y. Lyon of Ala. Mallory of Va. Marvin of X. Y. Mason of Va. Mason of Ohio Martin of Ala. Maury of Tenn. May of Illinois Maxwell of N. J. McKay of X. C. McClellanofTenn. McClellan of X. Y. McClure of Pa. McKennan of Pa. Menefee of Ky. Mercer of Va. Miller of Mo. Milliiran of Del. Mitchell of X. Y. Montgomery, N. C. Moore of X. Y. Morgan of Va. Morris of Ohio M. Morris of Pa. 8. W. Morris of Pa. Murray of Ky. Xaylor of Pa. Xoble of Me. Xoyes of Me. Ogle of Pa. Owens of Ga. Palmer of N. Y. Parker of N. Y. Parmenter, Mass. Parris of Me. Paynter of Pa. Pearce of Md. Peck of N.Y. Pennybacker. Va. Petriken of Pa. Phelps of Conn. nay nay yea j yea yea nay yea © O Hi ~ a ~ ° i f= p il 3 "0 « C co yea yea nay nay yea yea yea yea nay nay yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea ' yea yea yea a-a yea | yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea i yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea nay nay yea yea yea j yea nay yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay ! nay yea j yea nay | nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea | yea I yea yea nay nay yea yea yea j yea yea yea I yea yeaijsa|yea ATIIERTON, CHARLES G.— BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 75 i o o o . i O O O ■a m .a • ti a •si J= a x a - a •S3 " ta 0J .a • o a fa ■a a 2 = o c ■§§' MEMIiJRS' NAMES. V ■5 a © •a p o £3 3.2 S3 a •-; £ 3 p — c — 23 a '2 M 3 t. — members' names. -a p s o §3 fc. 3 3~ rt 3 t- — a- -s ;3 aa rt 3 u — as *J o •°o .a o 2 o •a o J2 O a -a .e — < •« •3 .p o B g — "o -p a ° 3 ja M £? rQ « w OJ T3 V to 2 T3 oj ° 3 .a "S * ■a £ Vi oj •O 4> W 0J TD 0. •o w a =- t r-l « :. *- •-> u CS U Jo w p i-i y fr, 0) n - Csl U i-. t. M s- ° s a 3 c- a « P ™ P.P a-a S -a - ■'. 3 | Si a ~ aa PJ= ea p J r* t. o-s Om OS OS yea OS O.n 0.0 >z oS OS os z :: Crt Pickens of S. 0. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Stanley of X. C. I'otts of Pa. nay nay nay nay nay nay nay- nay Stewart of Va. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Mummer of l'a. yea yea yea yea yea yea Stone of Tenn. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Pope of Ky. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Stratton of X. J. yea nay yea yea yea yea nay nay ] otter of L'a. Swearingen, Ohio yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Pratt of X. Y. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Taliaferro of Va. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Prentiss of N. V. yea Taylor of N. Y. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea 1'utuam of X. Y. yea nay nay nay yea yea nay nay Tillinghast of R. I. nay nay nay- nay nay- nay nay Randolph of X.J. yea nay yea yea nay yea yea nay Thomas of Md. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Ruriden of la. nay nay nay yea nay nay nay Thompson of S. C. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Riley of Pa. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Til us of X. Y. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Reed of Mass. nay nay nay Toland of Pa. yea nay nay Reneher of X. C. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Toucey of Conn. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yen Rhett of S. C. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Towns of Geo. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Richardson of S. C. Turuey of Tenn. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Ridgeway of Ohio yea nay yea nay yea yea nay Underwood of Ky. Rives of Va. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Vail of X. Y. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Robertson of Va. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Vanderweer. X. Y. yea yea Robinson of .Me. yea nay yea nay nay nay nay nay Wagoner of Pa. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Ramsey of Ky. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Webster of Ohio yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Russell of X. Y. nay nay nay nay nay White of Ind. yea nay yea yea nay yea yea "nay Saltonstall of Mass. yea nay nay nay nay nay nay nay White of Ky. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Sawyer of X. C. yea yea yea yea yea yea Whittlesey, Conn. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Sergeant of Pa. nay nay Williams of X. C. yea Shelter of Pa. yea nay nay Williams of Ky. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Shephard of X. C. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Williams of X. II. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Shepard of X. C. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea J. L. Williams, Ten. yea nay yea yea yea yea yea nay Shields of Tenn. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea C H.Williams, Ten. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Sheplerof Ohio yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Word of Miss. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay Sibley of X. Y. yea nay nay yea nay Yell of Ark. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Slade of Vt. nay nay nay nay nay nay nay nay Yorke of X. J. yea nay nay yea nay- yea nay Smith of Me. yea nay nay nay Snyder of 111. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Yeas 198 136 173 164 ISO 174 146 126 Southgate of Ky. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Xays 6 65 30 40 26 25 50 77 Spencer of X. Y. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Bank of the United States. The first act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States, was ap- proved Feb. 25, 1791, by President Washing- ton ; its term of incorporation to expire at the end of the year 1811, and no other bank to be incorporated by the United States dur- ing the continuance of the charter hereby granted. This bill passed the Senate on the 20th of Jan., 1791. In that body on that day a mo- tion to limit the charter to 1801, was lost by yeas and nays as follows : — YEA9 —Messrs. Butler of S. C, Few of Ga., Gunn of Ga., Hawkins of N. C. Izard of S. C, and Monroe of Va. — 6. Xays.— Messrs. Bassett of Del., Dal ton of Mass., Ellsworth of Conn., Ernes of X. J., Foster of R. I., Johnson of Conn., King of X. Y., Langdon, Mac-Jay and Morris of Pa., Read of Del., Schuyler of N. Y., Stanton of R. I., Strong of Mass., and Wingate of X. U.— 16. A vote to strike out from the bill the pledge that the United States would not establish another bank during the existence of this charter was lost, yeas 5, nays 18. The vote in the affirmative was the same as on the previous vote with the exception of Mr. Gunn, who voted in the negative on this mo- tion, as did all who voted " No" on the for- mer vote, and also Mr. Johnston of N. C, who did not vote on the former vote. The bill was opposed in the House by Messrs. Jackson of Ga., Lee of Va., Madison of Va., and Tucker of S. C, and defended by Messrs. Lawrence of N. Y., Sherman of Conn., Gerry of Mass., Ames and Sedgewick of Mass., Boudinot of N. J., Smith of S. C, and Vining of Del. ; but finally passed that body on the 8th of Feb., 1791, by yeas and nays as fol- lows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Ames of Mass., Benson of N. Y., Boudinot of X. J., Bourne of It. I., Cadwalader of X. J., Clymer of Pa., Fitzsimmons of Pa., Floyd of X. Y.. F'oster of X. II., Gerry of Mass., Oilman of N. II.. Goodhue of Mass., Hartley of Pa., Ilathorn of X. Y., Heister of Pa., Huntington of Conn., Lawrence of X. Y„ Leonard of Mass., Livermore of X. II., P. Muhlenberg of Pa., l'artridge of Mass., Van Rensselaer of X. Y., Schureman of X. J.. Scott of Pa., Sedgewick of Mass., Senev of Md„ Sevier of X. C, Sherman of Conn., Sylvester of X. Y„ Sinnickson of N. J., Smith of Md., Smith of S. C. Steele of X. C, Sturges of Conn., Thatcher of Mass., Trumbull of Conn., Vining of Del., Wadsworth of Conn., Wynkoop of Pa. — 39. Xays. — Messrs. Ashe of X. C, Baldwin of Ga., Bloodworth of X. C. Brown of Va., Burke of S. C, Carroll of Md., Contee of Md., Gale of Md., Grout of Mass., Giles of Va., Jackson of Ga., Lee of Va„ Madison of Va., Matthews of Ga., Moore of Va., Parker of Va., Stone of Md., Tucker of S. 0., White of Va., Williamson of X. C— 20. On the 5th of Feb., 1811, Mr. Crawford of Ga., in the Senate of the United States, from a committee consisting of himself, Messrs. Leib of Pa., Lloyd of Md., Pope of Ky., and Anderson of Term., reported a bill to amend and continue in force the act entitled " An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States," passed on the 25th of Feb., 1791. This bill was warmly assailed by Messrs. Anderson of Tenn., Giles of Va., Henry Clay of Ky., and Smith of Md., and was defended by Messrs. Crawford of Ga., Lloyd of Mass., Pope of Ky., Brent of Va., and Taylor of S. C. Mr. Anderson of Tenn. moved to strike out the first section of the bill, which, if adopted, 76 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. would be equivalent to its rejection, when it appeared there was a tie vote as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Anderson of Tenn., Campbell of 0., Clay of Ky., Cutis of N. II.. Franklin of N. C. Gaillard of S. C, German of N. Y., Giles of Va.. Gregg of Pa., Lambert of N. J., Leib of Pa., Matthewson of R. I., Reed of Md., Robinson of Vt., Smith of Md., Whiteside of Tenn., VYorthingtcm of O.— 17. Nats. — Messrs. Bayard of Del., Bradley of Vt., Brent of Va., Chaplin of R. I., Condit of N. J., Crawford of Ga., Dana of Conn., Oilman of N. H., Goodrich of Conn., Hersey of Del., Lloyd of Mass., Pickering of Mass.. Pope of Ky., Smith of N. Y., Tait of Ga., Taylor of S. C, Turner of N. C— 17. The Vice President, Mr. Clinton, gave the casting vote in the affirmative, so the bill was virtually rejected. In the House of Representatives on the 4th of January, 1811, Mr. Burwell of Virginia, from a select committee, reported a bill to continue in force for the term of years, "An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States," on the terms and conditions therein mentioned. This bill was opposed in the house by Messrs. Bassett of Va., Macon of N. C, Bacon of Mass., Seybert of Pa.. Porter of N. Y., De- sha of Ky., Newton of Va., Wright of Md., Boyd of N. J., Barry of Ky., Johnson of Ky., Crawford of Pa., and Eppes of Va. It was defended by Messrs. Fisk of N. Y., Pickman of Mass., Alston of N. C, Findley of Pa,, Mc- Kim of Md., Sheffey of Va., Nicholson of N. Y., Talmadge of Conn., and Stanley of N. C. Mr. Burwell, who reported it from the com- mittee, was opposed to it ; but merely reported it, following the instructions of the committee. He moved to strike out the first section of the bill. Mr. Newton of Va. moved to postpone the bill indefinitely, and it was carried in the affirmative by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. L. J. Alston of N. C, Wm. Anderson of Pa.. B. Bacon of Mass., Bard of Pa., Barry of Ky.. Burwell of Va., Bassett of Va.. Bibb of Ga., Bovd of N. J.. Brown of Pa., Butler of S. C, Calhoun of S. C, Cheves of S. C, Clay of Va., Cochran of N. C, Crawford of Pa.. Cutts of Mass., Dawson of Va., Desha of Ky., Eppes of Va., Frank- lin of N. C. Gannett of Mass., Gardner of Mass.. Qholson of Va., Goodwyn of Va., Gray of Va., Holland of N. C, Johnson of Ky.. Jones of Va., Kenan of N. C, Kennedy of N. C, Love of Va., Lyle of Pa., Macon of N. C, McKim of Md., McKinley of Ala., Mitchell of N. Y., Montgomery of Md., Moore of S. C, Moore of Ind., Morrow of Tenn., Mum- ford of N. Y„ Newton of Va., Porter of N. V., John Pea of I'a.. John Rhea of Tenn.. Richards of Pa.. Ringgold of Md.. Roane of Va., Sage of N. Y., Sawyer of N. C, Seaver of Mass., Seybert of Pa., Smilie of Pa., Smith of Va.. Smith of Pa.. Southard of N. J., Troup of Ga., Turner Jr.. Van Hum of Md., Weakley of Tenn., Whitehill of Pa., Winn of S. C, Wither- spoon of S. C. Wright of Md.— 65. Nays.' — Messrs. Allen of Mass., Alston of S. C Bigelow of Mass.. Blaisdell of N. H.. Breckenridge of Va.. Campbell of Md.. Chamberlain of N. II., Chamberlain of Mass., Champion of Conn., Chittenden of Vt,, Davenport of Conn.. Ely of Mass., Emott of N. Y., Findly of Pa., Fisk of N. Y.. Gardi- ner of N. Y., Garland of Va., Goldsborough of Md, Gold of N. Y., Hale of N. II., Haven of N. II.. Heister of Pa.. Helms of N.J, Hubbard of Vt, Huffy of N. J., Huntington of Conn., Jackson of It. I., Jenkins of Pa., Key of lnd, Knicker- bocker of N. Y, Lewis of Va.. Livingston of N. Y, Matthews of N. Y.. McBryde of N. C, McKee of Ky.. Miller of Tenn, Milnor of Pa.. Mosely of Conn.. Newboid of N. J, Nichol- son of N. Y, Pearson of N. C, Pickman of Mass., Pitkin of Conn., Potter of R. I.. Quincy of Mass.. Ran lolph of Va., Fammons of N. Y.. Scudder of N. J., Shaw of Yt., Sheffey of Va, Smelt of Ga,. Smith of Md, Stanford of N. 0, Stanley of N.C., Stephenson of Va, Sturgesuf Conn., Swoopeof Va., Taggart of Mass, Talmadge of Conn, Thompson of N. Y., Van Dyke of Del., Van Rensselaer of N. Y., Wheal in of Mass., Wilson of N. II.— 63. Act approved April 10, 1816, entitled " An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States." The bill from which this act originated was reported in the House of Representatives on the 8th of January, 181G, by Mr. Calhoun of South Carolina, from a committee. The bill was defended by Mess. Calhoun, Smith of Md., Wright of Md., Tuck- er of Va,, Sharpe of Ky., Clay of Ky.. and others, and assailed by Messrs. Ward of Mass., Webster of N. II., Cady of N. Y., Clopton i Va., Stanford of N. C, Hanson of Md., Pick- ering of Mass., and others. It finally pai se ! the house on the 14th of March, 1810, by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Adgate of N. Y., Alexander of 0, Atherton of N. H., Baer of Va, L'etts of N. Y., Boss of 11. I, Bradbury of Mass., Brown of Mass, Calhoun of S. C. Cannon of Tenn., Champion of Conn., Ohappell of S. C, Clark of N. <'.. Clark of Ky., Clendeunin of 0.. Comstock of N. Y., Condit of N. J., Conner of Mass, Creighton of 0., Crochesou of N. Y, Cuthbert of Ga., Edwards of N. C, Forney of N. C, Forsyth of Ga., Gholson of Va., Griffin of Pa., Grosvenor of N. V, Hawes of Va.. Henderson of Tenn, linger of S. C, Hulbert of Mass., Hungerford of Va, Ingham of Pa, Irving of X. Y., Jackson of Va., Jewett of Yt., Kerr of Va, King of N. C, Love of N. C, Lowndes of S. C, Lumpkin of Ga.. Maclay of Pa, Mason of It. 1, McCoy of Va, McKee of Ky, Middleton of S. C, Moore of S. C. Moseley of Conn., Mur'free of N. C, Nelson of Mass, Parris of Mass., Pickens of N. C, Fiukney of Md., Piper of Pa, Robertson of La, Sharp of Ky., Smith of Md., Smith of Va., Southard of N. J, Xaul of Ky, Taylor of N. Y., Taylor of S. G, Telfair of Ga, Thomas of Tenn., Throop of N. Y., Townsend of N. Y., Tucker of Va, Ward of N. J., Wendover of N. Y., Wheaton of Mass., Wilde of Ga., Wilkin of N. Y.. Williams of N. C, Willougbbv of N. Y, T. Wilson of Pa., W. Wilson of Pa, W (ward of S. C, Wright of Md., Yancey of N. C. Yates of N. Y.— 80. Nays. — Messrs. Baker of N. J, Barbour of Va., Bnssett of Va., Bennett of N. J., Birdall of N. Y., Blount of Tenn., Breckenridge of Va, Burnside of Pa., Burwell of Ya., Cady of N. Y„ Caldwell of 0., Cilley of N. H., Clayton of Del., Clopton of Ya., Cooper of Del., Crawford of I'a., Culpepper of N. C. Darlington of Pa., Davenport of Conn, Desha of Ky., Gaston of N. C, Gold of N. Y., Goldsborouub of Md., Goodwyn of Va.. Hahu of I'a, Hale of N. II, Hall of Ga.. Hanson of Md., Hardin of Ky, Herbert of Md., llopkinson of Pa., Johnson of Va., Kent of Md., Langdon of Vt.. Law of Conn, Lewis of Va, Lovett of N. Y.. Lvle of Pa. Lvon of Vt, Marsh of Vt, Mayrant of S. C, McLean of Ky., Mc- Lean off), Milnerof Pa.. Newton of Va., Noyes of Vt, Ornas- bv of Ky., Pickering of Mass.. Pitkin of Conn, Randolph of Va, Reed of Mass.,' Root of N. Y., Ross of Pa, Buggies of Mass., Sergeant of Pa, Savage of N. Y, pheffoy of Va., Smith of Pa, Stanford of N. C, Stearns of Mass., Strong of Mass.. St urges of Conn, Taggart of Mass, Talmadge of Conn., Vose of N. II, Wallace of la. Wade of Mass . Ward of N. Y., Webster of Mass., Whiteside of Pa., Wilcox of N. 1L— 71. The bill was supported in the Senate by Messrs. Bibb of Georgia, Barbour of Va., and Taylor of S. C, and opposed bv Messrs. Mason of "N. H., King of N. Y., and Wells of Del. It was amended in the Senate, and passed that body on the 3d of April, 1816, by yeas and nays, as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Barbour of Va, Barry of Ky, Brown of La, Campbell of Tenn, Chace of Vt., Condit of N. J.. Dag- gett of Conn.. Fromentin of La, Harper of Md, Horsey of Del, Howell of K. I, Hunter of R. I, Lncock of Pa, Mason of Va, Morrow of O., Roberts of Pa.. Tait of Ga, Taylor of S. C Turner of N. C, Varnum of Mass., Williams of Tenn. 22. Nats.— Messrs. Dana of Conn.. Gaillard of S. C, Goldsbo- rough of Md, Gore of Mass.. King of N. Y.. Macon f N. C, Mason of N. II.. Ruegles of 0.. Sanford of N. Y., Tichener of Yt, Wells of Del., Wilson of N. J.— 12. The amendments of the Senate to the bill were concurred in by the House, on the 5th of April, 1810, after a long debate, in which Mr. Daniel Webster of N. II., John Randolph of BANK OF THE UNITED STATER. 77 Ya., and Ben Hardin of Ky., opposed the bill, and Messrs. Calhoun of S. O, Grosvenor of N. Y., Ilulbert of Mass., and others, defended it. On the 2d of February, 1831, Mr. Benton of Missouri, asked leave of the Senate to in- troduce the following resolution : — Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep- resentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the charter of the Bank of the United States ought not to be renewed. Mr. Benton supported the resolution in an elaborate and able speech. No Senator replied. Mr. Webster of Mass. called for the yeas and nays on the motion that leave be granted, when it was decided in the negative, as fol- lows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Barnard of Pa., Benton of Mo., Bibb of Ky., Brown of N. C, Dickerson of N. J.. Dudley of N. Y., Forsyth of Ga., Grundy of Tens., Hayne of S. C., Iredell of N. C, King of Ala., McKinley of Ala., Poindexter of Miss., Sanford of N. Y., Smith of S. C, Tazewell of Va., Troup of Ga.. Tyler of Va., White of Tenn., and Woodbury of N. II. —•20. Nats. — Messrs. Barton of Mo., Bell of N. II., Burnett of 0., Chase of Vt.. Clayton of Del., Foot of Conn., Frelinghuy- sen of N. J., Hendricks of Iud., Holmes of Me., Johnston of La.. Knight of R. I., Livingston of La., Marks of Pa., No- ble, Robbins of R. I., Robinson of 111., Ruggles of 0., Sey- mour of Vt., Silsbee of Mass., Smith of Md., Sprague of Me., Webster of Mass., Willey of Conn.— 23. On the 9th of January, 1831, in the Senate (the same day on which a like petition was presented to the House), Mr. Dallas presented the petition of the United States Bank for a re- newal of its charter. The memorial was referred to a committee consisting of Messrs. Dallas of Pa., Ewing of Ohio, Webster of Mass., Hayne of S. C, and Johnston of La. On the 3d of March, 1831, Mr. Dallas re- ported a bill to renew the charter of the Bank for the term of fifteen years from its expira- tion. Messrs. Dallas, Webster, Clayton, and others, defended the bill. Messrs. Benton, Bibb, White, Hill, and others, opposed it. On .the 11th of June, 1832, the question was taken, and the bill was passed by yeas and nays, as follows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Bell of N. II., Buckner of Mo., Chambers of Md., Clay of Ky., Clayton of Del., Dallas of Pa., Ewing of 0., Foot of Conn., Frelinghuysen of N. J., Hendricks of Ind., Holmes of Me., J. S. Johnston of La., Knight of R. I., Nau- d.iin of Del., Poindexter of Miss., Prentiss of Vt., Robbins of R. I., Robinson of 111., Ruggles of 0., Seymour of Vt, Silsbee of Mass., Saml. Smith of Md., Sprague of Me., Tipton of Iud., Tomlinson of Conn., Waggaman of La., Webster of Mass., and Wilkins of Pa.— 28. Nays.— Messrs. Benton of Mo., Bibb of Ky., Brown of N. C, Piekerson of N. J., Dudley of N. Y., Ellis of Miss.. Forsyth of tia., Grundy of Tenn., Hayne of S. C. Hill of N. II.. Kane of 111., King of Ala., Mangumof N.C., Marcy of N. Y.. Miller of S. C Moore of Ala., Tazewell of Va.. Troupe of Ga., Tyler of Va,, Hugh L. White of Tenn.— 20. ' The bill from the Senate to renew the char- ter of the Bank was passed by the House on the 3d of July, 1832, by yeas and nays, as follows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Adams of Mass.. C. Allen of Ky., II. Allen of Vt., Allison of Pa., Appleton of Mass.. Armstrong of Va., Arnold of Tenn.. Ashley of Mo., Babcock of X. Y., Banks of Pa.. X. Barber of Conn.. J. S. Barbour of Va . Barringer of N.C.. Barstow of N. Y.. J.C. Bates .if Mhfs., Briggs of Mass Buche'rof Pa., Bullard of La., Burdof Pa., Burgess of R. !.,' Cboate of Mass.. ( oilier of N. Y.. J. Condil of N. .).. S. ('no- dit of N. J., i:. Cooke of 0.. B. Cooke of N. v.. Cooper of N. .1.. Corwin of 0., Coulter of Pa., Craig of \ a.. Craine of 0., Crawford of Pa., Creighton of 0., Daniel of Ky., .1. Davis of Mass., Dearborn of Mass., Denny of Pa., Di-wart of Pa., Dod- dridge of Va.. Drayton of S. C. Ellsworth of Conn.. G. Kvans of Me., ,1. Evans of Pa., E. Everett of Mass., II. Everett of Vt., Ford of Pa.. Gilmore of Pa.. Grennel] of .Mass.. n of Mass., Heister of Pa., Horn of Pa., Hughes of X. .!.. Hunt- ington of Conn.. Ihrie of Pa.. Ingersoll of Conn., Irvin of 0., Isacks of Tenn., Jenifer of Md., Kendall of Mass., II. King la.. Kerr of Md.. Letcher of Ky.. Mann of Pa.. Marshall of Ky., Maxwell of Va., McCoy of Pa.. McDuffieof S. ('.. McKen- nan of Pa.. Mercer of Va.. Milligan of Del.. Newliu, Pearc.e of R. I.. Pendleton of N. Y., Pilcher of N. Y., Potts of ;•„., Randolph of N. J., J. Heed of .Mass.. Root of X. Y.. Russel of 0., Semmes of Md., W. B. Shepard of X. C A. 11. Shepperd of X. C, Sladeof Vt.. Smith of Pa., Southard of N. .1.. Spunoe of Md., Stanberry of 0., Stephens of V-.:.. Stewart of Pa., Storrsof Conn., Sutherland of I'm.. Taylorof \. Y.. I'. Thomas of La.. Tompkins of Ky., Tracy of N. Y„ Vance of i ).. Yer- planck of X. Y., Vinton ofO., Washington of Md., Watmongh of Pa., E. Whittesley of 0.. F. Whittesly of X. Y., E. !>. White of La.. Wickiiffe of Ky., Williams of X. ('., and Young of Conn.— 105. Nats. — Messrs. Adair of Kv., Alexander of Va.. Anderson of Md., Archer of Va., Bates of Mo.. Beardsly of X. V.. Bell of Tenn., Bergen of X. Y., Bethuueof N.-C.,Jauies Blair of S. C. liouck of X. Y., Bouldin of Va., Branch of N. C, Cambreling of N. T., Carrof Ind., Chaudlierof N. H . Chinn of Va., Claiborne of Va.. Clay of Ala.. Clayton of Ga., Coke of Va., Conner of X. C. W. K. Davis of S. C, Dayan of X. Y.. Doubleday of X. Y., Felder of S. C, Fitzgerald of Tenn . Foster ofGa., Gait her of Ky., Gordon of Va.. Griffin of S.C., T. H. Hall of X. C, W. Hall of Term., llammons of X. 11., Harper of X. H, Hawes of Kv.. Hawkins of X. C. Hoffman of N. Y., Hoganof X. Y., Holland of Md., Howard of Md.. Hubbard of X. H, Jarvis of .Md., C. Johnson of Va., Kava- naugh of Md., Kenuon of 0., A. King of Pa.. J. King of X. Y., Lamar of Ga., Leavitt of 0., Leeompte of Ky., Lewis of Ala., Lyon of Ky., Mardis of Ala., Mason of Va., McCartv of Ind., Mclntire of Mo.. McKay of X. C, Mitchell of Md., Newman of Ga., Xuckolls of S. C, Patton of Va., Pierson of N. Y.. Polk of Tenn., E. C. Reed of X. Y.. Rencherof N.C., Roane of Va., Soule of N. Y r ., Speight, Standifer, P. Thomas of Md.. W. Thompson of Ga.. J. Thomson ol Ward of X. Y., Wardell of X. Y., Wayne of Ga.. Weeksof N. II., Wheeler of X. Y.. C. P. White of X. Y., Wilde ot Ga., Worthington of Ind. — S4. On the 10th of July, 1832, President Jack- son communicated to the Senate, in which the bill originated, the act to modify and continue the act to incorporate the subscribers to the United States Bank, with his objections to the same. Messrs. Webster of Mass.. Holmes of Mass., Ewing of Ohio, Clayton of Del., and Clay of Ky., opposed the veto. Messrs. White of Tenn., and Benton of Missouri, defended it. The question was then put — " Shall the bill become a law, the President's objections to the contrary notwithstanding?'' (a two-third vote being necessary to carry it), and it was deci- ded in the negative. All the Senators who voted for the passage ower not conferred by the Constitution and aws, and in derogation of both ; and that the reasons assigned by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the removal of the public de- posites from the Bank of the United States, are insufficient and unsatisfactory. The latter of these resolutions, relative to the conduct of the Secretary, having been re- ferred to the Committee on Finance, was the subject of an elaborate report by Mr. Web- ster from that Committee, reviewing the re- port of the Secretary, and recommending that the resolution be adopted. The resolutions were adopted by the Senate on the 2Sth of March, 1834. Mr. Clay on the 28th of May, 1834, intro- duced resolutions similar to those which had parsed the Senate on the 28th of March, giving to them the character of joint re- solutions, instead of mere resolutions of the Senate, adding thereto a resolve, " that all deposites of public money, accruing after the 1st of July, 1834, be deposited with the Bank of the United States, in pursuance of the Act of the 10th of April, 1816." These joint resolutions of the Senate were adopted on the 3d of June, 1834. The first resolution, being one condemnatory of the ac- tion of the Secretary of the Treasury, was adopted by a vote of yeas 29, and nays 16. The second resolution, requiring the public moneys to be deposited in the United States Bank, the 1st of July, 1834, was adopted by yeas and nays as follows : They gave rise to General Jackson's cele- brated protest. Yeas.— Messrs. Bibb of Ky., Bell of N. II., Black of Mass., Cwlhoun of S. C, Clay of Ky., Clayton of Del.. Ewing of O.. Frelinghuysen of N. J., Kent of Md., Knight of It. 1., Leigh of Va., McKeau of Pa., Mangum of N. C. Naudain of Del., Poindexter of Miss.. Porter of La., Prentiss of Vt.. Preston of S. C. Bobbins of R. I., Silsbee of Mass., Smith of Md., Southard of N. J., Sprague of Me., Swift of Vt., Tomliuson of Conn., Tyler of Va., Waggaman of La., Web- ster of Mass. — 28. Nays.— Messrs. Benton of Mo., Brown of N. C. Forsyth of Ga., Grundy of Tenn.. Hill of N. II., Kane of 111.. King of Ala., King of Ga., Linn of Mo.. Morris of 0., Robinson of 111., Shepley of Me.. Tipton of Ind., White of Tenn., Wil- kins of Pa., Wright of N. Y.— 16. The votes on both of the resolutions were identical, with the exception that Mr. Hen- dricks, of Ind., who voted for the first one, was not present on the vote of which the preceding is a record. These resolutions, however, were never acted upon by the House. In the House of Representatives, April 4, 1834, the question was taken on four resolu- tions reported by Mr. Polk, from the Commit- tee of Ways and Means. The first one of tnese resolutions was to the effect that the Bank of the United States ought not to be rechartered. The second one was to the effect that the deposites ought not to be restored to the Bank of the United States. The third one was to the effect that the State Banks ought to be continued as \he dt positories of the public moneys, and that it is expedient that further provision should be made prescribing the mode of selection, the securities to be taken, and the manner and terms upon which they are to be employed. . The fourth resolution provided for the ap- pointment of a committee to investigate the affairs of the United States Bank, and to re- port upon its various malpractices, violations of its charter, &c, to report to the House. The first resolution was adopted, by vea-s and nays, as follows : Yeas. — Messrs. Adams of N. Y., Allen of 0., Anthony of Pa., Archer of Va., Leale of Va., Bean of X. II., Beardsly of N. Y., Beaumont of Pa., Bell of Tenn., Blair of Tenn., Bockee of N. Y., Boon of Ind., Bouklin of Va.. Brown of N. Y.. Bunch of Tenn., Bynum of N. C, Cambreling of N. Y.. Camp- bell. Carmichael of Md.. Carr of Ind., Casey of III.. Chauev of 0., Chinn of La., Ciai'Dorne "Va., Clark of N'. Y., Clay of Ala., Clayton of Ga., Clowney ol S. C, Coffee, of Ga., Connor of N. C, Cramer of N. Y., Davis of S. C, Davenport of Va., Day of N. Y., Diikerson of N. .1., Dickenson of Tenn.. Dun- lap of Tenn., Fcldur of S. C, Forrebter of Tenn., Foster of BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 79 Oa., W. K. Fuller of X. T., Fulton of Ya.. Gailbraith of Pa., Gholson of Va., Gillet of N. Y., Gilmer of Ga ., Gordon of Ya., Grayson of S. C. Griffin of S. C. Joseph Hall of Me.. T. II. rial! of N. C, Ilalsey of N. Y., Ilamer of U.. Hannegan of Ind.. Joseph M. Harper of N. II., Harrison of Pa., Hathaway of N. Y.. Hawkins of N. C, Hawes of Ky.. Heath of Md., Henderson of Pa., Howell of X. Y.. Hubbard of X. II., Hunt- ington of N. Y., Inge of Tenn., Jarvis of Me.. Johnson of Ky., Johnson of X. Y., Johnson of Tenn.. Jones of Ga., Jones of 0., Kavauagh of Me., Kinnard of Ind.. Lane of Ind., Lansing of N. Y., Laporte of Pa., Lawrence of N. Y.. Lay of N. Y., Lea of Tenn., Lee of N. J., Leavitt of 0., Loyall of Ya., Lucas of Va., Lyon of Ky., Lytle of 0., Mann of N. V.. Mann of Pa., Mardis of Ala., Mason of Va., Mason of Me., Mclntire of Me., McKay of X. C, McKinley of Ala., McLean of 0.. McVean of N. T., Miller of Pa., Mitchell of N, Y.. Mitchell of 0., Muhlenberg of Pa.. Murphy of Ala., Osgood of Mass., Page of N. Y., Parks of Me., Parker of N. J., Patterson of 0., D. J. Pearce of R. I., Peyton of Tenn., Pierce of N. H.. Pier- son of N. Y., Pinckney of S. C, Plumer of Miss., Polk of Tenn., Kencher of N. C.. Schenck of N. J., Schley of Ga., Shinn of N. J., Smith of Me.. Speight of X. C, Standifer, of Tenn.. Stoddart of Md., Sutherland of Pa., Taylor of N. Y.. Taylor of Pa.. Thomas of Md., Thompson of ()., Turnerof Md.. Tun-ill of N. Y.. Yanderpoel of N. Y., Wagener of Pa., Ward of N. Y.. Wardwell of N. Y., Wayne of Ga., Webster of 0.. Whallon of N. Y.— 134. Nats. — Messrs. John Quincy Adams of Mass., John J. Allen of Va., Heman Alien of Yt., Chilton Allan of Ky.. Ashley of Mo., Banks of Ya.. Barber of Conn.. Baruitz of I 'a., Barringer of X. C.. Baylies of Mass.. Beaty of Ky.. Bell of 0., Binney of Pa., Briggs of Mass., Bull of Mo.. Burges of R, I., Cage of Miss., Chambers of Pa., Chilton of Ky., Choate of Mass., Clark of Pa., Corwin of 0., Coulter of Pa.. Crane of 0., Crockett of Tenn., Darlington of Pa., Amos Davis of Ky., Deberry of N. C, Deming of Yt., Denny of Pa., Dennis of Md., Dickson of N. Y., Duncan of 111., Ellsworth of Conn.. Evans of Me., Everett of Mass., Everett of Yt., Fillmore of X. Y., Foote of Conn., Fuller of N. Y., Graham of N. C, Grennel of Mass.. Hall of \ t. Hard of N. Y., Hardin of Ky., Harper of Pa.. Hazeltine of N. Y., Huntington of Conn., Jackson, Johnson of Md., Lincoln, Martindale, Marshall of Ky- McCarty of Ind., McComas of Va., McDuffie of S. C, MeKenuan of Pa.. Mercer of Va., Milligan of Del., Moore of Va . Pope of Ky., Potts of Pa., Reed of Mass.. William B. Shepherd of X. C., Augustus H. Shepperd of X T . C, William Slade of Vt., Charles Slade of 111., Sloane of 0., Spangler of 0., Thomas of La., Tompkins of Ky., Tweedy of Conn.. Vance of 0., Vinton of 0., Watmough of Pa., Edward D. White of La., Whittlesey of N. Y., Elisha Whittlesey of 0., Wilde of Ga., Williams, Wilson of Va., Young of Conn. — 82. The remaining resolutions were also adopted. On the 11th of Dec, 1833, the Senate, by a vote of 23 to 17, on motion of Mr. Clay, passed a resolution calling on the President for a copy of the paper read by him to his Cabinet on the 18th of Sept., 1833, justifying his intended course in reference to removing the public deposites from the Bank of the United States. Gen. Jackson responded the next day, denying • the right of the Senate to make such a call, and declining to comply with its request. The committee appointed in pursuance of the 4th resolution of Mr. Polk, adopted on the 4th of April, 1834, consisting of Messrs. Francis Thomas of Md., Edward Everett of Mass., Muhlenberg of Pa., Mason of Va., Ellsworth of Conn., Mann of N. Y., and Lyle of Ohio, reported their inability to make the necessary investigation, on account of the im- pediments thrown in their way by the Bank. and the refusal of the officers and directors of the bank to produce the books or testify. The committee moved a resolution to the House to bring the president and directors before the bar of the House for contempt, but the same was never acted unon. Mr. Taney, the Secretary of the Treasury, who had carried out the instructions of the President, and removed the deposites, was rejected by the Senate, when his nomination as Secretary came up before it for confirmation. On the 3d of March, 1836, the charter of the Bank of the United States expired. It continued to work, however, under a charter from Pennsylvania, under the title of the Pennsylvania Bank of the United States ; the bank under the United States charter having, one day before its expiration, transferred to the bank under the state charter all of its property. On the 9th of Oct., 1839, even under its state sanction, it ceased to exist, and stopped. On the 21st of June. 1841. a United State* Bank was attempted to be reestablished, under a new name. 5lr. Clay introduced a bill in the Senate, from the select committee on the currency, to establish a "Fiscal Bank of the United States." It passed the Senate on the 28th of July, 1841, by a vote of yeas 26, nays 23. Every senator who voted for the repeal of the Independent Treasury law voted for this bill, with the exception of Messrs. Archer, I lives, and Clayton. Messrs. Archer and Rives voted against this bill. Mr. Clayton did not vote at all. The negative vote was the same as on the repeal of the Independent Treasury bill, [see Indepexdext Treasury] with the addition of Messrs. Archer and Rives, who voted for that, and against this, and Messrs. Buchanan, Linn, and Mouton, who did not vote on the repeal of the Independent Treasury law. It passed the House on the 6th of August, 1841, by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Alford of Ga., Allen of Me., Andrews of Ky., Andrews of 0., Arnold of Tenn., Aycriggof X. J.. Babcoek of N. Y., Baker of Mass., Barnard "of X. Y., Barton of Va., Birdseye of X. Y., Black of Pa., Blair of X. Y.. Boardman of Conn.. Borden of Mass., Botts of Ya., Briggs of Mass.. Brock- way of Conn.. Bronson of X. Y.. Brown of Tenn.. Brown of Pa., Burnell of Mass., Butler of Ky., Calhoun of Mass.. W. It. Campbell of Tenn., T. J. Campbell of Teun., Caruthers of Tenn., Childs of N. Y., J. C. Clark of X. Y.. S. X. Clark of X. Y., Cowen of 0., Cranston of R. I.. Cravens of Ind., Gushing of Mass., Davis of Ky.. Dawson of Ga., Deberry of N. C, John Edwards of Pa.. Everett of Yt.. Fessenden of Me., Fillmore of X. Y.. A. L. Foster of X. Y., Gamble of Ga., Gentry of Tenn.. Giddings of 0.. Goggin of Va., Goode of 0., Graham of N. C, Green of Ky., Graig of X. Y., Habersham of Ga.. Hunt of N. Y., Hall of Vt., Halstead of X. .].. Mm. S. Hastings of Mass., Henry of Pa.. Howard of Mich.. Hudson of Mass., James Irvin of Pa., James of Tenn., Johnson of Md.. I. D. Jones of Md.. Kennedy of Md.. King of Ga, Lane of Ind.. Lawrence of Pa., Linn of X. Y.. Mason of 0., Mathiot of ().. Mattocks of Vt.. Maxwell of X. J.. Maynard of X. Y.. Meri- wether of Ga., Moore of La., Morgan of X. Y.. Morris of 0., Morrow of 0.. Nisbet of Ga., Osborne of Conn., Owsley of Ky., 1'earce of Md., Pendleton of 0., Pope of Ky., Powell of Va., Proffitof Ind.. Ramsey of Pa., Randall of Me., Ran- dall of Md.. Randolph of X.' ,T.. Eayner of X. C. Rencher of >:.('.. Ridgway of 0., Rodney of Del., Russell of 0., Sal- tonstall of Mass., Sergeant of Pa., Sheppard of X. C, Simon- ton of Pa.. Smith of Conn.. Sprigg of Ky.. Stanley of X. C. Stokely of Ohio, Stratton of X. J.. Stewart of Va., Summer? of Va.. Taliaferro of Ya., Thompson of Ky., Thompson of Ind.. Tillinghast of R. I., Tolatid of Pa., Tomlinson of X.Y., Triplet! of X. Y., Trumbull of Conn., Underwood of Ky.. Van Rensselaer of X. V.. Wallace of Ind.. Warren of Ga.. Wasli- ington of X. C. White of La.. White of Ind.. T.W.Williams of Conn.. Lewis Williams of X. C, C. II. Williams of Tenn., J. L. Williams of Tenn., Winthrop of Mass.. Yorke of N. J.. Aug. Young of Vt.. John Young of X. Y. — 12S. N ITS. — .Messrs. Adams of Mass., Arlington of X T .C, Ather- ton of X. II., Banks of Va.. Beeson of Pa., Bidlack of Pa., Bowne of X. V., Bovd of Ky., Browne of Tenn.. Brown of Pa.. Burke of X. II.. S. H. Butler of S. C. Butler of Ky.. Caldwell of N. C, Caldwell of S. C. Campbell of S. C, Carey of Va., Chap- man of Ala.. Clifford of Me., Clinton of X. Y., Coles of Va., so THE TOLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Cravens of Tnd.. Daniel nf N. C, Pavis of N. Y.. D an of 0., ]>inni)i>rk of l'a.. Doan ol'O., 1 1< >i ur of X. V.. Edwards of Mo., Egbert of N. V.. Ferris of N. Y.. J. G. Floyd of N. Y., 0. A. Floyd of X. Y.. Fornance of Pa., Foster of Ga., Gilmer of Ya., Ooodeof Ya.. Gordon of N. Y.. Gustiu of Pa.. Harris of Va., Hastings of 0., Hays of Ya.. Holmes of S. C, Hopkins of Ya., Houck of N. Y.. Houston of Ala., Hubard of Va., Hun- ter of Va., Ingersoll of Pa., Irwin of Pa., Jack of Pa.. John- son of Tenn., Jones of Ya.. Keim of Pa., Kennedy of Ind., (..■wis of Ala., Littlefield of .Me.. Lowell of Me.. McClellau of N. Y.. McClellan of Tenn., McKay of N. G, McKeon of X. Y., Mallorv of Va., Marcband of Penn., Marshall of Me., Marshall of ky., Mason of Md., Matthews of 0.. Medill of Mass., Miller of Mo., Newhard of Pa., Oliver of N. Y., Par- nienter of Mass.. Patridge of N. Y., Payne of Ala., Pickens of S. G. Plumer of Penn., Heading of J,. II., Rhctt of S. G, Riggs of N. Y., Rogers of S. G, Roosevelt of N. Y., Sanford of N. Y.. Saunders of N. G.. Shaw of X. H., Shields of Ala., Snyder of Pa.. Steenrod of Va., Sweeny of ( »., Turney of Tenn., Van Buren of N. Y. Ward of X. Y.. Watterson of Tenn., Weller of ( >.. Westbrook of Penn., James \V. \\ illiamg of Md., Wise of Va.. Wood of N. Y— 97. President Tyler vetoed this bill. The ques- tion was taken, in the Senate, Shall the bill pass notwithstanding the veto of the Presi- dent, and it was determined in the nega- tive, yeas 24, nays 24. The bill was revived in the House in an- other shape, and entitled " A bill to provide for the better collection, &c., by means of a corporation, to be styled the Fiscal Corporation of the United States." It was brought to a vote on the 23d of August, 1841, and was passed, by yeas 125, nays 04. The vote on this bill was the same as that on the Fiscal Bank bill, with the exception that Messrs. Adams of Mass., and Marshall of Ivy., who voted against that, voted for this. Messrs. Cooper, Gates, and Slade, who did not vote on that, voted for this bill. Messrs. Cross, Dawson of La., Eastman, Mtillory, Mason, and Sumter, who did not vote on that, voted against this bill. Messrs. Alford, Childs, Cowen, Davis, Giddings, Merriwether, Proffit, Sprigg, and Van Rensselaer, who voted for that, and Messrs. Cravens, Dimmock, Lowell, Marshall of Me., Oliver, and Patridge, who voted against that, were absent and not voting on this bill. It passed the Senate on the 3d of January, 1841, by yeas and nays as follows :— Yeas. — Messrs. Archer of Va.. Barrow of La.. Bates of Mass., Berrien of Ga., Choate of Mass.. Clayton of Del., Clay of Ky., Dixon of R. I.. Evans of Me., Graham of N. G, Hen- derson of Miss.. Huntington of Conn.. Kerr of Md., Mangum of N. G, Merrick of Md.. Miller of N. J., Morehead of N. G, Phelps of Vt, Porter of Mich.. Prentiss of Yt.. Preston of S. C, Simmons of R. I.. Smith of Ind., Southard of N. J., Tal- madge of X. Y., White of Ind., and Woodbridge of Mich. Nats, — Messrs. Allen of ().. Benton of Mo., Buchanan of Pa.. Calhoun of S. G. Clay (if Ala., Cufhbert of Ga., Fulton of Ark.. King of Ala.. Linn of Mo., McRoberts of 111., Mouton of La., Nicholson id' Tenn., Pierce of X. II.. Rives of Va., Sevier of Ark.. Smith of Conn., Sturgeon of Pa.. Tappan of 0., Walker of Miss.. Woodbury of N. II, Wright of N. Y., and Young of 111. — 22. On the Oth of Sept., 1841, President Tyler communicated to the House his message veto- ing the same, and on the next day the vote was taken in the House on the question, Shall the bill pttss notwithstanding the veto of the President, and it resulted, yeas 103, nays 71. Two-thirds, as required by the Constitution, not having voted in the affirmative', the bill wax lost. At the second session of the 27th Congress, President Tyler recommended a plan for a fiscal agent, called the Exchequer Board ; but it was not acted upon by either House, other than to be reported in favor of, in the Senate, by Mr. Talmadge of N. Y., from a select com- mittee, and by Mr. Cushing, in the House, from a like committee. Bankrupt Act. On the 24th of July, 1841, the Bankrupt Bill, introduced by Mr. Henderson of Miss., passed the Senate, by yeas and nays, as fol- lows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Barrow of La.. Bates of Mass., Choate of Mass., Clay of Ky.. Clayton of Del.. Dixon of R. I.. Evans nt Me., Henderson of Miss., Huntington of Conn.. Kerr and Merrick of Md., Miller of N. J., Morehead of Ky., Mouton of La., Phelps of Vt., Porter of Mich.. Simmons of R. 1., Smith of Ind., Southard of N. J.. Tallmadge of N. Y., Walker of Miss.. White of Tenn., Williams of Me., Wood- bridge of Mich., Young of 111. — 'J '.. Nats. — Messrs. Allen of O.. Archer of Ya., Bayard of Del., Benton of Mo., Buchanan nf Pa., Calhoun of S. C, Clay of Ala., Cuthbert of Ga.. Fulton of Ark.. Graham of N.C.. King of Ala., Linn of Mo.. McRoberts of 111.. Nicholson of Tenn., Pierce of N. II., Prentiss of Yt.. Bivcs of Va'., Sevierof Ark., Smith of Conn., Sturgeon of Pa., Tappan of 0., Woodbury of N. H., Wright of N. Y— 23. This bill passed the House on the 18th of Aug., 1841, by yeas and nays as follows :-- Yeas. — Messrs. Adams of Mass.. Allen of Me., Andrews of 0., Arnold of Tenn.. Avcrigg of N. J., Babcock of N. Y., Baker of Mass., Barnard of N. \ r ., Black of Pa., Blair of N. Y., Boardman of Conn., Borden of Mass., Briggs of Mass.. Brockway of Conn., Bronson of X. Y.. M. Brown of Tenn., Buruell of Mass., Calhoun of Mass., T.J. Campbell of Tenn.. Caruthers of Tenn., Childs of N. Y., Chittenden of N. Y., T. G Clark of N. Y., S. N. Clarke of N. Y., Cowen of 0.. Cranston of R. I., Craven of Ind.. Cushing of Mass., Davis of Ky., Dawson of Ga.. Dawson of La.. Deberry of N. C. Edwards of Pa., Everett of Yt., Fessenden of Me.. Fillmore of N. Y.. A. L. Foster of N. Y.. Gamble of Ga.. Gates of N. Y., Goode of 0., Greig of X. Y.. Habersham of Ga., Hall of Yt., Halstead of N. J.. Hastings of Mass.. Henry of Pa., Howard of Mich., Hudson of Mass., Hunt of X.Y., J. Irvin of Pa., W. W. Irwine of Pa.. James of Pa.. Johnson of Md., Jones of Md., Kennedy of Md., King of Ga.. Lane of Ind.. Lawrence of Pa.. Linn of X. Y.. Mason of 0.. Mathiot of 0., Maxwell of N. J., Maynard of N. Y., Merriwether of Ga., Moore of La., Morgan of N. Y'., Morris of 0.. Morrow of 0., Xisbet of Ga., Osborne of Conn.. Pearce of Md., Pendleton of 0., Powell of Ya.. B. Randal of Me.. A. Randall of Md., Randolph of X. J., Rayuerof X. G, Ridgeway of 0., Itodncv of Del., Roosevelt of X. Y., Russell of 0." Saltonstall of Mass., Sergeant of Pa., Simonton of Pa.. Sla le of Vt.. Smith of Qonn., Sollers of Md., Stanley of X. C. Stokely of O., Stratton of X. J., Stuart of 111.. Taliaferro of Ya.. Thompson of Ind.. Tillinghast of R. I., Toland of Pa., Tomlinson of X. Y., Van Rensselaer of X. Y., Wallace of Tnd.. Warren of Ga., E. D. Whiteof La., White of Ind., Williams of Conn.. Williams of N. G, C. H. Williams of Tenn.. J. L. Williams of Tenn., Wiuthrop of Mass.. Wood of X. Y., Yorke of X. J., Young of Vt. John Young of X. Y. — 1 10. Nays. — Messrs. L. W. Andrews of Ky.. Arrington of N. C. Atherton of N. H., Banks of Va., Beeson of Pa.. Bidlaek of Pa., Birdseye of X. Y.. Botts of Ya., Bowue of X. II.. Boyd of Ky., A. V. Brown of Teun., C. Brown of Pa.. J. Brown of I'a.. Burke of N. II., Butler of S. G. Butler of Ky., Caldwell of N. C, Caldwell of S. G, Campbell of S. C, W. B. Campbell of Tenn., Carev of Va.. Chapman of Ala.. Clifford of Me.. Clinton of N. Y„ Coles of Va., Cross of Ark.. Daniel of N. C, Davis of N. Y., Dean of 0.. Doan of 0., Doig of N. Y., Eastman of N. H., Edwards of Mo.. Egbert of N. Y.. Ferris of X. \ r ., J. G. Floyd of N. Y., G A. Floyd of X. ¥., Fornanee of Pa., Foster of Ga., Gentry of Tenn., Gerry of I'a.. Gilmer of Va„Gogginof Va., Goodeof Va.. Gordon of X. Y.. Graham of N. C, Gustine of Pa., Harris of Va., Hastings of 0., Havs of Va., Holmes of S. G, Hopkins of Va.. Houck of X. Y . Houston of Ala., Hubard of Va., Hunter of Va., Ingerso'.l nf Pa., Jack of Pa., Johnson of Tenn., Jones of Va.. Keim of Pa., Kennedy of Ind., Lewis of Ala., Littlefield of Me., McClelland of X. Y.. McClellan of Tenn., McKay of N. G. Mallorv of Va.. Marcband of Pa., Marshall of Ky., Matthews of 0., Mattocks of Vt.. Medill of 0., Miler of Mo., Newhard of Pa., Parmeuter of Mass., Payne of Ala.. Pickens of S. C, Plumer of Pa.. Pope of Ky., Protlit of Ind.. Kamsey of Pa.. Reding of N H, Rencher of X. G. Kheltfof S. C, Riggs > f BANKRUPT ACT.— BANKS, NATHANIEL P., JR. 81 K. Y , Rogers of S. C, Saunders of N. C, Shaw of N. II., Shepperd of N. C. Shields of Ala., Snyder of Pa., Sprigg of Ky., Steenrod of Va., Sweney of 0., Thompson of Ky..' T rip- lett of Ky., Turney of Tenn., Underwood of Ky.. Van Buren of N. Y.. Ward of N. Y., Watterson of Tenn., Weller of 0., Westbrook of Pa., Williams of N. H., Wise of Va — 106. The bill, as it passed the House, contained an amendment extending the time at which it was to take effect. The amendment was concurred in by the Senate, and the bill be- came a law by the approval of John Tyler, President. The repeal of the Bankrupt Act was effected by the very Congress which had passed it. The bill repealing it passed the House on the 17th of January, by a vote of yeas 140, nays 71. Messrs. Bronson of N. Y., T. J. Campbell of Tenn., Caruthers of Tenn., Davis of Ky., Deberry of N. C, Everett of Vt., Goode of 0., Hudson of Mass., Morris of 0., Osborne of Conn., Ravner of N. C, Smith of Conn., Stanley of N. C, Stokely of 0., Stuart of 111., Taliaferro of Va., Tillinghast of R. I., Wood of N. Y., and Young of Vt., who voted in the House for the act, voted for its repeal. The Repeal Bill passed the Senate on the 25th of February, 1843, by a vote of yeas 32, nays 13. Senators Huntington of Conn., Morehead of Ky., Phelps of Vt., Walker of Miss., Wil- liams of Me., and Young of 111., who had voted for the act, voted for its repeal. President Tyler approved the act, and the repeal became a law. lianks, Nathaniel P., Jr. Answer of, in the House of Representa- tives, to Interrogatories propounded to him in January, 1856. Mr. Banks. Mr. Clerk, I voted for the reso- lution presented by the honorable gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Zollicoffer] yesterday, with pleasure. It embodies a principle which I think sound. As understood by me, when reported at the clerk's desk, it was nothing more nor less than simply this : that any gen- tleman who votes for a candidate for any office ought to know the opinions of that candidate. I recognise the right of every gentleman in this House who has been voting for Speaker during this protracted contest, to ascertain the opinions of any man for whom he casts his vote. Sir, I should claim it as my right to know the opinions of my candidate to such an extent as should be satisfactory to myself, at least. But, sir, as a member of the House, I have other rights. I offer myself as a candidate for no office ; I solicit no man's suffrage ; and I am not, therefore, called upon as a candidate to solve such difficulties as gentlemen supports ing other persons may find in the existing con- dition of public affairs. Those who have ho- nored me by their confidence and votes are themselves responsible for the course they have chosen, and, I doubt not, they are able to meet that responsibility. It is not for me to provide for their defence. I can only say, as 6 Othello said of his wife, they " had eyes, and chose me." I have convictions — convictions of duty, con- victions of principle — upon the great matters in which the country is interested ; and, as a member of the House, representing a district in the commonwealth of Massachusetts, I have no hesitation in responding to any of the in- quiries propounded by the honorable gentle- man from Tennessee to the honorable gentli- man from Illinois. I ask the clerk to read the first question. The clerk read as follows : — " Am I right in supposing that the gentleman from Illi- nois regards the Kansas-Nebraska bill as promotive of th* formation of free states in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska?" Mr. Banks. It will be understood, of course, that the phraseology of this inquiry applies ra- ther to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rich- ardson] than to myself. I answer, distinctly, that I do not regard the Kansas-Nebraska bill as promotive of the formation of free states, inasmuch as it repeals the prohibition of the institution of slavery over the section of coun- try to which that statute applies. I think it does not tend to the formation of free states. That is my answer. The clerk read as follows : — " Am I right in supposing he advocates the constitution- ality of the Wilmot proviso; that in 1850 he opposed its application to the territories acquired from Mexico, only upon the ground that it was unnecessary, inasmuch as the Mexican local laws in those territories already abolished slavery — which ought to be sufficient for all Free-Soil men ; and that he committed himself to the position, that if terri- torial bills (silent upon the subject of slavery, and leaving the Mexican law to operate) were defeated, he would vote for bills with the Wilmot proviso in them';'' Mr. Banks. I could give a general answer in the affirmative to that interrogatory. I be- lieve in the constitutionality of that act which is known and generally understood as the Wil- mot proviso. I believe that it is within the power of Congress to prohibit the institution of slavery in a territory belonging to the United States. Whether I would advocate the pas- sage of such an act in regard to a territory where it was clearly unnecessary, where by local, pre-existing laws it had been prohibited, or, in other words, whether I would advocate a double inhibition, I have only to say, that, if a doubt existed as to its exclusion by valid municipal law, I should sustain an act which embodied the prohibition known as the Wil- r mot or Jefferson proviso. In regard to the measures of 1850, I can only say, that, being called upon here or elsewhere, I should have voted for the prohibition in the territories co- vered by those measures, if I had entertained ' a doubt as to the exclusion of slavery by exist- ing municipal law. That is my answer. The clerk read as follows : — " Am I right in supposing that his theory is, that the Con- stitution of the United States does not carry slavery to, and protect it in, the territories of the United States ?" Mr. Banks. I do not believe that the Con- stitution of the United States carries the insti- tution of slavery to the territories of the United States. My understanding is based on the de- claration of Mr. Webster, that even the Con- THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK- stitution of the United States itself does not go to the territories until it is carried there by an act of Congress. Standing on the principle of the English law governing the same interests, I do not believe that the Constitution of the United States carries to any territory of the United States any right to hold slaves there. In order, sir, that my answer should be full and satisfactory, I ought, perhaps, to put the negative of the proposition of the distinguished gentleman who leads the government party on this floor, and in this crisis. I recognise the right, sir, to protection of property on the part uf the South, as well as on the part of the North, in the territories of the United States ; and when I speak of property I mean that which is considered property by universal law ; I do not. mean that which is property only be- cause it is held as such under the laws of a particular state, and which loses its character of property so soon as it extends beyond the limits of that state, except under certain re- servations covered by the Constitution of the t'nited States. When I speak of property, I do not refer to that species. I describe that which is recognised as property by universal laws of men, and not that which is property only when it is made such by local laws of limited sections of the country. I have no disposition to disturb its existence — no pur- pose to diminish or increase it there. I will acknowledge all its rights there, accepting for that purpose the charts established by South- ern statesmen ; but I deny that it is such pro- perty as, independent of local law or Congres- sional enactment, is protected by the Consti- tution in the territories of the United States. I have nothing further to say on this very nice and delicate question. I believe that the ('.institution of the United States was intended to do justice to all sections of the country — to the South equally with the North. I am for that to-day ; and I adopt the language of my friend [Mr. Richardson], who has always treated me with distinguished courtesy in all discussions on this subject, that we should do justice to the South as well as to the North. In no speech or declaration that has fallen from my lips, so far as I can remember it, have I ever expressed a different sentiment ; but, sir, I cannot shut out from my memory the great fact that the Constitution of the United States is an instrument of freedom, contemplated as such by its framers, and inter- preted as such by all men of the South and the North until within the last few years. It is a chart of freedom, established to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our pos- terity, giving liberty to the states to do what they shall think to be proper within their own localities, under such circumstances as to them shall seem to be right and just, but claiming no right and conceding no right to them to carry their own peculiar institutions beyond the limitations conferred by the doc- trine of the sovereignty of states. No, sir ! The Constitution of the United States is an instrument, not of immediate, but of ultimate and universal freedom. It was w contemplated by the great men who framed it ; and the world has so regarded it. The national flag, that is its symbol, that makes the land over which it floats, in whatever quarter of the globe, so long as it covers an American citizen, American territory, is the banner of ultimate and universal liberty — its white and red folds symbols of revolutionary trials, of the crests of victory, and the blood of sacrifice. May its starry union for ever stand as lustrous and imperishable as the golden fires of God's firmament ! [Great applause.] That is my answer to that question. The clerk read as follows : — "That in the territory acquired from Mexico and France (including Kansas and Nebraska) the Missouri restriction was Decessary to make the territory free, because slavery existed there under France at the time of the acquisition, but that the Kansas and Nebraska bill, which repeals that restriction, but neither legislates slavery into those territo- ries nor excludes it therefrom, in his opinion, leaves those territories without either local or constitutional law protect- ing slavery ; and that therefore the Kansas and Nebraska bill promotes the formation of slave States in Kansas and Nebraska?" Mr. Banks. I did not see that question, Mr. Clerk, until it was brought to me by a page from the desk. It is but a repetition of the first interrogatory, with the addition of a statement of fact. In regard to that state- ment, I will say that it is doubted whether the institution of slavery existed in these ter- ritories at the time they were acquired. Without going into the question whether France, by the decree of 1794, abolished it there, I will say that, if it were necessary that the Congress of the United States should in- terdict it in those territories in order to make them free, I think that Congress was right in doing it. If it were necessary, in order to give to the South the right to carry slavery there, that the interdict of 1820 should be removed, I think that the Congress of 1853 was wrong in making that repeal : and I can- not, sir, but say, with the light that has come to me upon this question, that the interdict of 1820 forbade and abolished slavery, if it existed there ; that the repeal of that prohibi- tion in 1853, inasmuch as it allowed slavery to go there under certain possible circum- stances, was an act not promotive of the for- mation of free states. That, sir, is my answer to that question. The following is his response to Mr. Barks- dale's interrogatories : — Mr. Banks. I repeat, Mr. Clerk, the prin- ciple on which I answer interrogatories from any quarter, and it is, that I speak as a mem- ber of this House for one of the districts of the state of Massachusetts. In regard to my position as connected with the parties of the country, I wish to make my statement in my own way, inasmuch as it is a matter which particularly concerns myself. I will state the facts, and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Barksdale], and other gentle- men, will draw their own inferences. What they may be, it is not for me to say. When BANKS, NATHANIEL P., JR. 83 f was elected to this House as a member from the state of Massachusetts, I was elected on the nomination of the regular Democratic party and of the American party of that district. The American party was very largely in the majority. I avowed my sentiments freely and fully on the questions which are involved in the issue presented by that party, before there was any especial cause for me to do so, and before it had attracted the atten- tion of the country ; and as an answer to the fourth interrogatory put to me by the gentleman from Mississippi, after it had been submitted to the gentleman from Illinois, I have only to say that, in the speech which I delivered to this body during the last Congress, I expressed freely and fully all my opinions on the subject. The record is there, and to it I refer the gentlemen for information. Let the record speak. I have adopted the maxim of Junius, that it is an unfortunate waste of time for a man to spend any considerable por- tion of his life in commentaries on his own works. [Laughter.] I come now to speak to the interrogatory in reference to the equality of the white and black races. Mr. Barksdale. Take the next one before that. Mr. Banks. Please allow me to speak to the interrogatories in my own order. I have to say, in this matter, that I accept the doctrine of the Declaration of Indepen- dence, that all men are created equal. In regard to the superiority of races, I am im- pressed with the conviction that it is to be determined ultimately by capacity for endur- ance. So far as I have studied the subject, it seems to me to be the general law that the weaker is absorbed or disappears altogether. Whether the black race of this continent, or any other part of the world, is equal to the white race, can only be determined by the absorption or disappearance of one or the other ; and I propose to wait until the respect- ive races can be properly subjected to this philosophical test before I give a decisive answer. [Roars of laughter.] As the other question is the key to the politics of the country, I will now give it my attention. "Are you in favor of restoring the Missouri restriction ; nr do you go for the entire prohibition of slavery in all the territories of the United States?" The territorial question of this day refers to the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. I leave the territories which are to come here- after to the hereafter ; but I say, at the same time, that I am in favor of the prohibition of slavery in Kansas and Nebraska. Then, in regard to the first clause of the interrogatory —are you in favor of restoring the Missouri restriction? — I have to say that I desire that the prohibition made by Southern men and Southern States — the inhibitions of the insti- tution of slavery in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska — shall be made good to the people of the country. I care not in what manner it shall be done ; whether there be a restoration of the technical and arbitrary line, or by some other methods, or appliances, or principles, there shall be made good to the people of the United State*) the prohibition for which the Southern States contracted and re- ceived a consideration. I am for the substan- tial restoration of the prohibition as it hag existed since 1820. Here are several questions in regard to sla- very in the district of Columbia and the modi- fication of the tariff laws as they now exist, i stand here ready and desirous and determined to co-operate with the men of the United States, who are for the substantial restoration of the prohibition of the institution of slavery in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. I am ready to act with men of any party and of any views for the accomplishment of this great end. I shall ask no man with whom I shall co-operate in this matter what he thinks of the abolition of slavery in the District of Colum- bia, or what he thinks, or shall do on the tariff question. In my view of the politics of this country, these questions are not in issue ; and, sir, inasmuch as I propose to ask no opinions of those with whom I co-operate, upon such ques- tions apart from the great political issues of this coming year, so, sir, I say, that I have no opinions myself to pronounce. That, Mr. Clerk, is my answer. Election of N. P. Banks, as Speaker op the House of Representatives. On the 2d of Feb. 1856, the plurality rule was proposed by Mr. Smith of Tenn. (Dem.), as follows : — Resolved, That this House will proceed im- mediately to the election of a Speaker viva voce. If, after the roll shall have been called three times, no member shall have received a majority of all the votes cast, the roll shall again be called, and the member who shall then receive the largest vote, provided it be a majority of a quorum, shall be declared duly elected Speaker of the House of Representa- tives of the Thirty-fourth Congress. The vote on this resolution was as follows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Albright, Allison, Ball, Banks, Barhour, Barclay, Henry Bennett, Benson, Billinghurst, Bingham, Bishop, Bliss. Bradshaw, Brenton, Buffinton, Burlingnme, James II. Campbell, Chaffee, Bayard. Clarke, Ezra Clark, Clawson, Clingman, Colfax, Comius, Covode, Cragin, Cum- hack. Damrell, Timothy Davis, Day, Dean, De Witt, Dick, Dickson, Dodd, Durfee, Edie, Flagler, Galloway, Giddings, Gilbert. Granger, Grow, Robert B. Hall, Harlan, Herbert, Hickman, Holloway, Thomas R. Horton. Howard, Jewett, Kelly, Kelsey, King, Knapp, Knight. Knowlton. Knox, Kunkel, Leiter, Mace, Matteson, McCarty, Meacham, Kill- ian Miller, Morgan, Morrill, Mott, Murray, Nichols, Nor- ton, Andrew Oliver, Parker, Pearce. Pelton, Penniugton, Perry. Pettit, Pike, Pringle, Purviance, Ritchie, Robbins, Roherts, Robinson, Sabin, Sage, Sapp, Sherman, Simmons, Samuel A. Smith, Spinner, Stanton, Stranahan, Tappan, Thorington, Thurston. Todd. Trafton, Tyson, Wade, Wal- bridge, Waldron, C. C. Washburne, B. B. Washburne, Israel Washburn, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wood, Woodruff, and Wood worth.— 113. Nays.— Messrs. Aiken, Allen, Barlsdale. BeU, Hendley S. Bennett. Bocock. Bowie. Boyce, Branch, Brooks, Broom, Bur- nett, Cadwalader, Jon\ P. Campbell, Lewis D. Campbell, Carlisle, Caruthers, OasJcie, Howell Cobb, W. R. W. Cobb, Cox, Crawford, Davidson, II. Wlnter, Davis, Denver, Dow- 84 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. dell, DrNN, Ednundson, Elliott, English, Etheridge, Eustis, Evans, Faulkner, Florence, Foster, H. M. Fuller. T. J. D. Fuller, Goode, Greenwood, Augustus Hall, J. M. Harris, »S'. W. Harris, T. L. Harris, Harrison Hoffman, Houston, Geo. irT Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Keitt, Kennett, Kidwell, Lake. Letcher, Lindley, Lumpkin, A. K. Marshall, Humphrey Marshall, S. S. Marshall, Maxwell, McMullen, McQueen, Smith, Miller, Millson, Millward, Moore, Mordecai, Oliver, Orr, Paine, Peck, Phelps, Porter, Powell, Puryear, Quit- man, Ready, Eicaud, Rivers, Puffin, Rust, Sandidge, Sav- age, Scott, Shorter, William Smith, William R. Smith, Sneed, Stephens, Stewart,, Swope, Talbott, Trippe, Underwood, Vail, Valk. Walker, Warner, Watkins, Wheeler, Whitney, Wins- low, D. B. Wright, J. V. Wright, and Zollicoffer. — 104. The third ballot resulted in the choice of Mr. Banks. It was as follows : — For Mr. Banks. — Messrs. Albright, Allison, Ball, Barbour, Henry Bennett, Benson, Billinghurst, Bingham, Bishop. Bliss, Bradshaw, Brenton, Buffinton, Burlinganie, James II. Campbell, Lewis D. Campbell, Chaffee, Ezra Clark, Clawson, Colfax, Comins, Covode, Cragin, Cumback, Damrell, Timothy Davis, Day, Dean, De Witt, Dick, Dickson, Dodd, Durfee, Edie, Flagler, Galloway. Giddings, Gilbert, Granger, Grow, Robert B. Hall, Harlan, Holloway, Thomas R. Horton, Howard, Kelsey, King, Knapp, Knight, Knowlton, Knox, Kunkei, Leiter, Mace, Matteson, McCarty, Meacham, Killian Miller, Morgan, Morrill, Mott, Murray, Nichols, Norton, Andrew Oliver, Parker, Pearee, Pelton, Pennington, Perry, Pettit, Pike, Pringle, Purviance, Ritchie, Robbins, Roberts, Robinson, Sabin, Sage, Sapp, Sherman, Simmons, Spinner, Stanton, Stranahan, Tappan, Thorington, Thurston, Todd, Trafton, Tyson,* Wade, Walbridge, Waldron, Cadwalader, C. Washburne, Elihu B. Washburne, Israel Washburn, Watson, Welch, Wood, Woodruff, and Woodworth. — 103. For Mr. Aiken. — Messrs. Allen, Barksdale, Bell, Heiuiley S. Bennett, Bdcock, Bowie, Boyce, Branch, Brooks, Burnett, Cadwalader. John P. Campbell, Carlile, Caruthers, Caskie, Clingman, Howell Cobb, Williamson R. W. Cobb, Cox, Craw- ford, Davidson, Denver, Dowdell, Edmundson, Elliott, Eng- lish, Etheridge, Eustis, Evans, Faulkner, Florence, Foster, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Goode, Greenwood, Augustus Hall, J. Morrison Harris, Sampson W. Harris, Thomas L. Harris, Herbert, Hoffman, Houston, Jewett, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Keitt, Kelly, Kennett, Kidwell, Lake. Letcher, Lindley, Lumplcin, Alexander K. Marshall, Humphrey Marshall. Samuel S. Marshall, Maxwell, McMullin, McQueen, Smith Miller, Millson, Mordecai Oliver, Orr, Paine, Peck, Phelps, Porter, Powell, Puryear, Quitman, Reade, Ready, Ricaud, Rivers, Puffin, Rust, Sandidge, Savage, Shorter, Samuel A. Smith, William Smith, William R. Smith, Sneed, Stephens, Stewart, Swope, Talbott, Trippe, Underwood, Tail, Walker,* Warner, Watkins, Wells, Wheeler, Williams, Wins- low, Daniel B.Wright, John V.Wright, and Zollicoffer. — 100. For Mr. Fuller. — Messrs. Broom, Bayard Clarke,-)- Cul- lsn, H. Winter Davis, Millward,! and Whitney. — 6. Foy Mr. Campbell. — Messrs. Dunn, Harrison, Moore, and Scott .f — i. For Mr. Wells.— Mr. Hickman.— 1. Kepublicans in roman ; National Americans in small caps : and Democrats in italics. Messrs. Broom, Bayard Clarke, Henry M. Fuller, Whitney, and Richardson, who voted for Mr. Aiken the day before, did not vote for him on the last ballot. Messrs. Broom, Bayard Clarke, and Whitney voted for Mr. Henry M. Fuller. Mr. Henry M. Fuller was in the hall, and did not vote. It was stated that he had paired off with Mr. Barclay, who was also in the hall. Messrs. Faulkner, Alexander K. Marshall, and Keitt, who were not present the day before, voted for Mr. Aiken then. Mr. Richardson had to resume a pair with Mr. Emrie, which Mr. Faulkner had temporarily taken off his hands. Bargain and Intrigue. (See Buchanan, James, and Williams, James). * Messrs. Tyson and Walker since supported Mr. Buch- anan. t Messrs. Barclay, Clarke, Millward and Scott since sup- ported Col. Fremont. Bennett, James Gordon. Republican Movement for 1860. The following editorial " Notice to the po- litical friends of Fremont" appeared in the New York Herald of the 15th instant : — " Notice to the Political Friends of Fremont. — The honest and out-spoken politi- cal supporters of John C. Fremont are earn- estly advised to form, as soon as possible, standing committees and clubs in every town, precinct, district, city, or county of the United States, and thus prepare the way properly to enter the field for the Presidency in 1860. Unless the friends of Fremont begin at once to act in this way, he .and his supporters will be cheated by the corrupt politicians who are now seeking the management and control of the Republican masses throughout the coun- try. Now is the time to begin the great movement for 1860 by forming honest centres of union and intelligence against corruption, fraud and incipient revolution. Bronson, Greene C. Letter of, dated July 15, 1848. After declining an invitation to attend a political meeting, he says : — " Slavery cannot exist where there is no positive law to uphold it. It is not necessary that it should be forbidden ; it is enough that it is not specially authorized. If the owner of slaves removes with or sends them into any country, state, or territory, where slavery does not exist by law, they will from that moment become free men, and will have as good a right to command the master, as he will have to command them. State laws have no extraterritorial authority ; and a law of Virginia which makes a man a slave there, cannot make him a slave in New York, nor beyond the Rocky Mountains. " Entertaining no doubt upon that question, I can see no occasion for asking Congress to legislate against the extension of slavery into free territory, and, as a question of policy, I think it had better be let alone. If our Southern brethren wish to carry their slaves to Oregon, New Mexico, or California, they will be under the necessity of asking a law to warrant it ; and it will then be in time for the free states to resist the measure, as I cannot doubt they would, with unwavering firmness. "I would not needlessly move this question, as it is one of an exciting nature, which tends to sectional division, and may do us harm as a people. I would leave it to the slaveholding states to decide for themselves, and on their own responsibility, when, if ever, the matter shall be agitated in Congress. It may be, that they will act wisely, and never move at all, es- pecially as it seems pretty generally agreed that neither Oregon, New Mexico, nor California, are well adapted to slave labor. But if our southern brethren should make the question, we shall have no choice but to meet it, and then, whatever consequences may follow, I BROOKS, PRESTON S. 85 trust the people of the free states will give a united voice against allowing slavery on a Binele foot of soil where it is not now autho- rized by law. " I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, Greene C. Broxsox. " To Messrs. J. Cochran, and others, com- mittee." Brooks, Preston S. Synopsis of Speech of, ox the 29th of Aug. 1856, at Columbia, S. C. Mr. Brooks thanked the citizens for the compliment paid him on this occasion, and for the sympathy which his course had received. It was the spirit which actuated him to do the deed, more than the deed itself, which de- served their commendation. It was a deed which was the result of a high sense of duty ; and any man who held his honor above re- proach would have acted, under similar cir- cumstances, precisely as he did. An ordinary castigation was nothing to excite a people as had this act of his excited the North. Abolitionists, seeking excuses fur their vile slanders, had made it a pretext for more fanaticism. It was curious that the castigation of a Black Republican should be- get so extraordinary an excitement. But they had used this act of his — executed under the highest sense of duty — as an instrument to kindle more fires of fanaticism. Their motive was political power ; they wished to enjoy the patronage and the emoluments of the go- vernment. Every foot of the way from Washington to this city he had met with kindness from the people of the South ; and it gratified him to believe that, were he to travel to the extremest verge of the South, he should meet with the same hearty welcome that he had experienced here and elsewhere. He would not say there was no honor nor moral courage at the North ; he knew there were some men of as true courage at the North as elsewhere. But what he wished to say, was, that the moral tone of mind which would lead a man to become a Black Republican would make him incapable of courage, and would involve a loss of all honor and moral principle whatever. It was plain that the defeat of the army bill was the act of the Black Republican majority ia the House of Representatives. He was almost glad of it ; though he had voted for the original bill, he was of opinion it ought to fail. He voted for it from a seuse of duty, not liking to do evil that goud might follow. The loss of the army appropriation would not injure the S >uth, because all the money near- ly was expended at the North. He rather wished the army appropriation bill would not pass, because it would effect the removal of the United States soldiers from Kansas. We know the Black Republican platform : it is our duty either to counteract them or meet them boldly, face to face, and battle for our rights. Their principles were, the abolition of sla- very in the District of Columbia, the prohibi- tion of the inter-state slave trade, no more slave territory, &c. Will they carry out these principles? the election of Banks as speaker of the House of Representatives, and the de- feat of the army bill, teach us that we should meet and prepare to defend ourselves. With right upon our side, we could meet and con- quer them. All of us agreed that if we could not live in equality in the Union, our only course was to dissolve it. He was a co-operation disunion- ist — the same as he was in 1851. He felt con- vinced that South Carolina would respond to his position. When he said lately in the House of Repre- sentatives that he had it in his power to raise a revolution, it was no egotistic boast. He felt that he had done as much as any one man to concentrate the feeling of the South ; and when he spoke of revolution, he knew that had he stepped forward and smote one of their abolition crew in the house, their enmity to him, would have precipitated them against him, and caused a revolution on that floor. He now came to a delicate question — the Presidency. The only hope for the South was to support Mr. Buchanan. His oppo- nents were Fremont and Fillmore — the former a soldier who had never won a battle, a poli- tician who had never made a speech ; his birth-place, too, was as hard to fix upon satisfac- torily as was the identity of his father. Fill- more was a man of unexceptionable mural virtue ; but between Fremont and Fillmore he would prefer the former, because the great issue would be precipitated, although the lat- ter was as much an Abolitionist, having voted to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, against the admission of Texas, and had op- posed the administration of Franklin Pierce for his course on the Missouri compromise. Buchanan, the speaker frankly admitted, was not his first, second, or third choice, but his last. His first choice was Franklin Pierce, because he had manifested a disposition to give the South her constitutional rights. After Pierce he was in favor of D »uglas — a true friend, who had perilled his life by his position on the Nebraska bill, and who had the smoke and scars of the battle upon him. There must be compromise everywhere — in society, in law, and in politics. Buchanan was the standard bearer in the coming con- test, and the platform upon which, he* stood was the right one for the South. If its prin- ciples were carried out, the government would be restored to the condition of a constitutional administration. Why should we refuse to take a part in the battle ? If we are bound to have civil war, and if we must dissolve the Union, we must do it with a fall appreciation of the consequences. He thought there would 86 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. be no child's play when the conflict did come. On the first Tuesday in November next the great question would be decided. For his part, if Fremont, the traitor to his section, should be successful, it was his deliberate opinion that, on the fourth of March next, the people of the South should rise in their might, march to Washington, and seize the archives and the treasury of the government. We should anticipate them, and force them to attack us. In conclusion, Mr. Brooks said he felt it to be an obligation upon him to devote all the energies of his life to repay the generous sym- pathy with which he had been met by his fellow citizens of the South and of South Carolina ; and that whenever an occasion of- fered he would be ready to stand up in de- fence of his State. In the language of a dis- tinguished citizen of our State, he would say that, through good and evil report, for weal or for woe, he would stand by South Carolina. Buchanan, James. Bargain and Intrigue Letter of. To tlie Editor of the Lancaster Journal. The Cincinnati Advertiser was last night placed in my hands by a friend, containing an address from General Jackson to the public, dated on the 18th ultimo, in which he announces me to be the member of Congress to whom he had referred, in his letter to Mr. Beverly of the 5th of June last. The duty which I owe to the public and to myself, now compels me to publish to the world the only conversation which I ever held with General Jackson on the subject of the last presidental election, prior to its termination. In the month of December, 1824, a short time after the commencement of the session of Congress, I heard, among other rumors then in circulation, that General Jackson had de- termined, should he be elected President, to continue Mr. Adams in the office of Secretary of State. Although I felt certain he had never intimated such an intention, yet I was sensible that nothing could be better calculated both to cool the ardor of his friends, and to inspire his enemies with confidence, than the belief that he had already selected his chief competi- tor for the highest office within his gift. I thought General Jackson owed it to himself and to the cause, in which his political friends were engaged, to contradict this report ; and to declare that he would not appoint to that office the man, however worthy he might be, who stood at the head of the most formidable party of his political enemies. These being my impressions, I addressed a letter to a con- fidential friend in Pennsylvania, then and still high in office, and exalted in character, and jne who had ever been the decided advocate of General Jackson's election, requesting his opinion and advice upon the subject. I re- ceived his answer, dated the 27th Dec. 1824, upon the 2'Jth, which is now before me, and which strengthened and confirmed nvy previous opinion. I then finally determined, either that I would ask General Jackson myself, or get another of his friends to ask him — whether he had ever declared he would appoint Mr. Adams his Secretary of State. In this man- ner I hoped a contradiction of the report might be obtained from himself, and that he might probably declare it was not his intention to appoint Mr. Adams. A short time previous to the receipt of the letter to which I have referred, my friend Mr. Markley and myself got into conversation, as we very often did, both before and after, upon the subject of the presidential election, and concerning the person who would probably he selected by General Jackson to fill the office of Secretary of State. I feel sincerely sorry that I am compelled thus to introduce his name ; but I do so with the less reluctance, because it has already, without any agency of mine, found its way into the newspapers, in con- nexion with this transaction. Mr. Markley adverted to the rumor which I have mentioned, and said it was calculated to injure the general. He observed that Mr. Clay's friends were warmly attached to him, and that he thought they would endeavor to act in concert at the election. That if they did so, they could either elect Mr. Adams or General Jackson at their pleasure ; but that many of them would never agree to vote for the latter, if they knew he had predetermined to prefer another to Mr. Clay, for the first office in his gift. And that some of the friends of Mr. Adams had already been holding out the idea that, in case he were elected, Mr. Clay might probably be offered the situation of Secretary of State. I told Mr. Markley, that I felt confident General Jackson had never said he would ap- point Mr. Adams Secretary of State ; because he was not in the habit of conversing upon the subject of the election ; and if he were, whatever might be his secret intention, he had more prudence than to make such a declara- tion. I mentioned to him that I had been thinking, either that I would call upon the General myself, or get some one of his other friends to so, and thus endeavor to obtain from him a contradiction of the report ; al- though I doubted whether he would hold anv conversation upon the subject. Mr. Markley urged me to do so ; and ob- served, if General Jackson had not determined whom he would appoint Secretary of State, and should say that it would not be Mr. Adams. it might be a great advantage to our cause, for us so to declare, upon his own autho- rity ; we should then be placed upon the same footing with the Adams men, and might tight them with their- own weapons. That the Western members would naturally prefer vo- ting for a Western man, if there were a pro- bability that the claims of Mr. Clay to the second office in the government should be fairly estimated ; and that if they thought BUCHANAN, JAMES. 87 proper to vote for General Jackson, they could soon decide the contest in his favor. A short time after this conversation, on the 30th Dec. 1824 (I am enabled to fix the time not only from my own recollection, but from letters which I wrote on that day, on the day following, and on the 2d Jan. 1825), I called upon General Jackson. After the company had left nim, by which I found him sur- rounded, he asked me to take a walk with him; and whilst we were walking together upon the street, I introduced the subject. I told him I wished to ask him a question in relation to the presidential election ; that I knew he was unwilling to converse upon the subject ; that therefore if he deemed the ques- tion improper, he might refuse to give it an answer. That my only motive in asking it was friendship for him, and I trusted he would excuse me for thus introducing a subject about which I knew he wished to be silent. His reply was complimentary to myself, and accompanied with a request that I should proceed. I then stated to him there was a report in circulation, that he had determined he would appoint Mr. Adams Secretary of State, in case he were elected President : and that I wished to ascertain from him whether he had ever intimated such an intention. That he must at once perceive how injurious to his election such a report might be. That no doubt, there were several able and ambitious men in the country, among whom I thought Mr. Clay might be included, who were aspir- ing to that office ; and if it were believed he had already determined to appoint his chief competitor, it might have a most unhappy effect upon their exertions, and those of their friends. That unless he had so determined, I thought this report should be promptly con- tradicted under his own authority. I mentioned, it had already probably done him some injury, and proceeded to relate to him the substance of the conversation which I had held with Mr. Markley. I do not re- member whether I mentioned his name, or merely described him as a friend of Mr. Clay. After I had finished, the general declared he had not the least objection to answer my question. That he thought well of Mr. Adams ; but had never said or intimated, that he would, or that he would not, appoint him Secretary of State. That these things were secrets he would keep to himself — he would conceal them from the very hairs of his head. That if he believed his right hand then knew what his left would do upon the subject of appoint- ments to office, he would cut it off and cast it into the fire. That if he should ever be elected President, it would be without solicita- tion and without intrigue on his part — that he would then go into office perfectly free and untrammelled, and would be left at perfect liberty to fill the offices of government with the men whom at the time he believed to be the ablest and the best in the country. I told him that his answer to my question was such an one as I had expected to receive, if he answered it at all ; and that I had not sought to obtain it for my own satisfaction. I then asked him if I were at liberty to repeat his answer. He said I was perfectly at liberty to do so to any person I thought proper. I need scarcely remark that I afterwards availed myself of the privilege. The conversation upon this topic here ended — and in all our in- tercourse since, whether personally or in the course of our correspondence, General Jack- son never once adverted to the subject, prior to the date of his letter to Mr. Beverly. I do not recollect that General Jackson told me I might repeat his answer to Mr. Clay and his friends ; though I should be sorry to say he did not. The whole conversation being upon the public street, it might have escaped my observation. A few remarks more, and I trust I shall have done with this disagreeable business for ever. I called upon General Jackson on the occa- sion which I have mentioned, solely as his friend, upon my individual responsibility, and not as the agent of Mr. Clay, or any other person. I never have been the political friend of Mr. Clay since he became a candidate for the office of President, as you very well know. Until I saw General Jackson's letter to Mr. Beverly of the 5th ult., and at the same time was informed by letter from the editor of the United States Telegraph, that I was the per- son to whom he alluded, the conception never once entered my mind, that he deemed me to have been the agent of Mr. Clay, or of his friends, or that I had intended to propose to him terms of any kind from them, or that he could have supposed me to be capable^ of ex- pressing the " opinion that it was right to fight such intriguers with their own weapons." Such a supposition, had I entertained it, would have rendered me exceedingly unhappy ; as there is no man upon earth whose good opinion I more value than that of General Jackson. He could not, I think, have received this impression until after Mr. Clay and his friends had actually elected Mr. Adams Presi- dent, and Mr. Adams had appointed Mr. Clay Secretary of State. After these events had transpired, it may be readily conjectured in what manner my communication might have led him into the mistake. I deeply deplore that such has been its effect. I owe it to my own character to make an- other observation. Had I ever known, or even suspected that General Jackson believed I had been sent to him by Mr. Clay or his friends, I should have immediately corrected his erroneous impression ; and thus prevented the necessity for this most unpleasant expla- nation. When the editor of the United State* Telegraph, on the 12th of October last, asked me by letter for information upon the subject, I promptly informed him by the returning mail on the 16th of that month, that I had no authority from Mr. C. or his friends, to pro- pose any terms to General Jackson in relation to their votes, nor did I ever make any such 88 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. proposition ; and that I trusted I would be as incapable of becoming a messenger, upon such an occasion, as it was known General Jackson would be to receive such a message. I have deemed it necessary to make this state- ment, in order to remove any misconception which may have been occasioned by the pub- lication, in the Telegraph, of my letter to the editor, dated the 11th ultimo. With another remark, I shall close this communication. Before I held the conversa- tion with General Jackson, which I have de- tailed, I called upon Major Eaton, and re- quested him to ask General Jackson, whether he had ever declared or intimated, that he would appoint Mr. Adams Secretary of State, and expressed a desire that the general should say, if consistent with truth, that he did not intend to appoint him to that office. I be- lieved that such a declaration would have a happy influence upon the election, and I en- deavored to convince him that such would be its effect. The conversation between us was not so full as that with General Jackson. The major politely declined to comply with my re- quest, and advised me to propound the ques- tion to the general myself, as I possessed a full share of his confidence. James Buchanan. Lancaster, 8th August, 1827. Extract from Mr. Buchanan's speech on the Independent Treasury, Jan. 22, 1840, which gave rise to the " ten cent" charge : — "We are also charged by the Senator from Kentucky with a desire to reduce the wages of the poor man's labor. We have often been termed agrarians on our side of the House. It is something new under the sun, to hear the Senator and his friends attribute to us a desire to elevate the wealthy manufacturer, at the expense of the laboring man and the mechanic. From my soul, I respect the laboring man. Labor is the foundation of the wealth of every country ; and the free laborers of the North deserve respect, both for their probity and their intelligence. Hea- ven forbid that I should do them wrong ! Of all the countries on the earth, we ought to have the most consideration for the laboring man. From the very nature of our institu- tions, the wheel of fortune is constantly re- volving, and producing such mutations in pro- perty, that the wealthy man of to-day may become the poor laborer of to-morrow. Truly, wealth often takes to itself wings and flies away. A large fortune rarely lasts beyond the third generation, even if it endure so long. We must all know instances of individuals obliged to labor for their daily bread, whose grandfathprs were men of fortune. The regu- lar process of society would almost seem to consist of the efforts of one class to dissipate the fortunes which they have inherited, whilst another class, by their industry and economy, are regularly rising to wealth. We have all, therefore, a common interest, as it is our com- mon duty, to protect the rights of the laboring man : and if I believed for a moment that this bill would prove injurious to him, it should meet my unqualified opposition. "Although this bill will not have as great an influence as I could desire, yet, as far as it goes, it will benefit the laboring man as much, and probably more than any other class of society. What is it he ought most to desire ? Constant employment, regular wages, and uni- form reasonable prices for the necessaries and comforts of life which he requires. Now, sir, what has been his condition under our system of expansions and contractions ? He has suf- fered more by them than any other class of society. The rate of his wages is fixed and known ; and they are the last to rise with the increasing expansion and the first to fall when the corresponding revulsion occurs. He still continues to receive his dollar per day, whilst the price of every article which he consumes is rapidly rising. He is at length made to feel that, although he nominally earns as much, or even more than he did formerly, yet, from the increased price of all the necessaries of life, he cannot support his family. Hence the strikes for higher wages, and the uneasy and excited feelings which have at different periods, existed among the laboring classes. But the expansion at length reaches the ex- ploding point, and what does the laboring man now suffer ? He is for a season thrown out of employment altogether. Our manu- factures are suspended ; our public works are stopped ; our private enterprises of different kinds are abandoned ; and, whilst others are able to weather the storm, he can scarcely pro- cure the means of bare subsistence. " Again, sir ; who, do you suppose, held the greater part of the worthless paper of the one hundred and sixty-five broken banks to which I have referred ? Certainly it was not the keen and wary speculator, who snuffs danger from afar. If you were to make the search, you would find more broken bank notes in the cottages of the laboring poor than any- where else. And these miserable shinplas- ters, where are they ? After the revulsion of 1837, laborers were glad to obtain employ- ment on any terms ; and they often received it upon the express condition that they should accept this worthless trash in payment. Sir, an entire suppression of all bank notes of a lower denomination than the value of one week's wages of the laboring man is abso- lutely necessary for his protection. He ought always to receive his wages in gold and silver. Of ail men on the earth, the laborer is most interested in having a sound and stable cur- rency. "Allothercircumstancesbcingequal,Iagree with the Senator from Kentucky that that country is most prosperous where labor com mauds the highest wages. I do not, how- ever, mean by the terms ' highest wages,' the grestest nominal amount. During the Revo- lutionary war, one day's work commanded a hundred dollars of continental paper; but BUCHANAN, JAMES. 89 this -would heave scarcely purchased a break- fast. The more proper expression would be, to say that that country is most prosperous where labor commands the greatest reward ; where one day's labor will procure not the greatest nominal amount of a depreciated cur- rency, but most of the necessaries and com- forts of life. If, therefore, you should, in some degree, reduce the nominal price paid for labor, by reducing the amount of your bank issues within reasonable and safe limits, and establishing a metallic basis for your paper circulation, would this injure the laborer? Certainly not ; because the price of all the necessaries and comforts of life are reduced in the same proportion, and he will be able to purchase more of them for one dollar in a sound state of the currency, than he could have done, in the days of extravagant expan- sion, for a dollar and a quarter. So far from injuring, it will greatly benefit the laboring man. It will insure to him constant employ- ment and regular prices, paid in a sound cur- rency, which, of all things, he ought most to desire ; and it will save him from being involved in ruin by a recurrence of those periodical expansions and contractions of the currency, which have hitherto convulsed the country. "This sound state of the currency will have another most happy effect upon the laboring man. He will receive his wages in gold and silver ; and this will induce him to lay up, for future use, such a portion of them as he can spare, after satisfying his immediate wants. This he will not do at present, because he knows not whether the trash which he is now compelled to receive as money, will continue to be of any value a week or a month here- after. A knowledge of this fact tends to banish economy from his dwelling, and in- duces him to expend all his wages as rapidly as possible, lest they may become worthless on his hands. " Sir, the laboring classes understand this subject perfectly. It is the hard-handed and firm-listed men of the country on whom we must rely in the day of danger, who are the most friendly to the passage of this bill. It is they who are the most ardently in favor of infusing into the currency of the country a very large amount of the precious metals." Extract from Mr. Buchanan's speech on the Annexation of Texas, delivered in the Senate on the 8th of June, 1844 : — " In arriving at the conclusion to support this treaty (the annexation of Texas) I had to encounter but one serious obstacle, and this was the question of slavery. Whilst I ever maintained, and ever shall maintain, in their full force and vigor, the constitutional rights of the Southern States over their slave pro- perty, I yet feel a strong repugnance, by any act of mine, to extend the present limits of the Union over a new slaveholding territory. After mature reflection, however, I overcame these scruples, and now believe that the ac- quisition of Texas will be the means of limit- ing, and not enlarging, the dominion of slavery. In the government of the world, Providence generally produces great changes by gradual means. * There is nothing rash in the counsel of the Almighty. May not, then, the acqui- sition of Texas be the means of gradually drawing the slaves far to the south, to a cli- mate more congenial to their nature, and may they not finally pass off into Mexico, and there mingle with a race where no prejudice exists against their color ? The Mexican nation is composed of Spaniards, Indians, and negroes, blended together in every variety, who would receive our slaves on terms of perfect social equality. To this condition they never can be admitted in the United States. That the acquisition of Texas would, ere long, convert Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and probably others of the more northern slave states into free states, I entertain not a doubt. In fact, public opinion was gradually accomplishing this happy result, when the process was arrested by the mad interference of the Abolitionists. A measure having di- rectly in view the gradual abolition of slavery, came within one vote, if my memory serves me, of passing the House of Delegates of Vir- ginia shortly before the abolition excitement commenced. There was then in that state_ a powerful, influential and growing party in favor of gradual emancipation, and they were animated to exertion by the brightest hopes of success ; but the interference of fanatics from abroad has so effectually turned back the tide of public opinion, that no individual would now venture to offer such a proposition in the Virginia legislature. The efforts of the Abolitionists, whether so intended or not, have long postponed the day of emancipation." Mr. Buchanan's Sanford Letter. Washington, August 21, 1848. T. Sanford, Esq.— Dear Sir: I have just received yours of the 12th instant, in which you submit to me the following paragraph, and ask whether it contains an accurate ver- sion of the conversation between us, concern- ing my Berks county letter, on the occasion to which you refer : " Happening to meet Mr. Buchanan at the President's levee on Friday evening, I called his attention to this letter, and asked him if he intended to be understood as claiming that the population of a territory, in an unorgan- ized capacity, had the right to control the question of slavery in such territory. He de- clared that no such idea had ever been main- tained by him ; that the construction put upon his language by Mr. Yancey was a perversion of its plain and obvious meaning ; that in his opinion the inhabitants of a terri- tory, as such, had no political right [although they possessed all the private rights of Ameri- can citizens] ; that they had no power what- ever over the subject of slavery; and the^ 90 THE TOLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. couid neither interdict nor establish it, except when assembled in convention to form a state constitution. He further authorized and re- quested me to make any public use of these declarations that I might think proper, to cor- rect any impression which Mr. Yancey's con- struction of his language in the Berks letter might have made." With the addition which I have inserted between brackets, this statement is substan- tially, almost literally, correct, according to my recollection." In my letter to Berks county of 25th August, I had said, " Under the Missouri com- promise slavery was for ever prohibited north of the parallel of 36 deg. 30 min., and south of this parallel the question was left to be decided by the people. What people ? Un- doubtedly the people of the territory .assem- bled in convention to form a state constitution, and ask admission into the Union, and not [first] adventurers or 'first comers' who might happen to arrive in the territory, as- sembled in [primary] meeting." If a doubt on this subject could possibly exist, it is removed by the next succeeding sentence of my letter. I proceed to state that " Congress, in the admission of Texas, adopted the same rule," &c. And what was this rule? The joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States, approved March 1, 1845, an- swers the question in the following words: " And such states as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of 36 deg. 30 min. north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each state asking admission may desire." Such was the descrip- tion of the people to whom I referred in my Berks county letter. Any other construction of the letter would render it essentially inconsistent with itself. Having urged the adoption of the Missouri compromise, the inference is irresistible that Congress, in my opinion, possesses the power to legislate upon the subject of slaveryin the territories. What an absurdity would it then be, if, whilst asserting this sovereign power in Congress, which power from its nature must be exclusive, I should in the very same breath also claim this identical power ''for the population of a territory in an unorganized capacity." In conclusion, I desire to reiterate and reaffirm every sentiment contained in my Berks county letter. I cling to the Missouri compromise with greater tenacity than ever, and yet firmly believe that it will be adopted by Congress. Yours, very respectfully, James Buchanan. T. Sandford, Esq. Mr. Fuller's Charge against Mr. Bucha- nan. Mr. Fuller of Pa., in the House of Repre- sentatives, during the first session of the 34tb Congress, said, that in 1819 Mr. Buchanan acted as the chairman of a committee at a meeting held at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in which certain resolutions were adopted de nouncing the Missouri Compromise. Those resolutions are as follows : — " Resolved, That the Representatives in Congress from this district be, and they are hereby, most earnestly requested to use their utmost endeavors, as members of the National Legislature, to prevent the existence of slavery in any of the territories or states which may be erected by Congress. " Resolved, That, in the opinion of this meet- ing, the members of Congress who, at the last session, sustained the cause of justice, human- ity, and patriotism, in opposing the introduc- tion of slavery into the states then endeavored to be formed out of the Missouri territory, are entitled to the warmest thanks of every friend of humanity." The Hon. J. Glancy Jones replied to the charge of Mr. Fuller, a few days afterwards, as follows : — " Now, sir, I am enabled to state, on un- questioned authority, that the declaration, that James Buchanan was chairman of the committee which framed those resolutions, _ia unfounded and untrue. I undertake here, in my place, to say to the House and the country. that Mr. Buchanan did not report the resolu- tions referred to ; that he was not the chair- man of the committee by which they were reported ; and that he never saw them until they appeared in print. But, suppose he had reported them ; suppose he had been chairman of the committee which reported them— -I ap- peal to the South to answer whether this fact should stand against him with the long expe- rience of his life before the country ? " But, Mr. Speaker, this accusation belongs to the class of idle reports invented, and now circulated, to damage him in the estimation of the American people. Sir, all these ac- cusations, whether asserted anonymously or publicly, are triumphantly answered by the record of his public life." Inaugural Address of Mr. Buchanan. Fellow-citizens— I appear before you this day to take the solemn oath " that I will faith- fully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Con- stitution of the United States." In entering upon this great office, I must humbly invoke the God of our fathersfor wis- dom and firmness to execute its high and responsible duties in such a manner as to restore harmony and ancient friendship among the people of the several states, and to pre- serve our free institutions throughout many generations. Convinced that I owe my elec- tion to the inherent love for the Constitution BUCHANAN, JAMES. 91 and the Union, -which still animates the hearts of the American people, let me earnestly ask their powerful support in sustaining all just measures calculated to perpetuate these, the richest political blessings, which Heaven has ever bestowed upon any nation. Having de- termined not to become a candidate for re- election, I shall have no motive to influence my conduct in administering the government except the desire ably and faithfully to serve my country, and to live in the grateful memory of my countrymen. We have recently passed through a Presi- dential contest in which the passions of our fellow-citizens were excited to the highest degree by questions of deep and vital import- ance ; but when the people proclaimed their will the tempest at once subsided, and all was calm. The voice of the majority, speaking in the manner prescribed by the Constitution, was heard, and instant submission followed. Our own country could alone have exhibited so grand and striking a spectacle of the capacity of man for self-government. What a happy conception, then, was it for Congress to apply this simple rule — that the will of the majority shall govern — to the settle- ment of the question of domestic slavery in the territories ! Congress is neither " to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom ; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regu- late their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." As a natural consequence, Congress has also prescribed that when the territory of Kansas shall be admitted as a state, it "shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission." A difference of opinion has arisen in regard to the point of time when the people of a territory shall decide this question for them- selves. This is, happily, a matter of but little prac- tical importance. Besides, it is a judicial question which legitimately belongs to the Supreme Court of the United States, before whom it is now pending, and will, it is under- stood, be speedily and finally settled. To their decision, in common with all good citizens, I shall cheerfully submit, whatever this may be, though it has ever been my individual opinion that under the Nebraska-Kansas act the ap- propriate period will be when the number of actual residents in the territory shall justify the formation of a constitution with a view to its admission as a state into the Union. But, be this as it may, it is the imperative and in- dispensable duty of the government of the United States to secure to every resident inhabitant the free and independent expres- sion of his opinion by his vote. This sacred right of each individual must be preserved. That being accomplished, nothing can be fairer than to leave the people of a territory free from all foreign interference to decide their own destiny for themselves, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. The whole territorial question being thus settled upon the principle of popular sove- reignty — a principle as ancient as free govern- ment itself — everything of a practical nature has been decided. No other question remains for adjustment; because all agree that under the Constitution slavery in the states is beyond the reach of any human power except that of the respective states themselves wherein it exists. May we not, then, hope that the long agitation on this subject is approaching its end, and that the geographical parties to which it has given birth, so much dreaded by the Father of his Country, will speedily become extinct? Most happy will it be for the country when the public mind shall be diverted from this question to others of more pressing and prac- tical importance. Throughout the whole pro- gress of this agitation, which has scarcely known an intermission for more than twenty years, while it has been productive of no positive good to any human being, it has been the prolific source of great evils to the master, to the slave, and to the whole country. It has alienated and estranged the people of the sister states from each other, and has even seriously endangered the very existence of the Union. Nor has the danger yet entirely ceased. Under our system there is a remedy for all mere political evils in the sound sense and sober judgment of the people. Time is a great corrective. Political subjects which, but a few years ago, excited and exasperated the public mind, have passed away, and are now nearly forgotten. But this question of domestic slavery is of far graver importance than any mere political question, because, should the agitation continue, it may eventu- ally endanger the personal safety of a large portion of our countrymen where the institu- tion exists. In that event, no form of govern- ment, however admirable in itself, and however productive of material benefits, can compensate for the loss of peace and domestic security around the family altar. Let every Union- loving man, therefore, exert his best influence to suppress this agitation, which, since the recent legislation of Congress, is without any legitimate object. It is an evil omen of the times that men have undertaken to calculate the mere mate- rial value of the Union. Reasoned estimates have been presented of the pecuniary profits and local advantages which would result to different states and sections from its dissolu- tion, and of the comparative injuries which such an event would inflict on other states and sections. Even descending to this low and narrow view of the mighty question, all such calculations are at fault. The bare reference to a single consideration will be conclusive or this point. We at present enjoy a free trade throughout our extensive and expanding coun- try such as the world has never witnessed. This trade is conducted on railroads and canals, c.? THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. oh noble rivers and arms of the sea, which bind together the north and the south, the east and the west of our confederacy. Anni- hilate this trade, arrest its free progress by the geographical lines of jealous and hostile states, and you destroy the prosperity and onward march of the whole and every part, and involve all in one common ruin. But such considerations, important as they are in them- selves, sink into insignificance when we reflect on the terrific evils which would result from disunion to every portion of the confederacy — to the north not more than to the south ; to the east not more than to the west. These I shall not attempt to portray, because I feel an hum- ble confidence that the kind Providence which inspired our fathers with wisdom to frame the most perfect form of government and union ever devised by man will not suffer it to perish until it shall have been peacefully instrumen- tal, by its example, in the extension of civil and religious liberty throughout the world. Next in importance to the maintenance of the Constitution and the Union, is the duty of preserving the government free from the taint, or even the suspicion of corruption. Public virtue is the vital spirit of republics ; and his- tory proves that when this has decayed, and the love of money has usurped its place, although the forms of free government may remain for a season, the substance has departed for ever. Our present financial condition is without a parallel in history. No nation has ever before been embarrassed from too large a surplus in its treasury. This almost necessarily gives birth to extravagant legislation. It produces will schemes of expenditure, and begets a race of speculators and jobbers, whose ingenuity is exerted in contriving and promoting expedi- ents to obtain public money. The purity of official agents, whether rightfully or wrong- fully, is suspected, and the character of the • rvernment suffers in the estimation of the people. This is in itself a very great evil. The natural mode of relief from this embar- rassment is to appropriate the surplus in the treasury to great national objects for which a clear warrant can be found in the Constitution. Among these I might mention the extinguish- ment of the public debt ; a reasonable increase of the navy, which is at present inadequate to the protection of our vast tonnage afloat, now ■eater than that of any other nation, as well as bo the defence of our extended seacoast. It is beyond all question the true principle that no more revenue ought to be collected a the people than the amount necessary to defray the expenses of a wise, economical, and efficient administration of the government. lo reach this point it was necessary to resort to a mollification of the tariff; and this has, I trust, been accomplished in such a manner as to do as little injury as may have been practicable to our domestic manufactures, especially those necessary for the defence of the country. Any discrimination against a particular branch, for the purpose of benefiting favored corporations, individuals, or interests, would have been un- just to the rest of the community, and incon- sistent with that spirit of fairness and equality which ought to govern in the adjustment of a revenue tariff. But the squandering of the public money sinks into comparative insignificance asatemp- tation to corruption when compared with the squandering of the public lands. No nation in the tide of time has ever been blessed with so rich and noble an inheritance as we enjoy in the public lands. In administering this important trust, whilst it may be wise to grant portions of them for the improvement of the remainder, yet we should never forget that it is our cardinal policy to reserve these lands as much as may be for actual settlers, and this at moderate prices. We shall thus not only best promote the prosperity of the new states and territories, by furnishing them a hardy and independent race of honest and industrious citizens, but shall secure homes for our children and our children's children, as well as for those exiles from foreign shores who may seek in this country to improve their condition and to enjoy the blessings of civil and religious liberty. Such emigrants have done much to promote the growth and prosperity of the country. They have proved faithful both in peace and in war. . Alter be- coming citizens they are entitled, under the Constitution and laws, to be placed on a per- fect equality with native-born citizens, ana in this character they should ever be kindly re cognised. The Federal Constitution is a grant from the states to Congress of certain specific powers ; and the question whether this grant should be liberally or strictly construed has more or less divided political parties from the beginning. Without entering into the argu- ment, I desire to state, at the commencement of my administration, that long experience and observation have convinced me that a strict construction of the powers of the Go- vernment is the only true, as well as the only safe, theory of the Constitution. Whenever, in our past history, doubtful powers have been exercised by Congress, these have never failed to produce injurious and unhappy con- sequences. Many such instances might be adduced if this were the proper occasion. Neither is it necessary for the public service to strain the language of the Constitution : because all the great and useful powers re- quired for a successful administration of the government, both in peace and in war, have been granted, either in express terms or by tho plainest implication. Whilst deeply convinced of these truths. I yet consider it clear that, under the war- making power, Congress may appropriate money towards the construction of a military road, when this is absolutely necessary for the defence of any state or territory of the Union against foreign invasion. Under the Constitution Congress has power " to declare war," " to raise and support armies," " to pro- vide and maintain a navy," and to call forth BUFFALO AND UTICA CONVENTIONS OF 18-18. 93 the militia to " repel invasions." Thus en- dowed, in an ample manner, with the war- making power, the corresponding duty is re- quired that " the United States shall protect each of them (the states) against invasion." Now, how is it possible to afford this protec- tion to California and our Pacific possessions, except by means of a military road through the territories of the United States, over which men and munitions of war may be speedily transported from the Atlantic States to meet and to repel the invader ? In the event of a war with a naval power much stronger than our own, we should then have no other availa- ble access to the Pacific coast ; because such a power would instantly close the route across the Isthmus of Central America. It is im- possible to conceive that, whilst the Constitu- tion has expressly required Congress to defend all the states, it should yet deny to them, by any fair construction, the only possible means by which one of these states can be defended. Besides, the government, ever since its origin, has been in the constant practice of construct- ing military roads. It might also be wise to consider whether the love for the Union which now animates our fellow-citizens on the Pacific coast may not be impaired by our neglect or refusal to provide for them, in their remote and isolated condition, the only means by which the power of the states, on this side of the Rocky Mountains, can reach them in suf- ficient time to " protect" them " against inva- sion." I forbear for the present from express- ing an opinion as to the wisest and most economical mode in which the government can lend its aid in accomplishing this great and necessary work. I believe that many of the difficulties in the way which now appear formidable will, in a great degree, vanish as soon as the nearest and best route shall have been satisfactorily ascertained. It may be proper that, on this occasion, I should make some brief remarks in regard to our rights and duties as a member of the great family of nations. In our intercourse with them there are some plain principles, approved by our own experience, from which we should never depart. We ought to culti- vate peace, commerce, and friendship with all nations, and this not merely as the best means of promoting our own material interests, but in a spirit of Christian benevolence towards our fellow men, wherever their lot may be cast. Our diplomacy should be direct and frank, neither seeking to obtain more nor accepting less than is our due. We ought to cherish a sacred regard for the independ- ence of all nations, and never attempt to in- terfere in the domestic concerns of any, un- less this shall be imperatively required by the great law of self-preservation. To avoid entangling alliances has been a maxim of our policy ever since the days of Washington, and its wisdom no one will attempt to dispute. In short, we ought to do justice, in a kindly spirit, to all nations, and require justice from them in return. It is our glory that, whilst other nations have extended their dominions by the sword, we have never acquired any territory except by fair purchase, or, as in the*case of Texas, by the voluntary determination of a bravo, kindred, and independent people to blend their destinies with our own. Even our ac- quisitions from Mexico form no exception. Unwilling to take advantage of the fortune of war against a sister republic, we pur- chased these possessions, under the treaty of peace, for a sum which was considered at the time a fair equivalent. Our past history for- bids that we shall in the future acquire terri- tory unless this be sanctioned by the laws of justice and honor. Acting on this principle, no nation will have a right to interfere or to complain if, in the progress of events, we shall still further extend our possessions. Hitherto, in all our acquisitions, the people, under the protection of the American Hag. have enjoyed civil and religious liberty, as well as equal and just laws, and have been contented, prosperous, and happy. Their trade with the rest of the world has rapidly increased ; and thus every commercial nation has shared largely in their successful pro- gress. I shall now proceed to take the oath pre- scribed by the Constitution, whilst humbly invoking the blessing of Divine Providence on this great people. Buffalo and Utica Conventions of 1848. The Utica Convention met on the 28th of June, 1848, the Hon. Sam. Young, president, Gilbert Dean, Esq., of Dutchess Co., N. Y., secretary. The credentials of the Barnburner delegation were returned. Messrs. Martin drover, Preston King, B. F. Butler, and John Van Buren spoke. D. D. Field, Esq., read a letter from Martin Van Buren, taking ground against the action of the Baltimore Conven- tion. Simeon B.Jewett, Esq., of Monroe Co., moved the unanimous nomination of Martin Van Buren by acclamation for President, which was carried with cheering. Henry Dodge of Wisconsin, was nominated for Vice President. Speeches were then made by Messrs. Rath- bun, Nye, and Young. The resolutions adopted, assumed it to be the right and duty of Congress to expel slavery from the terri- tories, and declared " domestic slavery a great moral, social, and political evil," and a " relic of barbarism." The address reported by Mr. Butler was a strong Free-Soil one. Senator Dodge wrote an immediate letter, declining the candidacy of Vice President. In order to fill this vacancy on their ticket, and extend the Free-Soil movement in other states, a " Convention of Free States" was called to meet at Buffalo on the 9th of August, 1848. The Buffalo Convention met, all the non slaveholding states being represented, that is, having citizens upon the ground. Charles 94 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Francis Adams of Mass. was its presiding officer. A committee of fifty-five, B. F. Butler, chairman, was appointed on resolutions. E. D. Culver and John W. Nye of N. Y., and J. R. Giddings of Ohio, addressed the con- vention. The famous Buffalo Platform was reported on the second day, as follows : — " Whereas, We have assembled in conven- tion, as a union of freemen, for the sake of freedom, forgetting all past political differences in a common resolve to maintain the rights of free labor against the aggressions of the slave power, and to secure free soil for a free people ; and "Whereas, The political conventions re- cently assembled at Baltimore and Philadel- great phia, the one stifling the voice of a constituency entitled to be heard in its delibe- rations, and the other abandoning its dis- tinctive principles for mere availability, have dissolved the national party organization heretofore existing, by nominating for the chief magistracy of the United States, under slaveholding dictation, candidates, neither of whom can be supported by the opponents of slavery extension without a sacrifice of con- sistency, duty, and self-respect ; and "Whereas, These nominations, so made, furnish the occasion and demonstrate the ne- cessity of the union of the people under the banner of free Democracy, in a solemn and formal declaration of then- independence of the slave power, and of their fixed determina- tion to rescue the federal government from its eontrol : " Resolved, Therefore, that we, the people here assembled, remembering the example of our fathers in the days of the first Declaration of Independence, putting our trust in God for the triumph of our cause, and invoking his guidance in our endeavors to advance it, do now plant ourselves upon the national plat- form of freedom, in opposition to the sectional platform of slavery. "Resolved, That slavery in the_ several states of this Union, which recognise its exist- ence, depends upon state laws alone, which cannot be repealed or modified by the federal government, and for which laws that govern- ment is not responsible. We, therefore, pro- pose no interference by Congress with slavery within the limits of any state. " Resolved, That the proviso of Jefferson, to prohibit the existence of slavery after 1800, in all the territories of the United States, southern and northern ; the votes of six states and sixteen delegates, in Congress of 1784, for the proviso, to three states and seven delegates against it ; the actual exclusion of slavery from the Northwestern Territory, by the ordi- nance of 1787, unanimously adopted by the states in Congress, and the entire history of that period, clearly show that it was the settled policy of the nation, not to extend, nationalize, or encourage, but to limit, localize, and discourage slavery ; and to this policy, which should never have been departed from, the government ought to return. " Resolved, That our fathers ordained the Constitution of the United States, in order, among other great national objects, to esta- blish justice, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty ; but expressly denied to the federal government, which they created, all constitutional power to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, with- out due legal process. "Resolved, That, in the judgment of this convention, Congress has no more power to make a slave than to make a king ; no more power to institute or establish slavery than to institute or establish a monarchy ; no such power can be found among those specifically conferred by the Constitution, or derived by just implication from them. " Resolved, That it is the duty of the federal government to relieve itself from all responsi- bility for the existence or continuance of slavery, wherever that government possesses constitutional authority to legislate on that subject, and is thus responsible for its exist- ence. "Resolved, That the true, and, in the judg- ment of this convention, the only safe means of preventing the extension of slavery into territory now free, is to prohibit its existence in all such territory by an act of Congress.^ " Resolved, That we accept the issue which the slave power has forced upon us ; and, to their demand for more slave states and more slave territories, our calm but final answer ie — no more slave states and no slave territory. Let the soil of our extensive dominions be ever kept free for the hardy pioneers of our own land, and the oppressed and banished of other lands, seeking homes of comfort and fields of enterprise in the new world. " Resolved, That the bill lately reported by the committee of eight in the Senate of the United States was no compromise, but an abso- lute surrender of the rights of the non-slayo- holders of all the states ; and while we rejoice to know that a measure which, while opening the door for the introduction of slavery into territories now free, would also have opened the door to litigation and strife among the future inhabitants thereof, to the ruin of their peace and prosperity, was defeated in the House of Representatives, its passage in hot haste, by a majority embracing several Sena- tors who voted in open violation of the known will of their constituents, should warn the people to see to it, that their representatives be not suffered to betray them. There must be no more compromises with slavery ; if made, they must be repealed. " Resolved, That we demand freedom ami established institutions for our brethren in Oregon, now exposed to hardships, perils, and massacre, by the reckless hostility of the slave power to the establishment of free government for free territories; and not only for them, but for our new brethren in California and New Mexico. And "Whereas, It is due, not only to this occa- sion, but to the whole people of the .United CALHOUN, JOHN C. 95 States, that we should also declare ourselves on certain other questions of national polity ; therefore, " Resolved, That we demand cheap postage for the people ; a retrenchment of the expenses and patronage of the federal government ; the abolition of all unnecessary offices and salaries ; and the election by the people of all civil offi- cers in the service of the government, so far as the same may be practicable. " Resolved, That river and harbor improve- ments, whenever demanded by the safety or convenience of commerce with foreign nations, or among the several states, are objects of national concern; and that it is the duty of Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional power, to provide therefor. "Resolved, That the free grant to actual settlers, in consideration of the expenses they incur in making settlements in the wilderness, which are usually fully equal to their actual cost, and of the public benefits resulting there- from, of reasonable portions of the public lands under suitable limitations, is a wise and just measure of public policy, which will pro- mote, in various ways, the interests of all the states of this Union ; and we, therefore, re- commend it to the favorable judgment of the American people. " Resolved, that the obligations of honor and patriotism require the earliest practicable payment of the national debt ; and we are, therefore, in favor of such a tariff of duties as will raise revenue adequate to defray the necessary expenses of the federal government, and to pay annual instalments of our debt and the interest thereon. " Resolved, That we inscribe on our banner 'free soil, free speech, free labor, and free men ;' and under it will fight on and fight ever, until a triumphant victory shall reward our exertions." A committee of conference, Salmon P. Chase of 0., chairman, was appointed. Mr. Butler produced in this committee a letter from Martin Van Buren, which was satisfac- tory; and the nomination of Van Buren for President was unanimously reported to the convention by Joshua Leavitt of Mass. Charles Francis Adams was nominated for Vice President. Calhoun, John C. Fort Hill Address of — July 26, 1831. The question of the relation which the states and general government bear to each other, is not one of recent origin. From the commencement of our system, it has divided public sentiment. Even in the convention, while the Constitution was struggling into existence, there were two parties, as to what this relation should be, whose different senti- ments constituted no small impediment in forming that instrument. After the general government went into operation, experience soon proved that the question had not termi- nated with the labors of the convention. The great struggle that preceded the political revolution of 1801, which brought Mr. Jeffer- son into power, turned essentially on it ; and the doctrines and arguments on both sides were embodied and ably sustained ; on the one, in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions and the report to the Virginia legislature ; and on the other, in the replies of the legisla- ture of Massachusetts and some of the other states. These resolutions and this report, with the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania about the same time (particu- larly in the case of Cobbett, delivered by Chief Justice McKean, and concurred in by the whole bench), contain what I believe to be the true doctrine on this important subject. I refer to them in order to avoid the necessity of presenting my views, with the reasons in support of them in detail. As my object is simply to state my opinions, I might pause with this reference to docu- ments that so fully and ably state all the points immediately connected with this deeply important subject ; but as there are many who may not have the opportunity or leisure to refer to them, and, as it is possible, however clear they may be, that different persons may place different interpretations on their mean- ing, I will, in order that my sentiments may be fully known, and to avoid all ambiguity, proceed to state, summarily, the doctrines which I conceive they embrace. The great and leading principle is, that the general government emanated from the people of the several states, forming distinct political communities, and acting in their separate and sovereign capacity, and not from all of the people forming one aggregate political com- munity ; that the Constitution of the United States is in fact a compact, to which each state is a party, in the character already de- scribed ; and that the several states, or parties, have a right to judge of its infractions, and in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of power not delegated, they have the right, in the last resort, to use the language of the Virginia resolutions, " to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them." This right of interposition thus solemnly asserted by the state of Virginia, be it called what it may — state right, veto, nullifi- cation, or by any other name — I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system, resting on facts, historically as certain as our revolution itself, and deductions as simple and demonstrative as that of any political or moral truth whatever ; and I firmly believe that on its recognition depends the stability and safety of our political institutions. I am not ignorant that those opposed to the doctrine have always, now and formerly, re- garded it in a very different light, as anarchical and revolutionary. Could I believe such in fact to be its tendency, to me it would be no recommendation. I yield to none, I trust, in a deep and sincere attachment to our political 96 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. institutions, and the union of these states. I never breathed an opposite sentiment ; but, on the contrary, I have ever considered them the great instruments of preserving our liberty, and promoting the happiness of ourselves and our posterity ; and next to these, I have ever held them most dear. Nearly half my life bas passed in the service of the Union, and whatever public reputation I have acquired, is indissolubly identified with it. To be too na- tional has, indeed, been considered, by many, even of my friends, to be my greatest political fault. With these strong feelings of attach- ment, I have examined, with the utmost care, the bearing of the doctrine in question ; and so far from anarchical or revolutionary, I solemnly believe it to be the only solid foun- dation of our system, and of the Union itself, and that the opposite doctrine, which denies to the states the right of protecting their re- served powers, and which would vest in the general government (it matters not through what department) the right of determining exclusively and finally the powers delegated to it, is incompatible with the sovereignty of the states, and of the Constitution itself, con- sidered as the basis of a Federal Union. As strong as this language is, it is not stronger than that used by the illustrious Jefferson, who said, to give to the general government the final and exclusive right to judge of its powers, is to make " its discretion and not the Consti- tution the measure of its powers ;" and that " in all cases of compact between parties having no common judge, each, party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the operation, as of the mode and measure of re- dress." Language cannot be more explicit ; nor can higher authority be adduced. That different opinions are entertained on this subject, I consider but as an additional evidence of the great diversity of the human intellect. Had not able, experienced, and patriotic individuals, for whom I have the highest respect, taken different views, I would have thought the right too clear to admit of doubt ; but I am taught by this, as well as by many similar instances, to treat with defer- ence opinions differing from my own. The error may possibly be with me ; but, if so, I can only say, that after the most mature and conscientious examination, I have not been able to detect it. But with all proper deference, I must think that theirs is the error, who deny what seems to be an essential attribute of the conceded sovereignty of the states ; and who attribute to the general government a right utterly incompatible with what all acknow- ledge to be its limited and restricted character; au error originating principally, as I must think, in not duly reflecting on the nature of our institutions, and on what constitutes the only rational object of all political constitu- tions. It has been well said by one of the most sagacious men of antiquity, that the object of a constitution is to restrain the government, as that of laws is to restrain individuals. The remark is correct, nor is it less true where the government is vested in a majority, than where it is in a single or a few individuals ; in a republic, than a monarchy or aristocracy. No one can have a higher respect for tile maxim that the majority ought to govern than I have, taken in its proper sense, subject to the restrictions imposed by the Constitution, and confined to subjects in which every por- tion of the community have similar interests ; but it is a great error to suppose, as many do, that the right of a majority to govern is a natural and not a conventional right ; and, therefore, absolute and unlimited. By nature every individual has the right to govern him- self; and governments, whether founded on majorities or minorities, must derive their right from the assent, expressed or implied, of the governed, and be subject to such limit- ations as they may impose. Where the inte- rests are the same, that is, where the laws that may benefit one will benefit all, or the reverse, it is just and proper to place them under the control of the majority ; but where they are dissimilar, so that the law that may benefit one portion may be ruinous to another, it would be, on the contrary, unjust and ab- surd to subject them to its will: and such I conceive to be the theory on which our Con- stitution rests. That such dissimilarity of interests may exist it is impossible to doubt. They are to be found in every community, in a greater or less degree, however small or homogeneous, and they constitute, everywhere, the great difficulty of forming and preserving free insti- tutions. To guard against the unequal action of the laws, when applied to dissimilar and opposing interests, is in fact what mainly readers a constitution indispensable ; to over- look which in reasoning on our Constitution, would be to omit the principal element by which to determine its character. Were there no contrariety of interests, nothing would be more simple and easy than to form and pie- serve free institutions. The right of suffrage alone would be a sufficient guarantee. It is the conflict of opposing interests which ren- ders it the most difficult work of man. Where the diversity of interests exists in separate and distinct classes of the commu- nity, as is the case in England, and was for- merly the case in Sparta, Borne, and most of the free states of antiquity, the rational con- stitutional provision is, that each should be represented in the government as a separate estate, with a distinct voice, and a negati- on the acts of its co-estates, in order to check their encroachments. In England the consti- tution has assumed expressly this form, while in the governments of Sparta and Borne the same thing was effected, under different but not much less efficacious forms. The perfec- tion of their organization, in this particular, was that which gave to the constitutions of these renowned states all of their celebrity, which secured their liberty for so many cen- turies, and raised them to so great a height CALHOUN, JOHN C. 91 of power and prosperity. Indeed, a constitu- tional provision giving to the great and sepa- rate interests of the community the right of self-protection, must appear to those who will duly reflect on the subject, not less essential to the preservation of liberty than the right of suffrage itself. They in fact have a com- mon object, to effect which the one is as neces- sary as the other — to secure responsibility ; that is, that those who make and execute the laws should be accountable to those on whom the laws in reality operate ; the only solid and durable foundation of liberty. If with- out the right of suffrage our rulers would op- press us, so without the right of self-protection, the major would equally oppress the minor interests of the community. The absence of the former would make the governed the slaves of the rulers, and of the latter the feebler interests the victim of the stronger. Happily for us we have no artificial and separate classes of society. We have wisely exploded all such distinctions; but we are not, on that account, exempt from all contra- riety of interests, as the present distracted and dangerous condition of our country un- fortunately but too clearly proves. With us they are almost exclusively geographical, re- sulting mainly from difference of climate, soil, situation, industry, and production, but are not, therefore, less necessary to be protected by an adequate constitutional provision than where the distinct interests exist in separate classes. The necessity is, in truth, greater, as such separate and dissimilar geographical interests are more liable to come into conflict, and more dangerous when in that state than those of any other description ; so much so, that ours is the first instance on record where they have not formed in an extensive territory separate and independent communities, or subjected the whole to despotic sway. That such may not be our unhappy fate also, must be the sincere prayer of every lover of his country. So numerous and diversified are the inte- rests of our country, that they could not be fairly represented in a single government, organized so as to give to each great and lead- ing interest a separate and distinct voice, as in governments to which I have referred. A plan was adopted better suited to our situa- tion, but perfectly novel in its character. The powers of the government were divided, not as heretofore, in reference to classes, but geographically. One general government was formed for the whole, to which was delegated all of the powers supposed to be necessary to regulate the interests common to all of the states, leaving others subject to the separate control of the states, being from their local and pt.culiar character such that they could not be subject to the will of the majority of the whole Union, without the certain hazard of injustice and oppression. It was thus that the interests of the whole were subjected, as they ought to be, to the will of the whole, while the peculiar and local interests were 7 left under the control of the states separately, to whose custody only they could be safely confided. This distribution of power, settled solemnly by a constitutional compact, to which all of the states are parties, consti- tutes the peculiar character and excellence of our political system. It is truly and em- phatically American, without example or parallel. To realize its perfection, we must view the general government and the states as a whole, each in its proper sphere, sovereign and inde- pendent ; each perfectly adapted to their re- spective objects ; the states acting separately, representing and protecting the local and pe- culiar interests; acting jointly, through one general government, with the weight respect- ively assigned to each by the Constitution, representing and protecting the interest of the whole, and thus perfecting, by an admi- rable but simple arrangement, the great prin- ciple of representation and responsibility, without which no government can be free or just. To preserve this sacred distribution as originally settled, by coercing each to move in its prescribed orb, is the great and difficult problem, on the solution of which the dura- tion of our Constitution, of our Union, and, in all probability our liberty, depends. How is this to be effected ? The question is new when applied to our pecu- liar political organization, where the separate and conflicting interests of society are repre- sented by distinct but connected governments ; but is in reality an old question under a new form, long since perfectly solved. Whenever separate and dissimilar interests have been separately represented in any government : whenever the sovereign power has been divided in its exercise, the experience and wisdom of ages have devised but one mode by which such political organization can be preserved ; the mode adopted in England, and by all go- vernment^,- ancient or modern, blessed with constitutions deserving to be called free ; to give to each co-estate the right to judge of its powers, with a negative or veto on the acts of the others, in order to protect against en- croachments the interests it particularly repre- sents ; a principle which all of our constitu- tions recognise in the distribution of power among their respective departments, as essen- tial to maintain the independence of each, but which, to all who will duly reflect on the sub- ject, must appear far more essential, for the same object, in that great and fundamental distribution of powers between the states and general government. So essential is the prin- ciple, that to withhold the right from either, where the sovereign power is divided, is, in fact, to annul the division itself, and to con- solidate in the one left in the exclusive pos- session of the right, all of the powers of the government ; for it is not possible to distin- guish practically between a government hav- ing all power, and one having the right to take what powers it pleases. Nor does it in the least vary the principle, whether the dis- 08 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tribution of power be between co-estates, as in England, or between distinctly organized but connected governments, as with us. The reason is the same in both cases, while the necessity is greater in our case, as the danger of conflict is greater where the interests of a society are divided geographically than in any other, as has already been shown. These truths do seem to me to be incontro- vertible ; and I am at a loss to understand how any one, who has maturely reflected on the nature of our institutions, or who has read history or studied the principles of free go- vernment to any purpose, can call them in question. The explanation must, it appears to me, be sought in the fact, that in every free state, there are those who look more to the necessity of maintaining power, than guarding against its abuses. I do not intend reproach, but simply to state a fact apparently neces- sary to explain the contrariety of opinions, among the intelligent, where the abstract con- sideration of the subject would seem scarcely to admit of doubt. If such be the true cause, I must think the fear of weakening the go- vernment too much in this case to be in a great measure unfounded, or at least that the danger is much less from that than the oppo- site side. I do not deny that a power of so high a nature may be abused by a state, but when I reflect that the states unanimously called the general government into existence with all of its powers, which they freely sur- rendered on their part, under the conviction that their common peace, safety, and pros- perity required it ; that they are bound toge- ther by a common origin, and the recollection of common suffering and common triumph in the great and splendid achievement of their independence ; and the strongest feelings of our nature, and among them, the love of na- tional power and distinction, are on the side of the Union ; it does seem to m^ that the fear which would strip the sta^T of their sovereignty, and degrade them, m fact, to mere dependent corporations, lest they should abuse a right indispensable to the peaceable protection of those interests which they re- served under their own peculiar guardianship when they created the general government, is unnatural and unreasonable. If those who voluntarily created the system, cannot be trusted to preserve it, what power can? So far from extreme danger, I hold that there never was a free state, in which this great conservative principle, indispensable in all, was ever so safely lodged. In others, when the co-estates, representing the dis- similar and convicting interests of the com- munity, came into contact, the only alternative was compromise, submission, or force. Not f?o in ours. Should the general government and a state come into conflict, we have a higher remedy ; the power which called the general government into existence, which gave it of all its authority, and can enlarge, contract, or abolish its powers at its pleasure, may be invoked. The states themselves may be ap- pealed to, three-fourths of which, in fact, form a power, whose decrees are the constitution itself, and whose voice can silence all discon- tent. The utmost extent then of the power is, that a state acting in its sovereign capacity, as one of the parties to the constitutional compact, may compel the government, created by that compact, to submit a question touch- ing its infraction to the parties who created it ; to avoid the supposed dangers of which, it is proposed to resort to the novel, the hazard- ous, and, I must add, fatal project of giving to the general government the sole and final right of interpreting the Constitution, thereby reversing the whole system, making that in- strument the creature of its will, instead of a rule of action impressed on it at its creation, and annihilating in fact the authority which imposed it, and from which the government itself derives its existence. That such would be the result, were the right in question vested in the legislative or executive branch of the government, is con- ceded by all. No one has been so hardy as to assert that Congress or the President ought to have the right, or to deny that, if vested finally and exclusively in either, the conse- quences which I have stated would not neces- sarily follow ; but its advocates have boen reconciled to the doctrine, on the supposition that there is one department of the general government, which, from its peculiar organi- zation, aflbrds an independent tribunal through which the government may exercise the high authority which is the subject of considera- tion, with perfect safety to all. I yield, I trust, to few in my attachment to the judiciary department. I am fully sen- sible of its importance, and would maintain it to the fullest extent in its constitutional powers and independence ; but it is impossible for me to believe that it was ever intended by the Constitution, that it should exercise the power in question, or that it is competent to do so, and, if it were, that it would be a safe depo- sitory of the power. Its powers are judicial and not political, and are expressly confined by the Constitution " to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under its authority;" and which I have high authority in asserting, excludes political questions, and comprehends those only where there are parties amenable to the process of the court.* Nor is its incompetency less clear, than its want of constitutional au- thority. There may be many and the mo&fc dangerous infractions on the part of Congress, of which, it is conceded by all, the court, as a judicial tribunal, cannot from its nature take cognisance. The tariff itself is a strong case in point ; and the reason applies equally V> all others, where Congress perverts a power from an object intended to one not intended, * I refer to the authority of Chief Justice Mar-hall ii • ih« ease of Jonathan Robbing. I have not been able to refer to the speech, and speak from memory. CALHOUN, JOHN C. 99 the most insidious and dangerous of all the infractions ; and which may be extended to all of its powers, more especially to the taxing and appropriating. But supposing it compe- tent to take cognisance of all infractions of every description, the insuperable objection still remains, that it would not be a safe tri- bunal to exercise the power in question. It is an universal and fundamental political principle, that the power to protect, can safely be confided only to those interested in protecting, or their responsible agents — a nuixim not less true in private than in public affairs. The danger in our system is, that the general government, which represents the interests of the whole, may encroach on the states, Avhich represent the peculiar and local interests, or that the latter may encroach on the former. In examining this point, we ought not to forget that the government, through all of its departments, judicial as well as others, is administered by delegated and responsible agents ; and that the power which really con- trols ultimately all the movements, is not in the agents, but those who elect or appoint them. To understand then its real character, and what would be the action of the system in any supposable case, we must raise our view from the mere agents, to this high con- trolling power which finally impels every movement of the machine. By doing so, we shall find all under the control of the will of a majority, compounded of the majority of the states, taken as corporate bodies, and the majority of the people of the states estimated in federal numbers. These united constitute the real and final power, which impels and directs the movements of the general govern- ment. The majority of the states elect the majority of the Senate ; of the people of the states, that of the House of Representatives ; the two united, the President ; and the Presi- dent and a majority of the Senate appoint the judges, a majority of whom and a majority of the Senate and the House with the President, really exercise all of the powers of the go- vernment with the exception of the cases where the Constitution requires a greater number than a majority. The judges are, in fact, as truly the judicial representatives of this united majority, as the majority of Congress itself, or the President, is its legislative or executive representative ; and to confide the power to the judiciary to determine finally and conclu- sively what powers are delegated, and what reserved, would be in reality to confide it to the majority, whose agents they are, and by whom they can be controlled in various ways ; and, of course, to subject (against the funda- mental principle of our system, and all sound political reasoning) the reserved powers of the states, with all of the local and peculiar interests they were intended to protect, to the will of the very majority against which the protection was intended. Nor will the tenure by which the judges hold their office, however valuable the wovision in many other respects, materially vary the case. Its highest possible effect would be to retard, and not finally to resist, the will of a dominant majority. But it is useless to multiply arguments. Were it possible that reason could settle a question where the passions and interests of men are concerned, this point would have 1 a long since settled for ever, by the state of Vir- ginia. The report of her legislature, to which I have already referred, has really, in my opinion, placed it beyond controversy. Speak- ing in reference to this subject, it says, "It has been objected" (to the right of a state to interpose for the protection of her reserved rights), "that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitu- tion ; on this subject it might be observed, first, that there may be instances of usurped powers which the forms of the Constitution could never draw within the control of the judicial department ; secondly, that if the de- cision of the judiciary be raised above the sovereign parties to the Constitution, the de- cisions of the other departments, not carried by the forms of the Constitution before the judiciary, must be equally authoritative and final with the decision of that department. But the proper answer to the objection is, that the resolution of the General Assembly relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all of the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infraction dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers not delegated, may not only be usurped and exe- cuted by the other departments, but that the judicial department may also exercise or sanction dangerous powers, beyond the grant; of the Constitution, and consequently that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitu- tion to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another — by the judiciary, as well as by the executive or legislative." Against these conclusive arguments, as they seem to me, it is objected, that if one of the parties has the right to judge of infractions of the Constitution, so has the other, and that consequently in cases of contested powers be- tween a state and the general government, each would have a right to maintain its opi- nion, as is the case when sovereign powers differ in the construction of treaties or com- pacts, and that of course it would come to be a mere question of force. The error is in the assumption that the general government is a party to the constitutional compact. The states, as has been shown, formed the com- pact, acting as sovereign and independent communities. The general government is but its creature ; and though in reality a govern- ment with all the rights and authority which belong to any other government, within the orb of its powers, it is, nevertheless, a govern- ment emanating from a compact between sovereigns, and partaking, in its nature and oljct, of the character of a joint commission, 100 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. appointed to superintend and administer the interests in which all are jointly concerned, but having, beyond its proper sphere, no more power than if it did not exist. To deny this would be to deny the most incontestible facts, and the clearest conclusions ; while to acknow- ledge its truth, is to destroy utterly the objec- tion that the appeal would be to force, in the case supposed. For if each party has a right to judge, then, under our system of govern- ment, the final cognisance of a question of contested power would be in the states, and not in the general government. It would be the duty of the latter, as in all similar cases of a contest between one or more of the prin- cipals and a joint commission or agency, to refer the contest to the principals themselves. Such are the plain dictates of reason and ana- logy both. On no sound principle can the agents have a right to final cognisance, as against the principals, much less to use force against them, to maintain their construction of their powers. Such a right would be mon- strous ; and has never, heretofore, been claimed in similar cases. That the doctrine is applicable to the case of a contested power between the states and the general government, we have the autho- rity not only of reason and analogy, but of the distinguished statesman already referred to. Mr. Jefferson, at a late period of his life, after long experience and mature reflection, says, " With respect to our state and federal gov- ernments, I do not think their relations are correctly understood by foreigners. They sup- pose the former subordinate to the latter. This is not the case. They are co-ordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. But you may ask if the two departments should claim each the same subject of power, where is the umpire to decide between them ? In cases of little urgency or importance, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground ; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a con- vention of the states must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." — It is thus that our Constitution, by authorizing amendments, and by prescribing the authority and mode of making them, has by a simple contrivance, with its characteristic wisdom, provided a power which, in the last resort, supersedes effectually the necessity and even the pretext for force ; a power to which none can fairly object; with which the interests of all are safe ; which can definitely close all controver- sies in the only effectual mode, by freeing the compact of every defect and uncertainty, by an amendment of the instrument itself. It is impossible for human wisdom, in a system like ours, to devise another mode which shall be safe and effectual, and at the same time con- sistent with what are the relations and ac- knowledged powers of the two great depart- ments of our government. It gives a beauty and security peculiar to our system, which,, if duly appreciated, will transmit its blessings to the remotest generations ; but, if not, our splendid anticipations of the future will prove but an empty dream. Stripped of all its covering, and the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or a consolidated government : a constitutional or absolute one ; a government resting ultimately on the solid basis of the sovereignty of the states, or on the unrestrained will of a majority ; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice and violence, and force, must finally prevail. Let it never be forgotten, that where the ma- jority rules, the minority is the subject; and that if we should absurdly attribute to the former the exclusive right of construing the Constitution, there would be in fact between the sovereign and subject, under such a gov- ernment, no constitution ; or at least nothing deserving the name, or serving the legitimate object of so sacred an instrument. How the states are to exercise this high power of interposition which constitutes so essential a portion of their reserved rights that it cannot be delegated without an entire sur- render of their sovereignty, and converting our system from a federal into a consolidated government, is a question that the states only are competent to determine. The arguments which prove that they possess the power, equally prove that they are, in the language of Jefferson, " the rightful judges of the mode and measure of redress." But the spirit of for'oearance, as well as the nature of the right itself, forbids a recourse to it, except in case-s of dangerous infractions of the Constitution ; and then only in the last resort, when all rea- sonable hope of relief from the ordinary action of the government has failed ; when, if the right to interpose did not exist, the alternative would be submission and oppression on one side, or resistance by force on the other. That our system should afford, in such extreme cases, an intermediate point between these dire alternatives, by which the government may be brought to a pause, and thereby an interval obtained to compromise differences, or, if impracticable, be compelled to submit the question to a constitutional adjustment, through an appeal to the states themselves, is an evidence of its high wisdom ; an element not, as is supposed by some, of weakness, but of strength ; not of anarchy or revolution, but of peace and safety. Its general recognition would of itself, in a great measure, if not alto- gether, supersede the necessity of its exercise, by impressing on the movements of the gov- ernment that moderation and justice so essen- tial to harmony and peace, in a country of such vast extent and diversity of interests as ours ; and would, if controversy should come, turn the resentment of the aggrieved from the system to those who had abused its powers (a point all important), and cause them to seek redress, not in revolution or overthrow, but in reformation. It is, in fact, properly under- stood, a substitute where the alternative would be force, tending to prevent, and if that fails, to correct peaceably the aberrations to which CALHOUN, JOHN C. 101 all political systems are liable, and which, if permitted to accumulate, without correction, must finally end in a general catastrophe. On the 27 1 a of Dec, 1837, air. Calhoun sub- mitted to the Senate the following celebrated series of resolutions : — 1. Resolved, That in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the states adopting the same, acted severally as free, independent, and sovereign states, and that each for itself, by its own voluntary assent, entered the Union with a view to its increased security against all dangers, domestic as well as foreign, and the more perfect and secure enjoyment of its ad- vantages, natural, political, and social. 2. Resolved, That in delegating a portion of their powers to be exercised by the federal government, the states retained, severally, the exclusive and sole right over their own domestic institutions and police, and are alone responsible for them, and that any intermed- dling of any one or more states, or a combina- tion of their citizens, with the domestic institu- tions and police of the others, on any ground, or under any pretext whatever, political, moral, or religious, with a view to their alteration or subversion, is an assumption of superiority not warranted by the Constitution, insulting to the states interfered with, tending to en- danger their domestic peace and tranquillity, subversive to the objects for which the Con- stitution was formed, and, by necessary con- sequence, tending to weaken and destroy the Union itself. 3. Resolved, That this government was instituted and adopted by the several states of this Union, as a common agent, in order to carry into effect the power which they had delegated by the Constitution for their mutual security and prosperity, and that in fulfilment of this high and sacred trust, this government is bound so to exercise its powers as to give, as far as may be practicable, increased stability and security to the domestic institutions of the states that compose the Union, and that it is the solemn duty of the government to resist all attempts, by one portion of the Union, to use it as an instrument to attack the domestic institutions of another, or to weaken or des- troy such institutions. 4. Resolved, That domestic slavery, as it exists in the Southern and Western states of this Union, composes an important part of their domestic institutions, inherited from their ancestors, and existing at the adoption of the Constitution, by which it is recognised as constituting an essential element in the distribution of its powers among the states, and that no change of opinion or feeling, on the part of the other states of the Union in re- lation to it can justify them, or their citizens, in open and systematic attacks thereon, with the view to its overthrow, and that all such attacks are in manifest violation of the mutual and solemn pledge to protect and defend each other given by the states respectively, on en- tering into the constitutional compact, which formed the Union, and as such is a manifest breach of faith, and a violation of the most solemn obligations. (As PROPOSED BY Mr. CaLIIOUN.) 5. Reso:\r I, That the intesraaddling of any state, or svaVsv o: their citizens, to abo- lish slavery in this District, or in any of the territories, ok 'die 'ground, <)■• op It -'he pre- text, thai it 'ia ■immoral' °dr sinful', o? the pas- sage of any act or measure of Congress with that view, would be a direct and dangerous attack on the institutions of all the slavehold- ing states. (As AMENDED ON MOTION OF Mr. ClAY OF Kv.) 5. Resolved, That when the District of Columbia was ceded by the states of Virginia and Maryland to the United States, domestic slavery existed in both of those states, includ- ing the ceded territory ; and that as it still continues in both of them, it could not be abolished within the District without a viola- tion of that good faith which was implied in the cession, and in the acceptance of the terri- tory, nor, unless compensation were made for the slaves, without a manifest infringement of an amendment of the Constitution of the United States ; nor without exciting a degree of just alarm and apprehension in the states recognising slavery, far transcending, in mis- chievous tendency, any possible benefit which would be accomplished by the abolition. And, resolved, that any attempt of Congress to abolish slavery in any territory of the Uni- ted States in which it exists, would create se- rious alarm and just apprehension in the states sustaining that domestic institution, would be a violation of good faith towards the in- habitants of such territory who have been permitted to settle with and hold slaves, because the people of such territory have nob asked for the abolition of slavery therein, and because that, when any such territory shall ho admitted into the union as a state, the people thereof will be entitled to decide that ques- tion for themselves. Mr. Morris of Ohio moved to strike out the words " moral and religious" in the first re- solution, which motion was rejected by Yeas. — Messrs. Bayard, Buchanan. Clayton, Davis, McKean, Morris, Prentiss, Bobbins, Buggies, Smith of Ind., Southard. Swift, Tipton, and Webster.— 14. Nats. — Messrs. Allen, Black, Brown, Calhoun, Clay of Ala., Clay of Ky., Cuthbert. Fulton. Hubbard. King, Knight, Linn, Lumpkin, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Pierce, Preston, Rives, Roane. Robinson, Sevier, Smith of Conn., Strange, Walker, Wall, White, Williams, Wright, and Young.— 31. The first resolution was finally adopted 1 y yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Allen of 0.. Black of Miss., Brown of N. C, Buchanan of Pa.. Calhoun of S. C, Clay of Ala.. Clay of Ky., Cuthbert of Ga., Fulton of Ark.. Hubbard of N. II., King of Ala., Linn of Mo., Lumpkin of Ga., Lyon of Mich., McKean of Pa., Nicholas of La., Niles of Conn., Norvell of Mich., Pierce of N. H„ Preston of S. C, Rives and Roane of Va., Robinson of 111., Ruggles of Me., Sevier of Ark., Smith of Conn., Strange of N. C, Walker of Miss., White of Ind., Williams of Me., Wright of N. Y„ and Young of III.— 31. Nats.— Messrs. Bayard of Del., Clayton of Del., Davis of Mass., Knight of R. I., Morris of 0.. Prentiss of Vt, Robbine of R. I., Smith of Ind., Southard of N. J.. Swift of Vt., Tijk ton of Ind., Wall of N. J., and Webster of Mass.— 13. 102 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. All the senators wno voted for the first resolution voted for the second, except Messrs. McKean, Robinson and Ruggles. Messrs. Clayton and Spence, who did not vote for the first resolution; voted for-tho sec>n 1. The negative vote oL the second' resolution was as follows : — Messrs. Daves, V.f iris. r;rei>ti^, Smitd (ft lot.. Southard, Swift, Tipto'tt,J\V.Jl aftcC Wrljsti-i;.- '.!. - '- ' The vote on the adoption of the third reso- lution was as follows: — Yeas — Messrs. Allen, Benton. Black. Brown. Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of Ala., Cuthbert. Fulton, Hubbard. King, Linn, Lumpkin, Lyon, Merrick. Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Pierce, Preston, Bives. Roane, Robinson, Sevier. Smith of Conn., Strange, Walker, White, Williams, Wright, and Young.— 31. Nats. — Messrs. Bayard, Clayton, Davis. McKean, Morris. Prentiss, Rugbies, Smith of Iuc!., Swift, Tipton, and Webster. —11. The affirmative vote on the fourth resolution was the same as on the third, with the excep- tion of Messrs. Linn and Merrick, who did not vote on this, and with the addition of Messrs. Bayard, Clay of Ky., Clayton, Critten- den, and Grundy. The negative vote was as follows : — Messrs. McKean, Morris, Prentiss, Smith of Ind., and Swift.— 5. The affirmative vote on the final adoption of the fifth resolution, as amended by Mr. Clay, was the same as that on the fourth resolution, with the addition of Messrs. Talmadge and Tipton. The negative vote was as follows : — Messrs. Davis, Knight. McKean, Morris, Prentiss, Smith of Ind., Swift, and Webster.— 8. The vote in favor of the last resolution drawn up by Clay, was the same as that in favor of the fifth, with the exception of Messrs. Clayton and Talmadge, and the addition of Mr. Merrick. Nats.— Messrs. Clayton, Davis. Knight, McKean, Prentiss, Rohbins, Smith of Ind., Swift, and Webster. — 9. Extract from Calhoun's Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States. It is not an uncommon impression, that the government of the United States is a govern- ment based simply on population ; that num- bers are its only element, and a numerical majority its only controlling power. In brief, that it is an absolute democracy. No opinion can be more erroneous. So far from being true, it is, in all the aspects in which it can be regarded, pre-eminently a government of the concurrent majority ; with an organization more complex and refined, indeed, but far better calculated to express the sense of the whole, (in the only mode by which this can be fully and truly done — to wit, by ascertaining the sense of all its parts) than any government ever formed, ancient or modern. Instead of population, mere numbers beino- the sole ele- ment, the numerical majority is, strictly speak- ing, excluded, oven as one of its elements; as I shall proceed to establish, by an appeal t < > figures; beginning with the formation of the Constitution, regarded as the fundamental law which ordained and established the govern- ment ; and closing with the organization of the government itself, regarded as the agent or trustee to carry its powers into effect. I shall pass by the Annapolis convention, on whose application the convention which framed the Constitution was called ; because it was a partial and informal meeting of delegates from a few states ; and commence with the Congress of the Confederation, by whom it was authori- tatively called. That Congress derived its authority from the Articles of Confederation ; and these, from the unanimous agreement of all the states ; — and not from the numerical majority, either of the several states, or of their population. It voted, as has been stated, by- delegations ; each counting one. A majority of each delegation, with a few important ex- ceptions, decided the vote of its respective state. Each state, without regard to popula- tion, had thus an equal vote. The confederacy consisted of thirteen states ; and, of course, it was in the power of any seven of the smallest, as well as the largest, to defeat the call of the convention ; and, by consequence, the forma- tion of the Constitution. • But by the first census taken in 1790 — three years after the call — the population of the United States amounted to 3,394,563, estimated in federal numbers. Assuming this to have been the whole amount of its population at the time of the call, (which can cause no mate- rial error,) the population of the seven small- est states was 059,801 ; or less than one-third of the whole ; so that, less than one-third of the population could have defeated the call of the convention. The convention voted, in like manner, by states ; and it required the votes of a majority of the delegations present, to adopt the mea- sure. There were twelve states represented, — Rhode Island being absent ; — so that the votes of seven delegations were required ; and, of course, less than one-third of the population of the whole could have defeated the formation of the Constitution. The plan, when adopted by the convention, had again to be submitted to Congress, — and to receive its sanction, before it could be submitted to the several states for their approval, — a ne- cessary preliminary to its final reference to the conventions of the people of the several states for their ratification. It had thus, of course, to pass again the ordeal of Congress ; when the delegationsof seven of the smallest states, repre- senting less than one-third of the population, could again have defeated, by refusing to sub- mit it for their consideration. And, stronger still ; — when submitted, it required by an ex- press provision, the concurrence of nine of the thirteen, to establish it between the States rati- fying it ; which put it in the power of any four stages, the smallest as well as the largest, to reject it. The four smallest, to wit, Dela- ware, Rhode Island, Georgia and New Hamp- shire, contained, by the census of IT'.Ml, a fede- ral population of Only 336,948 : hut a little more than one-eleventh of the whole : but. as inconsiderable as was their population, they could have defeated it, by preventing its rati- CALHOUN, JOHN C— CARUTHERS, SAMUEL. 10b fication. It thus appears, that the numerical majority of the population had no agency what- ever in the process of forming and adopting the Constitution ; and that neither this, nor a majority of the states, constituted an element in its ratification and adoption. In the provision for its amendment, it pre- scribes, as has heen stated, two modes ; — one, by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress ; and the other, by a convention of delegates from the states, called by Congress, on the application of two-thirds of their respective legislatures. But, in neither case can the pro- posed amendment become a part of the Con- stitution, unless ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, or by conventions of the people of three-fourths, — as Congress may prescribe ; so that, in the one, it requires the consent of two-thirds of the states to pro- pose amendments, — and, in both cases, of three- fourths to adopt and ratify them, before they can become a part of the Constitution. As there are, at present, thirty states in the Union, it will take twenty to propose, and, of course, would require but eleven to defeat, a proposition to amend the Constitution ; or, nineteen votes in the Senate, — if it should origi- nate in Congress — and the votes of eleven legis- latures, if it should be to call a convention. By the census of 1840, the federal population of all the states, — inclining the three which were then territories, but which have since become states, — was 16,0.77,604. To this, add Texas, since admitted, say 110,000 ;— making the aggregate 16,187,601. Of this amount, the eleven smallest states (Vermont being the largest of the number) contained a federal population of but 1,638,521 ; and yet they can prevent the other nineteen states, with a federal population of 14,549,082, from even proposing amendments to the Constitu- tion : while the twenty smallest, (of which Maine is the largest), with a federal population of 3,526,811, can compel Congress to call a convention to propose amendments, against the united votes of the other ten, with a fede- ral population of 12,660,793. Thus, while less than one-eighth of the population may, in the one case, prevent the adoption of a propo- sition to amend the constitution, — less than one-fourth can, in the other, adopt it. But, striking as are these results, the pro- cess, when examined with reference to the rati- fication of proposals to amend, will present others still more so. Here the consent of three- fourths of the states ia required; which, with the present number, would make the concur- rence of twenty-three states necessary to give effect to the act of ratification ; and, of course, puts it in the power of any eight states to de- feat a proposal to amend. The federal popula- tion of the eight smallest is but 776,969; and yet, small as this is, they can prevent amendments, against the united votes of the other twenty-two, with a federal population of 15,410,635, or nearly twenty times their number. But while so small a portion of the entire popula- tion can prevent an amendment, twenty-three of the smallest states, with a federal nooulation of only 7,254,400 — can amend the Cbnstitu tion, against the united votes of the other seven, with a federal population of 8,933,204. So that a numerical minority of the population can amend the Constitution, against a decided numerical majority ; when, at the same time. one-nineteenth of the population can prevent the other eighteen-nineteenths from amending it. And more than this : any one state, Dela- ware for instance, with a federal population of only 77,043, — can prevent the other twenty- nine "states, with a federal population of 16,110,561, from so amending the Constitution as to deprive the states of an equality of repre- sentation in the Senate. To complete the picture : — sixteen of the smallest states, — that is, a majority of them with a population of only 3,411,672,— a little more than one-fifth of the whole, — can, in effect, destroy the government and dissolve the Union, by simply declining to appoint senators ; against the united voice of th<* other fourteen states, with a population of 12,775,932 ; — being but little less than four- fifths of the whole. These results, resting on calculations which exclude doubt, mcontestably prove, not only that the authority which formed, ratified, and even amended the Constitution, regulates en- tirely the numerical majority, as one of its elements, — but furnish additional and conclu- sive proof, if additional were needed, that our* is a federal government ; — a government made by the several states ; and that states, and not individuals, are its constituents. The states, throughout in forming, ratifying, and amend- ing the constitution, act as equals, without reference to population. California. Admission of. See Compromise Measures. Caruthers, Samuel, of Missouri. Extracts from Letter of. To my Constituents : I said then. ins of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, that- speak "I will riot pause long to dwell upon its party effect; for. in my judgment, the questions involved override all party considerations. It is true, this bill is presented to us as an administration measure. It is true that I am here as a Whig; but I am not here to give this administration a factious opposition. I am not here to oppose any measurs brought forward by it. merely because it is brought forward by it. I am here, uncommitted to a blind opposition or a blind support, to follow to the end the dictates of my own judgment and conscience, and the will of those who sent me. '• In this instance I believe the administration has taken high national ground : that it has planted itself upon a great American principle — the principle of self-government : i principle involved in none of our party issues; a princip's dearer thau any party considerations; a principle upon whii h all sound, national men of all parties may meet and stand, as upon ground alike cherished and alike dear. It was lh>a principle ingrafted in the compromises of lS.iO, that com- mended thein so warmly to the American heart: it was this principle which was ratified by both parties in their conven- tions at Baltimore, and it L for this principle I speak to-day. '• Sir, this is no war between the administration and \U opponents — no war between Whigs and Democrats as such . but. disguise it as you may. it is a war between free-soilism on the one hand, and the right of the people to self-govern- ment on the other." Upon these declarations I went into the can- vass. I was elected then, declaring that the 104 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. principles of the Kansas-Nebraska bill "were dearer than any party considerations" — " a principle upon which all good men of all parties might meet and stand, as upon ground alike cherished and alike dear;" that they "overrode all party considerations." Being thus elected, when I came to cast my first vote for Speaker, I found that neither the "South Americans," nor the Black Republicans, had laid down any platform — they were fighting shy, running with a margin. The Democrats had a platform, and it was this : — " Resolved. That the Democratic members of the House of Representatives, though in a temporary minority in this body, deem this a fit occasion to tender to their fellow-citi- zens of the whole Union their heart-felt congratulations on the triumph in the recent elections in several of the North- ern, Eastern, and Western, as well as Southern States, of the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and the doctrines of civil and religious liberty, which have been so violently assailed by a secret political order known as the Know No- thing party. And, though in a minority, we hold it to be our highest duty to preserve our organization, and continue our efforts in the maintenance and defence of those princi- ples, and the constitutional rights of every section and every elass of citizens, against their opponents of every descrip- tion, whether the so-called Republicans, Know-Nothings, or Fusionists ; and to this end we look with confidence to the support and approbation of all good and true men- friends of the Constitution and Union throughout the coun- try." It will be seen that there are only two planks in this platform. The one, in favor of the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska bill — the very principles upon which I was re-elect- ed — an d the other against the proscriptiveness of Know Nothingism. Bear in mind the fact, that, when I was elected, there were no Know Nothings in my district — that I was not one. And now, may I not ask, if there is a single honest and intelligent man in my district who believes that I have "abandoned the principles upon which I was elected ?" Or if, in view of these facts, there is any one, but an intentional calumniator, who will ever again assert it ? Again : It is said that I should have voted for Henry M. Fuller for Speaker — that he was a good enough pro-slavery man (for Kennett, Liudley, and Porter, voted for him) ; and, therefore, "some wise political teachers" argue that he is sound enough for me ! It is a suffi- cient answer to this argument, if argument it may be called, that Kennett, Lindley, and Porter, act upon their own judgments, under their own responsibilities. I act upon my judgment, under my responsibility. In a speech delivered by me, on the 9th day of January last, in the House, I took up the record of this Mr. Fuller, I showed that he had voted for Mr. Pennington, who had favor- ed a motion to suspend the rules of the House, to allow Mr. Elliott to introduce a bill to re- peal the fugitive slave law, and who had voted for both Mr. Campbell of Ohio, and Mr. Banks of Mass., for Speaker of the present Congress. I called attention to the fact that he had, in reply to a question put by Mr. Sage of N. Y., said that, "if the Missouri compromise can be restored, I would most certainly be in favor of its restoration; but, in view of the difficulties which surround that question, and must defeat your efforts, I say that I am opposed to tha agitation of that question." It was upon this declaration he stood when I made that speech. I give you the extract in his own words, to show that I did him no injustice. On the 17th day of Jan. he had occasion to define his position again ; and, in the mean time, his " back-bone" having been strengthened by the influence of some of his southern supporters, he was worked up to the point of declaring that " Congress has nc con- stitutional power either to legislate slavery into, or exclude it from, a territory." On one day, during the present session, he tells us " if the Missouri compromise line can be restored, he would most certainly be in favor of its restoration ; and on another day, during the same session, he tells us that the whole thing is unconstitutional! — that Con- gress has " no power to exclude slavery !" Still, if he could, he would restore this un- constitutional restriction ! I leave it to his admirers and supporters to reconcile and harmonize these declarations ; I freely admit my incapacity. But he gets further down South than I go — for he is a fast traveller when he does start. He says, " neither has the Territorial Legisla- ture, in my judgment, any right to legislate upon that subject, except so far as may be necessary to protect the citizens of the terri- tory in the enjoyment of their property." This is the extreme ground of the fire-eaters. I believe that, under the powers conferred by the organic act of Kansas and Nebraska, " to regulate their own domestic concerns," they may either establish or prohibit slavery, just as they think proper. Again : he says in his last speech, in answer to the interrogatory, whether he believed the Wilmot proviso constitutional ? — "I was not a member of the Congress of 1850, and have never been called on to either affirm or deny the constitu- tionality of the Wilmot proviso." * * * "My political existence commenced since that flood; and having never taken any public position, I am willing, in all frankness and candor, to do so now." . I will show you that his memory is as obli- vious as his sudden conversion is marvelous. This same Henry M. Fuller, on the 18th of August, 1849, wrote a letter to B. F. Saxton-- a letter from which the following are extracts : " You state in your letter, that the Frce-Soilers will hold a convention at Hyde-Parke, on the 30th inst. There is ft pretty strong probability that I will be in the field for Canal Commissioner, and it would certainly aid my prospects very materially to receive a nomination from your party."* * It is due to Mr. Fuller to publish the following, which he alleges to be a true copy of the letter of which the above purports to be an extract : — "Wilkesbarre, August 18, 1849. "My Dear Sir:— Your favor of 15th instant was duly received, add the matter of Mr. Hackley shall have imme- diate attention. I will write you fully in a few days. Let us have a little private talk on the subject of our State election. You state that a Freesoil convention will meet at Hyde Park on the 30th instaut, and that you will attend M a delegate. The Whig convention met at Ilarrisburg day before yesterday. We have received no intelligence yet, but will this evening or in the morning. My friends hero are confident of my nomination. I have really very little feeling on the subject. The office is not to my liking — still, it' Dominated, I shall desire an election. If your friends should persist in maintaining a distinct organization, anil CARUTHERS, SAMUEL. 105 lie had not then this holy horror of a " wild hunt after office" denounced by his brethren in Philadelphia. Oh, no ! It would " very materially aid his prospects" to get a nomina- tion from a regular free-soil convention ; and as it would aid those prospects, he wanted it ; and had good reasons to give why he should have it. Hear him : '•I am in favor of free soil, free speech, free labor, and five men; being a Wilmot Proviso man up to the hub, and utterly opposed to the extension of slavery." He was up to the hub in free-soil when he wanted a free-soil nomination; and I have never heard of his prizing out until he wanted the votes of sound national men for the speak- ership. He goes on : '■ The matter will require prudent management, and I know of no man who can accomplish it better than your- self. It would be bad policy to attempt it without a cer- tainty of success. Consult with our mutual friends, Hack- ley and Johnson, and write me soon. " Yours truly, Henry M. Fuller." Thus it appears, that on the 18th day of Aug., 1849, he was a " Wilmot proviso man up to the hub," and on the 17th day of Jan., 1856, he declares " that he never took any public position on the subject of slavery" — that his " political existence commenced since that flood !" I will comment no further on this letter ! Mr. Fuller became a candidate for canal commissioner, and, while a candidate, made speeches ; among others one in Allegheny city, reported in the Pittsburgh Gazette, then a Whig paper, and then supporting Mr. Fuller. In that speech, published at the time, and un- contradicted, Mr. Fuller says : " Let the people of the South talk as they please, slavery was a dark and damning stain upon their escutcheon." * * " Let us say to the proud waves of slavery, as they beat against the barriers of freedom, ' Thus far shalt thou go, and no further.' Let us give our lands free, in every sense of the word, to our citizens, and to the poor and oppressed of other nations." * * * " As lords of freedom, we bad a duty to perform to the South. Let us do it with a proper regard to our frieuds there, but let us insist on the earliest practical abolition of slavery."* make a separate nomination, as has been suggested, it will do injury. You say you are friendly, and desire to aid my election. I believe you are so, and would suggest therefore that you prevail upon your frieuds to make no nomination. How this is to be accomplished you will best understand — perhaps by resolution; consult with our mutual friends, Farnham and Hackley — they are both substantial, sensible men. and competent to advise in the matter. On the subject of Freesoil, I believe our people here and everywhere are in favor of free labor and free men. I certainly am opposed to extending slavery, and desire whatever can rightly be done to restrain or ameliorate it should be done. " It is an exciting question, calculated to produce much inflammation and extreme opinions. I would avoid undue excitement, but at the same time insist upon the rights and interests of my section, doing no injustice to any other. But enough of this — ours is a state canvass, and this question can hardly be considered an issue. If I should be nomi- nated by the Harrisburg convention, my chief desire in securiug the election will be. to obtain a popular endorse- ment of the measure I advocated in the legislature last winter, and about which we had so much trouble — the com- pletion of the North Branch Canal; its completion, in my judgment, will not only be of large benefit to us here, but very materially increase the State revenue. It is destined to do a large business. Its merits are not understood. I shall stump the state, probably, and talk to the people on that subject. " Let me hear from you soon. " Yours, respectfully, " H. M. Fuller." * Mr. Fuller, in his speech of May 10, 1856, thus alludes '.o the above extract: " [ come now to the nexl charge in the bill of indictment Ay, "the earliest practical abolition of sla- very." Look at it! For "free soil;" "op- posed to the extension of slavery ;" in favor of its "earliest practical abolition ;" intriguing for the nomination of a Free-Soil convention ; and in addition to all this, when the final vote for Speaker came — the last vote — the vote which "tried the souls of men," the vote which was to determine whether Banks, the political Abolitionist, the Black Republican, the North- ern Know Nothing, the " Union-sliding," the " absorption" Banks, should be elected Speaker of the American House of Representatives, or that accomplished gentleman and sound, na- tional, and conservative man, Governor "Wil- liam Aiken ; he, under the flimsy and miser- able pretext of having paired of with a man who was present, being present himself, dodged, and did not vote at all ! And now with his record fairly before you, elected upon the principles on which I was elected, I submit it to your candor, if I would not have exposed myself to the just scorn and contempt of every good man of my district, of any party, if I had voted for Henry M. Ful- ler? I voted for William A. Richardson of Illinois. I knew him. I had served with him in the last Congress. I knew him to be the very soul of honor. A man whose " word was as good as his bond ;" a man whose large heart could take all the Union into its affec- tions; a man who was all seamed with scars received in battles for the rights of the South ; a man who had been passed around by the Abolitionists (within black lines), in what they call their " roll of infamy," because of his gallant bearing in those battles ; a man who has stood unmoved while mad fanaticism poured its vials of wrath upon his head ; a man who breasted the storm in "its wildest ragings" after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill ; the man who bid them a proud and bold defi- ance ; the statesman who was our champion and leader through all the great struggle upon that bill ; the statesman who had counselled his friends in the North to " stand and brave the fire without flinching ;" the man who, full against me, which is, that on the 29th day of September, 1849, 1 made a speech in Allegheny City, in which I declared that it was the duty of Northern men "to insist on the earliest practical abolition of slavery.'' I deny the utter- ance of any such sentiment. The facts are these : I was then a candidate for canal commissioner, and did address a meeting in that city at the time stated. I remember it well. It was at night, in the market-house. There was a large crowd and much shunting. Some lovers of mischief sprung a sudden cry of "fire," which disturbed and came near breaking up the meeting. The good people, with that in- stinctive preservation of self and property natural to us all, began to separate ; the alarm, however, proved to be a false one. order was restored, and I proceeded to the end of my speech. There were no reporters present, nor any accom modation for them, so far as I saw. The following day, I remember to have seen what purported to have been a re- port of my speech, but in language and sentiment so much stronger than any I had uttered, that I really did not re- cognise it as my own production: and remarked, as I well remember, this fact to the publisher of one of the journals in which the report appeared. He informed me that it had been written out from memory, and not from notes taken at the meeting. If I know myself, I have never entertaiued or expressed any sentiment in favor of Northern interfer- ence to secure the abolition of slavery, and feel quite certain that 1 could not have uttered the sentiment attributed to me." 106 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of courage and patriotism, dares to do what- ever his large heart approves and his compre- hensive mind suggests ; and a man, too, who is of the West, western — who is of us and with us. I would not, I should not, I could not, I did not hesitate for a moment which to choose — tiiis man, or Henry M. Fuller. Was I not right? I had seen Judge Douglas of Illinois, after anxious deliberation, introduce that bill, and siake his political life upon the justice of its principles. I had seen the administration •• immit its fortunes to it ; I had seen the great body of the national Whigs in the Senate, in the House, in the country, come up to its sup- port ; I had seen the Democracy adopt it as an article in their creed of faith ; I had seen the people of my district, as almost one man, endorse the principles of that bill ; and was I to desert the gallant ship, with her tried and trusted crew, as she ploughed her majestic way,' unmoved by the storm and unshaken by the billows, to go out in a miserable yawl, under the command of such a " straggler" of a captain ; such a " latter-day saint" as this Henry M. Fuller? But, it is said that Mr. Fuller is a Know Nothing, and therefore I should have given him my vote. The contest for the Speaker- ship developed the fact that there are now three parties in the country. The Northern Know Nothing and Abolition party, fused under the name of Black Republican, the (so- called) " National American," and the Demo- cratic party. This Know Nothing party was born amidst the factitious excitement manu- factured by Abolitionists and disunionists out of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. It sprung at once, " like Minerva from the brain of Jove," full armed, and entered the political arena. In the morning of its exist- ence, it was full of promise. It declared that it would say to the angry waves, " peace — be still !" that it was the only broad, national, conservative party ; that its great, paramount mission was to save the Union, which was imperilled by agitation. Pielying upon these promises, confiding in these assurances, many good men everywhere — many in my district — went into this organization. I went twice (and but twice) into their councils. I " saw Sam." It took two visits to see him all over. I made them ; I saw enough, and determined to never look on his face again ! In dealing frankly with you, it is due that I should make this acknowledgment. I would not have the vote of an Anti-Know Nothing in my district without his knowledge that I had been in their councils; nor would I have the vote of a Know Nothing without his knowing that I am not of his order. I may prove wanting in ability to serve ; I shall never prove wanting in candor towards you. It has been the habit of my life to defend my course against all odds when I believe it is right, and to acknow- ledge my errors when I believe I have done wrong. I freely admit to you, that I ought never to have gone into a secret political society of auy kind whatever ; that they are wrong in principle, against the very geniun of our institutions, dangerous in practice, and should be avoided by all men,' of all parties. I objected then, and object now, to the whole machinery of its organization; I objected then, and I object now, to an indiscriminate proscription of naturalized citizens from ofE.ce ; I objected then, and object now, to anything that even looks like making a religious test. A Protestant by birth, a Protestant by educa- tion, by prejudice, by reason, by faith ; a Protestant in all (I regret to say except the practice), was a Catholic organization formed, to brand me as unworthy of public trust be- cause of my religious opinions, I would call upon every honest Catholic in the land to aid me in striking it down. As I would " have them do unto me, I will do unto them." The Catholic and Protestant have fought side by side on those battle-fields where our liber- ties were won ; and when " pestilence has stalked at noon-day" through our cities, leav- ing a track of desolation and death, we have seen the Protestant and Catholic ministry again laboring side by side to stay its awful ravages ; to administer balm to the sick, con- solation to the dying, and decent interment to the dead ! If we kneel not at the same altars, under the same forms, we worship the same God ; we are pointed to the same account- ability for sin, and to the same Heaven as a reward for piety ! Why should not we leave controverted points of theology to the ministry of the churches ? Why should not we laymen go on — as we should go on — in brotherly love and confidence? As I have opposed the dragging of politics up into the pulpit, I oppose drawing religion down into politics. All thinking men agree that the only real danger to our institutions arises from making the subject of slavery a sectional question. May I not respectfully ask the Protestant mi- nistry of the South to pause and reflect, that if they bring the doings of churches into political discussion, they might injure Protestantism ? May not the Catholic turn upon you with the fact, that of three thousand preachers who denounced the judgments of God upon our devoted heads who voted for the Kansas- Nebraska bill, there was not upon the paper the name of a single Catholic minister ? May he not show that none of his clergymen are in the Halls of Congress, while we have twenty odd preachers? May he not show that he has never refused to take the "holy communion" with a slaveholder; that his church in the North are not stirring the waters of sectional strife ; that they never do, and never have, in- terfered with the delicate question of slavery ? and by showing these things, drawing these contrasts, may they not commend their church to the South, and weaken yours ? These are questions for you to consider. It is but just- to a large and respectable Protestant deno- mination — I allude to the regular old Baptists — to say that they have never, anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances, either North or South uterfered in political affaira. CARUTHEES, SAMUEL. 107 Why should Protestants agitate this sub- ject? Why should they endeavor to build up a political party upon a subject on which they can have no political action ? You are forbidden to act by the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution says, that | •■ Congress shall make no law respecting the j establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Take this case : Sup- j pose a President, having sworn in Know i Nothing councils that, he will appoint no Ro- man Catholic to office, is elected. He takes an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution says, that " no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Suppose, then, a man is presented for office : does he not have to inquire, under his first oath, if the man is a Catholic? If he is, then he must refuse him on that account. If he does so refuse him, he violates his last oath, because he then swore he would make " no religious test." Is comment necessary ? But I have been asked if I would vote for a who owes temporal allegiance to a man foreign power ? I answer, no. I would not vote for any man, of any religion, for any office, who is bound by such an allegiance. As to a spiritual allegiance, my_ under- standing is that we all owe that allegiance to a Power whose Throne is outside of the United States — to God, in Heaven S But in all these views, perhaps, no Catho- Ee or Protestant disagrees with me, and I will not elaborate them further. I stated to you, that the great reason for my having ever gone into a council was, I was assured that the preservation of the Union was the " rock on which they_ built their church" — that men who joined in the North, as well as the South, made a "burnt offering" of their prejudices, and joined with hands locked in hands in a living chain around the Constitution, in a common brother- hood, and in a common defence. I was told, too, that I could withdraw if I was not pleased. I ask every Know Nothing who reads this, if such was not his understanding of the ob- jects of the American order? Then I ask them to lay aside their partialities and preju- dices, and, thinkingly, as patriots, to look back at its history. It met in convention at Philadelphia in June last — it laid down a platform — it put forth the celebrated twelfth section. Here it is : — "Resolved, That the American party, haying risen upon the ruins, and in spite of the opposition, of the Whig and Democratic parties, cannot be held in any manner responsi- ble for the obnoxious acts or -violated pledges of either ; that the systematic agitation of the slavery question by those parties has elevated sectional hostility into a positive ele- ment of political power, and brought our institutions into peril; it has. therefore, become the imperative duty of the American party to interpose for the purpose of giving peace to the country and perpetuity to the Union; that, as expe- rience has shown it impossible to reconcile opinions so extreme as those that separate the disputants, and as there can be no dishonor in submitting to the laws, the National Council has deemed it the best guarantee of com- mon justice and future peace to abide by and maintain the existing laws upon the subject of slavery a. < a final and con- clusive settlement of that subject iu spirit and in sub- stance. ''And regarding it the highest duty to avow their opi- nions upon a subject so important in distinct and unequivo- cal terms, it is hereby declared, as the sense of this National Council, that Congress possesses no power, under the Con- stitution, to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the states where it does or may exist, or to exclude any state from admission into the Union, because its constitution does or does not recognise the institution of slavery as a part of its social system; and expressly pretermitting anj expression of opinion upon the power of Congress toes tab lish or prohibit slavery in any territory, it is the sense of the National Council that Congress ought not to legislate upon the subject of slavery within the territories of the United States, and that any interference by Congress with slavery as it exists in the District of Columbia, would be a violation of the spirit and intention ofthe compact by which the state of Maryland ceded the District to the United States, and a breach of the national faith." There is a platform on the subject of sla- very (with the exception of a little pretermit- ting) sound-^-one upon which the South could stand. They were conservative and just ; but what did the northern and the largest portion of this so eminently national party do ? They repudiated this section ; they spit upon it ; They met together in their state councils, and there these conservative Union-savers were not satisfied with a simple repudiation of this twelfth section, but go on to announce doc- trines as the doctrines of the party, which, if carried out, lead, in the strong language of Mr. Clay (when speaking of refusing to ad- mit a state because of a constitution tolerating slavery), "to a dissolution of the Union through a bloody and perilous road." I give you a resolution passed by a Know Nothing convention at Cincinnati in Novem- ber last, composed of delegates from seven of the Northern and Northwestern States. They declare — "That the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was an infraction of the plighted faith of the nation, and that it should be restored ; and if efforts to that eud should fail. Congress should refuse to admit into the Union any state tolerating slavery which shall be formed out of any portion of the territory from which that institution was excluded by that compromise." Yes, they will not admit Kansas if she ap- plies for admission as a slave state ; thus, according to the language of Mr. Clay, and thus, as every intelligent man knows, leading to the " dissolution of the Union by a bloody road." You see by this resolution how the Know Nothings in the Northwestern States stand. I will show you how they stand in the Middle States. In the legislature of Penn- sylvania, the Know Nothings and the Black Republicans, true to their instincts and actions, fused, and they declared, on the 12th day of January, 185G, in the following form, to wit : "Resolved, That we are opposed to the admission of auy more slave states into this Union ; therefore, •• Kesolved, That Kansas and Nebraska should only be admitted into the sisterhood as free states." "Opposed to the admission of any more slave states into this Union :" the rankest and the most damnable Free-Soilism, as well as the most direct road to dissolution ! In New York — in the Empire State — the state which owes its greatness to the commerce of the Union as it is — in that state so bound to us and so dependent upon us by commercial 108 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOR. lies, the Know Nothings met there in state convention, at Binghamton, and they, too, join in the swelling chorus of abolitionism, and resolve as follows : — "Resolved, That the National Administration, by its ge- neral couise of official conduct, together with an attempt to destroy the repose, harmony, and fraternal relations ot the country in the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the encouragement of aggressions upon the government of the territorial inhabitants of Kansas, deserves and should re- ceive, the united condemnation of the American people, and that the institution of slavery should receive no exten- sion from such repeal." The meaning of which is, that Kansas, if applying as a slave state, should be rejected. This is the platform upon which they went into their last fight ! This is the platform upon which they gained their victory ? A victory which has been so much rejoiced over! A victory which would lead to a dissolution of the Union t Thus stand the Know Nothings of New York ! Let us go to the Northeastern — the New England states.. Maine, Connec- ticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, all de- clare that — "Whereas the aggressive policy which has been uniformly pursued by the slave power, from the commencement of our national existence down to the abrogation of the Mis- souri compact, evinces a determination • to crush out' the spirit as well as the forms of liberty from among us. and to subject the free states to a relentless despotism ; and whereas the success of the Southern delegates to the National Coun- cil recently held in Philadelphia, in making abject and uncomplaining submission to pro-slavery legislation a fun- damental article in the creed of the National American par- ty, renders it imperative on us to express our views upon the great question of the country and the age: Therefore, we declare " That the great barrier to slavery, ruthlessly broken by the repeal of the Missouri prohibition, ought to be speedily restored; and that, in any event, no -state erected from any part of the territory covered by that compromise ought ever to be admitted into the Union as a slave state." Though I have them at hand, I will not weary and disgust you with any more of these Northern Know Nothing platforms. I have taken the northwest, the centre, and the northeast. I have shown you, so that no honest man will ever deny it who reads these platforms, that they have gone, utterly gone, into practical abolitionism ; that no represen- tative — no man who values the rights of the South — can act with them. Do you want more proof? I refer you to the record of the present Congress. I assert to you that three-fourths of the men who elected Banks were Know Nothings. I assert to you that not a single northern member of that party voted for Governor Aiken for Speaker! That after all their "loud-mouthed" professions of nationality, Fuller dodged ; his precious little band of six threw away then- votes upon their immortal leader, and thus allowed Banks, who was only elected by three votes — who would sink the Union — who would " absorb with the negroes" — who has not yet determined whether he is better than a negro or not — yes, these northern Know Nothings threw away their votes, and allowed this man Banks to be elected Speaker ! Will any man of common decency — will any man in Missouri, of ordinary self-respect, ever again abuse me for not having acted with the northern Fuller party ? Instead of getting national .Know Nothings from the North for our national man (Gover- nor Aiken), we really lost two " South Ameri- cans" — Mr. Cullen, of Delaware, and Mr. Henry Winter Davis, from Maryland ! So you will see that, instead of the tendencies of the American order being to liberalize the North, its practical operation is to free-soilize the South ! Do you want more proof? I will give it. The Know Nothing convention, held at Phila- delphia on the 22d of February, 1856, (the birthday of Washington — what a desecra- tion !) repudiate and abolish this twelfth sec- tion, on a separate and distinct vote, and by an overwhelming majority ; and in its stead place a plank which means all things to all men, and of which a member of the conven- tion, from Indiana, and a supporter of it (Mr. Sheets), said in that convention — li He would assure the South that the twelfth section must be got rid of. He was willing to accept a compromise, but the section must be got rid of: be was willing to accept the Washington platform; for. if there was anything in it, it was so covered up with verbiage that a President would be elected before the people would find out what it was all about. [Tumultuous laughter.]" Yes, this infamous sentiment, instead of being received with patriotic indignation, was received with " tumultuous laughter !" and the " Washington platform," presented by one Parson French S. Evans — the defeated Black Republican candidate for Sergeant-at-Arms of the present House — was adopted by that con- vention ! Do you want more proof? I think every intelligent, honest man in my district, who is not an aspirant for office, will exclaim — " Hold, enough !" But for the benefit of the Know Nothing aspirants for my place in the district, I will give two more facts. That the northern portion of that convention telegraph to the Black Republican Pittsburgh convention, sit- ting at the same time, that the — " American party is no longer united. Raise the Repub- lican bauner. Let there be no further exteusion of slavery. The Americans are with you." And the still further significant fact, that after the express repudiation of the twelfth section, they denounce in their platform the repeal of the Missouri compromise line. And now — I do not ask the aspirants for my place — I do not ask those who want to go as Know Nothings to the legislature — those who want to be sheriffs, county judges, squires, or constables, &c. — but I ask the true men of my district — the real people, where I have always found my friends — the men who have no object but the good of their country at heart, to do as I have done — abandon this organization ! — if it has not failed — utterly, completely, entirely failed, as a sound, na- tional, conservative party ? — if every intelli- gent man does not know that it lias so failed? and if every honest man will not acknowledge the fact ? As to the great catch-words, " Americans shall rule America I" — I am in favor of Amer- CARUTIIERS, SAMUEL. 109 leans ruling America. They do, they always have, and they always will rule America. But who are Americans? Your laws declare that, when a man has been here five years — when he will, under oath, renounce all allegi- ance to any foreign prince, potentate, or power — when he will prove that he is of good moral character — attached to the institutions of the United States — he may be declared an American, and your law makes him a citizen. It is a fraud upon him, if you do not give him all the rights of citizenship! Think of it ! The poor old Pope of Eome, unable even to defend his life — to protect him- self — has his throne supported and upheld by French bayonets ! We have twelve native to one foreign vote in the United States ! Why should we fear the Pope ? And cannot twelve Americans manage one Irishman ? In the Congress of the United States there is but one foreigner ! In the last legislature of our state — elected, as the members were, before the Know Nothing flood — there was but one ; and he was a leading — I might say, without being invidious, the leading member of the Senate ! I allude to Colonel C. Zeigler, who came, or was brought to this country when an infant eighteen months old ! He is one of the first intellects of our state, or any state. He has been my political friend — my personal friend — my supporter in every aspiration. I submit it to you, if there is not something radically wrong in an organization which would prohibit me from voting for him, merely because he was born outside of the United States, though brought here when a mere child ! I have used his name without his authority. I know he will pardon me, when he sees that I have only used it to illustrate more strongly to our people, than I could by a hundred argu- ments, the absurdity of this indiscriminate proscription of foreign-born men from office. If the despotisms of the Old World should ever attempt to destroy our government by sending their population here, I will not, as your representative, pause to talk or argue about our naturalization laws. I shall speak and vote for prohibiting any foreigner from treading his foot upon our soil ! I shall strike at the root — not waste my time and energies in lopping off the branches. I have always understood that three grand leading ideas run through our institutions, giving them all of their vitality, their beauty, and their power. First, that the people are capable of self-government. This is the doc- trine of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Second, that we had made an asylum to which the op- pressed of every land might come as a refuge ; that here they might worship as equals at the altar of our liberty ; that here they might lift up their hearts to their God, according to the dictates of their consciences, and there should be none to molest them. Third, that there should be no aristocracy of birth. I have re- garded, and do regard, these as the peculiar pride and boast of my country. I regard them which the whole magnificent structure of our government rests. I will not, by -any action of mine, deface or mar these pillars. I have been often asked if I am not in favor of reorganizing the Whig party? I answer that, in the present condition of parties and the country, in my judgment, such an effort can do no good, and might do great harm. I say to you, that we have no sound ma- terial North out of which to reconstruct that party. Look back at the past. Every Whig Representative from the North, in 184'.», voted for the Wilmot proviso. But three of them out of seventy-three voted for the fugitive slave law — that law which does but common justice to the South, and which is commanded by the Constitution itself! Not one Whig north of Mason and Dixon's line voted for the Kansas-Nebraska bill of 1854! On all these measures a majority of the Northern Democrats voted with the South. Have we, then, not reached that point, in the North, presupposed by Mr. Clay when he said, "If the Whig party ever becomes merged into a contemptible Abolition party, I will abandon it in disgust V and should not we, his old fol- lowers, take his implied counsel and his pro- posed example, when he says, "I will act with that party, whatever its name may be, that stands by the Constitution and the Union?" To endeavor now to reorganize the Whig party, would be but to divide and distract the sound national men of the South. Where have we an ally in the North, out- side of the Democratic organization ? These allies have been true to us in the past. With a patriotic devotion to the union of the states. and a patriotic regard to the constitutional rights of the South, they have bared their bosoms to the ragings of the storm — they have stood unmoved, while malignity and fanati- cism have poured their fiery torrents upon them. I take them to my heart as political brothers, and wear and cherish them there. How stands the Democratic party ? I have given you the resolution of the present mem- bers of Congress. Listen to Ohio ! Steeped as she has been in Free-Soilism ; in state convention assem- bled, with the boldness of right — with the candor of manhood, they declare, on the 8th day of January last, as follows : — "1. Resolved, That slavery (being the creature of positive law, cannot exist without it) is a domestic institution, and that Congress has neither the power to legislate it into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, hut to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." "2. Resolved, That the right of the people of each par- ticular state and territory to establish their own constitu- tion or form of government, to choose and regulate their own domestic institutions of every kind, and to legislate for themselves, is a fundamental principle of all free govern- ment ; and that it is the self-same right to secure whkh our ancestors waged the war of the Revolution — a right lying at the very foundation of all our free institutions, recognised iu the Declaration of Independence, and established by the Constitution of the United States; and we hereby endorse and reaffirm this now disputed principle." Contrast this with the resolves of the Know as the three grand and massive pillars upon I Nothing convention at Cincinnati. 110 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Listen to Indiana, as she, too, speaks in her Democratic state convention. She says : " Resolved, That we approve the principles of the com- promise measures of 1850, and their application, as embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and will faithfully maintain them." Hear the Democracy of New York, as they, too, in convention declare : '• Resolved, That the determination of Congress, avowed in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, to reject from the national councils the subject of slavery in the territories, and to leave the people thereof free to regulate their domestic in- stitutions in their own way. subject only to the Constitution of the United States, is one that accords with the sentiments of the Democracy of the state, and with the traditional course of legislation by Congress, which, under Democratic auspices, has gradually, in successive territorial bills, ex- tended the domain of popular rights and limited the range of Congressional action ; and that we believe this disposition of the question will result most auspiciously to the peace of Union and the cause of good government." All, everywhere, from Maine to Texas, speak the same language, declare the same principles, and rally under the same flag ! Is not this party national ? Contrast these re- solves with the fact, that the Know Nothing party, but two years old, has managed, even in that short, time, to be in favor of secrecy against secrecy, in favor of test oaths against test oaths — in some states for the Catholic test, in others against the Catholic test — on one side of the Union for the twelfth section, on the other side against the twelfth section ; and in their late convention, at one time the Southern chivalry bolt, at another the North- ern Free-Soilers bolt, — and tell me if you can support such a party, even though Millard Fillmore is its candidate for the presidency ! As to the Black Republican party, it now has the Speaker of the House of Representa- tives. Encouraged by past successes, it has become insolently bold, and grasps with an eager hand for the reins of government. If it succeeds, if it elects a president, and gets possession of both Houses of Congress, it will carry out its infamous circle of measures : the repeal of the fugitive slave law, the abolish- ment of slavery in the District of Columbia, interdict the inter-slave trade between the states, restore the Missouri restriction, and refuse to admit any more slave states ! AVlio is it that does not know the Union would not survive an hour ? Our danger is not from the Pope, not from foreigners, but is from the Abolitionists. What, then, is our first solemn, patriotic duty ? It is that we should band to- gether as one man. It is that we should each bring his former prejudices and lay them down upon the altar of our country — that we should leave the past to " bury its own dead," and look to and fight alone for the preserva- tion of the Constitution and the Union ! I have seen the Democracy come down from the North and up from the South, and gather- ing in solid column around the Constitution, declare that the rights of the South, the just equality of the states, the capacity of man for self-government, are their bonds of brother- hood ; that they will protect that Constitution against all the assaults of all the isms in the land. While they continue to occupy this proud position, I am with them and of them ! Under God, I believe that the Democratic is the only political organization with which we can beat back this Abolition horde from the capitol. While I thus believe, I shall con- tinue to act with them ; and when the fight is done, when the victory is achieved, when our gallant old ship is again afloat in the sun- shine and upon quiet seas, I shall turn round to my Democratic brethren, and, if I have any unadjusted quarrels, I will settle them then. And now, fellow-citizens, I submit if I have not redeemed my pledge, that I would set myself fairly, fully, frankly before you. I trust that my position will meet with your ap- proval. If it should not, I have only to say that it has been taken after due deliberation — taken under a solemn sense of duty to you and the country. My opinions are my honest convictions, and if disapproved, I can retire from office. I cannot yield those convictions. I throw myself upon a generosity and kind- ness which took me by the hand when all ob- scure and unknown, and lifted me up to a seat in the Congress of the United States, and which, when slandered and abused in my last canvass, during my absence, sustained me with an emphatic endorsement. I submit it fearlessly, confidently to you, whether I shall return to my home under the frown of your condemnation, or whether I will again be greeted with that plaudit ever so dear to a public man, " AVell done, thou good and faith- ful servant !" In any event, I am truly yours, Samuel Carutders. House of Representatives, Washington, February 28, 185G. Clarke, Bayard, of fi. Y. Extract from Speech of, delivered in House of Representatives, July 24, 1850. It has been a popular idea, not only in our own country, but in Europe also, among those who appreciate and admire our institutions, that this republic was designed by Providence to extend the area of human freedom. But this, according io the interpretation of the slavery-propagandists, is an entire mistake, a false reading of the commission given us by the Power which planted and which sustains us here. These new interpreters of our duty have discovered that the r^nublic, estal dished by our fathers at such a cost of treasure and of blood, was established for the purpose of extending the area of human bondage. There appears to me something so impious in thin assumption, that it might make good men weep, were not the manner in which it has been practically illustrated so well calculated to excite resentful and indignant emotions in the meekest bosom. They began it as a trick ; it has already turned to a tragedy ; but we. sir, will endeavor to wind it up with a poetic and historic; justice to the principal actors in the drama. CLARKE, BAYARD. Ill I speak as a member of the great American party — a party which has accomplished what no other party ever did. Within a few short months, not years, after its establishment, it traversed this whole Union, and defeated its enemies at the ballot- box, so silently, so certainly, so overwhelm- ingly, that faction stood aghast at such a reve- lation of undreamed of power. No matter what combinations were arrayed in opposition — no matter what intrigues were entered into to arrest its progress — no matter what anathemas were hurled against its friends — the result was still the same. With the Constitution in one hand and the Protest- ant principle in the other, it went forth to arouse our slumbering nationality, and in the name of civil and religious liberty, conquering and to conquer. It has rebuked the spirit of nullification so rampant at the South, and of political sycophancy at the North, so potent as an instrument of demagogueism ; whether it seeks to barter our civil rights to propitiate the slave-power, or our religious rights to pur- chase the alliance of a despotic hierarchy, which never serves another except to attain its own ends, and is no less the foe of repub- licanism than of religious liberty. I propose to offer a few remarks upon the principles, progress, and purposes of this American party, as I understand them. I presume, sir, no apology can be necessary, in this chamber, for saying, I am an American. I have none to offer, for it is my pride and boast. I was born here, as were my ancestors for several generations before me. Nor shall I offer an apology for that other boast which I shall make, however presumptuous it may seem. I am also a Protestant, receiving my faith from God's holy word, instead of resort- ing for it to the traditions of priestcraft and Popery, which would hide that fountain of pure inspiration from the people. And being both an American and a Protestant, my devo- tion to freedom, civil and religious, in every pure form, will not, perhaps, be regarded as a matter for wonder ; nor will my resistance to pragmatical dogmas, whether issuing from the Vatican or from the plantation, be regarded with astonishment. In the presence of those great memories which cluster round the names of Washington and LaFayette, whose portraits look down upon us in this hall, as their spirits may be presumed to do from above, I am again proud to proclaim myself an American ! They fought for American liberty ; and I trust that I, too, am willing to labor, and. if it need be, to die in the same holy cause. The American party, sir, sprang from the exigencies of the times. Foreignism and demagogueism, in unholy alliance, were fast corrupting all the channels of government ; making innovations upon our established po- licy, and striking at the very foundation of our most sacred institutions. I need scarcely tell you, sir, what was our experience in New York, the great Empire State of the Union. There the tenure of property was sought to be changed ; the principles of the statute of mortmain, enacted more than three hundred years ago, by our English ancestors, to curb the inordinate power and aggressive policy of priestcraft, were to be violated, and the whole vast property of the Roman Catholic Church, in that state, was to be invested in the bishop of the diocese and his successor in office for ever, as a corporation sole ! It needs no com- mentary to exhibit the enormity of this pro- ject, while its boldness must challenge the amazement of the most apathetic. The Jesuit mind, ever alive to schemes for the temporal aggrandizement of Home, had seized eagerly the occasion to obtain a strong foothold in America, and so well had it played the balance of power, which through, the foreign Catholic vote it undoubtedly held, and so cor- rupt had party politics grown, that this infa- mous act was well nigh becoming a law of the state. Nor was this the beginning of aggression. The history of the Catholic priests' war upon the Bible, in our public schools, is well known, and affords a striking instance of the daring and determined character of that priesthood. Nor yet was this all ; political societies of foreigners were multiplying all over the land, with the avowed object of con- trolling local, state, and even general elec- tions, and of thus impressing upon our legis- lation a policy foreign to our institutions, and detrimental to the continued peace and pros- perity of the nation. Bound by no ties of af- fection and traditionary veneration for the government, acknowledging no principle, save that of self-interest, or the scarcely broad- er interest of clanship, ready for the shambles whenever the purchase-money was counted down, they exhibited, indeed, a frightful ele- ment of political corruption. Scarcely ap- preciating, if at all, the change from despotism to republicanism, without any true apprehen- sion of the responsibilities of citizenship, their best idea of law, the absence of restraint, they exhibited a natural inclination to disregard all regulations which curtailed any coveted privilege. They had been flattered by base demagogues to believe that they were better citizens than the natives themselves, citizens by choice and not by the accident of birth ; and hence it is not to be wondered at, that they paid little regard to the sanctity of the ballot box and perpetrated the most gross and daring frauds. And at this time where were the American people — the children of the soil ? Absorbed in selfish party schemes, they had no time to spare even for the contemplation, much less for the reformation, of these crying abuses. Nay, the very evil which threatened to shake the foundations of our government was, upon occasions, to them a boon ; and often in the closely contested election, the mercenary foreign cohort was brought over to decide the issue. Unmindful of the teachings of history, they never seemed to contemplate the danger which threatened at last to whelm their fac- tions beneath the despotic rule of these un- natural allies. 112 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Well, sir, such -was the melancholy state of affairs, at least within the purview of my politi- cal horizon. Catholic priests and foreigners held the balance of power, and demagogues pan- dered shamelessly to their demands. The word "American," had almost become a term of con- tempt, and the insolence of the foreigner would have been unendurable, but that a little native spirit and a little native muscle, which was apt to contract and expand suddenly on occasions, were yet left. This condition of affairs was indeed one over which patriotism might justly mourn ; but it was also one for patriotism to reform ; and this idea of the necessity for re- form seems to have occurred spontaneously, and almost simultaneous, over the whole Union. In New York, the order of " United Ameri- cans," though but few in numbers, put forth their energies, and by the force of strong re- monstrance and eloquent denunciation, de- feated the bishop's property bill. Very soon the arrogant tones of the foreign and Catholic organs drove men together to consult and act. They met at such times and in such places as their judgment approved — say at night and in secrecy, if you please — I scorn puerile denun- ciation ; their numbers increased, their plans were matured, and soon the nation, from Maine to California, was startled by a series of un- looked for political results, which developed the strange fact that there was an American people. Such, sir, was the birth of the American party — its progress, so far, is before us ; but I protest that its history shall not be written until calm deliberation shall have restored harmony to its councils, and effected once more order and unity in its purposes and action — till opportunity shall have been afforded to de- velope and perfect its policy. I have said, sir, that I am a Protestant ; I love the word, for it is significant of all that contributes to the ele- vation, the progress, and the freedom of our race. Martin Luther, from whose cell burst the fires of the Reformation which have filled the world with light, was a Protestant ; John Hampden, the compeer of Milton, as illustri- ous as he for his bold advocacy of the rights of man, was also a Protestant — not only against the despotic sway of the Roman hierarchy, but against kingly misrule no less. Indeed, as Luther illustrated the religious, so Hampden illustrated the political phase of Protestantism, for the latter is an inevitable sequence of the former. The liberty of conscience, the rights of individuality, which Protestantism affirms, antagonize no less with civil than they do with ecclesiastical despotism. No demonstration of history has been wrought out more clearly than this, that where the conscience is enslaved by the priest, the civil rights of the subject are abridged by the despot ; and, on the other hand, where the conscience is free in matters of religion, political freedom prevails. In other words, Protestantism results in civil enfran- chisement ; Jesuitism, on the contrary, affili- ates with, and tends to political despotism. As in the empires of the old world Jesuitism allies itself with kingcraft, so in the new it strikes hands with slavery. In either case the law of affinity vindicates its authority — the alli- ance is natural. That is but a bastard Pro- testantism which fraternizes with any form of despotism, civil or ecclesiastical. Some have wondered thatacertain classof our naturalized citizens should be found sustaining the Cin- cinnati platform, and the Presidential candi- date who has merged his individuality in that platform, while another class sustain the plat- form of freedom in opposition to the aggres- sions of slavery. But to me there is no mys- tery in all this. It only illustrates the natural affinity of Jesuitism with slavery. That part of our foreign-born population who support Mr. Buchanan are, with rare exceptions, the subjects of the Roman hierarchy, and conse- quently friendly to the despotic principle, of which slavery is a logical necessity. On the contrary, the foreign-born voters who oppose the extension of slavery, with the platform and candidate of the Cincinnati convention, are generally a more intelligent class of citizens, owing no allegiance to Rome, and disdaining all alliance with the slave power, which de- grades labor and despises the laborer. The former are Catholics ; the latter Protestants. Of course there are exceptions in both cases, but this classification will be found generally correct, and the explanation of the fact will also be found in the natural affinity of one de- spotic system with another. Said I not rightly that Protestantism is significant of all that contributes to the elevation, the progress, and freedom of our race ? As a Protestant I can do no less, then, than oppose the aggressions of the slave-power ; and when I find Jesuitism allying itself with that power, and striving to secure the success of its platform and its can- didate, I cannot fail to remark, that consis- tency demands from all who love the Protestant principle, opposition to the usurpations of slavery, no less than relentless hostility to the aggressions of Popery. They are twin demons ; and, God helping me, I am resolved, within the limits of constitutional action, to give no quarter to either. Clayton Compromise. Mr. Clayton, in a speech in the Senate, on the 1st of March, 1854, thus gave a his- tory of the measure which bore his name. In 1848, shortly after the acquisition of California and New Mexico, * * * a debate raged in the Senate until the 12th July, * * * when I came forward and proposed to my brother Senators to arrest the debate, and to appoint a committee of eight members — four from the North, and four from the South ; two Whigs from the North, two Democrats from the North ; two Democrats from the South, and two Whigs from the South — to take into consideration the measures then proposed for the organization of territorial governments in Oregon, California, and New Mexico. The motion was adopted, and the CLAYTON COMPROMISE. 113 debate in the Senate was arrested. On the next day the Senate proceeded to appoint the committee by ballot. They did me the honor to select me as its chairman, and also elected as members of the committee with me, Mr. Calhoun ; the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bright) ; Mr. Clark of Rhode Island ; the present President of the Senate (Mr. Atchi- son) ; my friend from Vermont (Mr. Phelps) ; Mr. Dickinson of New York, and Mr. Under- wood of Kentucky. The committee immediately entered actively upon the discharge of its duty. Both northern and southern men expressed a desire for the success of this effort to settle the controversy, and no more angry words passed until the committee reported. Now, sir, I am compelled, injustice to both sections of the Union, to relate in your pre- sence, you having been a member of the com- mittee, and knowing the truth of the facts which I am about to state, what occurred in that committee. As soon as we assembled, a proposition was made by a member from the South to extend the Missouri compromise line to the Pacific. You, sir, remember it well. The vote upon it stood four northern members against it, and four southern mem- bers for it. The proposition was renewed in every form in which we could conceive it would be proper; but our northern friends rejected it as often as it was proposed. We discussed it ; we entreated them to adopt it. We did not pretend that it was a constitu- tional measure, but it had been held by many as a compact between the North and the South, and in such an emergency as that then existing, it had been justified by the people as a measure of peace. We argued the question to show our northern friends the justice, not the constitutionality, of extending such a line to the Pacific. I remember well that I obtained a statement from the Land Office which showed the effect of it ; and I thought it ought to satisfy northern gentle- men. From that statement it appeared that if the line were extended to the Pacific, the free labor of the North would have the exclu- sive occupation of one million six hundred thousand square miles of land in the territo- ries outside of the states, and the South but two hundred and sixty-two thousand, in which, observe, slavery could only be tole- rated in case the people residing there should allow it. The debates which followed the re- port of the committee fully sustain all these statements of mine. Among other things I said in a speech, delivered in the Senate, after the report, on the 3d of August, 1848, which will be found on page 1207 of the Ap- pendix to the Congressional Globe for that session : — " I am bound to state, and T will now do it in the presence. »f all the members of tfie committee, northern as well as southern, that in that committee the South proposed the Missouri compromise in spirit and effect; that all the terri- tory north of 36° 30' should be free, and all south of it *pen to slavery, if the people there should will it." Again, I stated at the same time : — 8 " The proposal of the South to run the line of 36° 30' to the Pacific would have made one million six hundred thou- sand square miles of the territory, lying beyond the states, on both sides the Rocky Mountains, free from slavery for ever, and would have left for African slavery south of 36° 30', parts of California and New Mexico, containing only about two hundred and seventy thousand square miles Oi the most worthless part of the whole country — iu other words less than one-sixth iu area, and less than one- twentieth in value of all the territory acquired by theo m- mon blood and treasure. The gentlemen of the committie from the North having voted down this proposal made by a southern member, there was indeed, as the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] has described it, a solemn pause in that committee. All hope of amicable settlement for the moment vanished, and unnatural contention seemed likely to prevail among us. It was then proposed to try the last resort— the court established by the Constitution to settle all judicial questions — to rest the present hopes of settlement on this as the ark of our safety. Two-thirds of the committee joyously concurred in the proposition." We came into the Senate with three-fourths of the committee decidedly in favor of this last proposition, and one-fourth hesitating, but not fixed against us at the time when we made the report. Now, sir, I desire to call the attention of the Senate for a few moments to the history of what occurred in the Senate after the report was made. Mr. Atchison, the President, (in the chair,) here rose, and said : If the Senate will permit me, I will here state that the Senator from Delaware has, according to the best of my re- collection, substantially stated what did take place while that committee was in session. Mr. Clayton. In obedience to the decision of the committee, I drafted the Compromise Bill of 1848 ; and by reference to page 477 of the Journal for that year, it will be seen that, as chairman, I reported it as a bill "to establish the territorial governments of Ore- gon, California, and New Mexico ; which was read, and passed to the second reading." The opinions of the Senate on the subject of the restriction of slavery in the territories, as col- lected from their votes while this bill was pending, may be now briefly stated. By reference to page 490 of the same Jour- nal, it will be found that a motion was made to strike out all the sections of the bill pro- viding territorial governments for California and New Mexico. A protracted debate en- sued, and on that motion the yeas were : " Messrs. Baldwin, Bradbury, Clarke, Corwin, Davis of Mass., Dayton, Dix, Dodge, Felch, Fitzgerald, Greene, Hale. Hamlin, Miller, Niles, Upham, Walker." The nays were : " Messrs. Allen, Atchison. Atherton. Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien. Borland, Breese, Bright, Butler, Calhoun, Clayton, Davis of Miss., Dickinson. Douglas, Downs, 1'oote, Hannegan, Houston, Johnson of Md., Johnson of La., Johnson of Ga., King, Lewis, Mangum, Mason, Metcalf, Pearce, Phelps, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, West- cott, Yulee." From page 500 of the Journal of the Senate fur that year it appears that on the 26th of July, Mr. Clarke moved to amend the bill by adding at the end of the sixth section in rela- tion to the territory of Oregon, where slavery had been prohibited by the provisional go- vernment, these words : "Provided, however, That no law repealing the act of the provisional government of said territory prohibiting slavery or involuntary servitude therein, shall be valid, until the same shall be approved by Congress." On this amendment, which was a proposi- 114 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tion to restrict slavery by act of Congress in territory acquired, and then belonging to the United States, the yeas were : — " Messrs. Allen, Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Clarke, Cor- ■wfn, Davis of Mass.. Dayton, Dix, Dodge, Felch, Fitzgerald, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Niles, Upham, Walker." The nays were : — " Messrs. Atchison, Atherton. Badger, Bell, Berrien. Bor- land, Breese, Bright, Butler. Calhoun, Clayton, Davis of Miss., Dickinson, Douglas, Downs, Foot. Hannegan, Houston, Hunter, Jchnson of Md., Johnson of Ga., King, Lewis, Mason. Metcalfe, Phelps. Rusk, Sebastian, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, Westcott, Yulee." On the same day Mr. Davis of Mass. moved to strike out the twelfth section relating to Oregon, and to insert in lieu thereof the fol- lowing : — ■ "Sec. 12. And be it further enacted. That so much of the sixth section ot the ordinance of the 13th of July, 17*7, as is contained in the following words, to wit : ' There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said terri- tory other than in the punishment of crimes whereof the I arties shall have been duly convicted,' shall be and remain in force within the territory of Oregon." This was a direct issue on the principle of restriction, and is commonly designated as the Wilmot proviso. This amendment was voted down by a vote of yeas 21, nays 33. The yeas were : — '■ Messrs. Allen, Atherton, Baldwin, Bradbury, Clarke, Oorwin, Davis of Mass., Dayton, Dix, Dodge, Felch, Fitz- gerald, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Niles, Spruance, Up- ham, Walker." The nays were: — " Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Berrien, Borland, Breese, Bright, Butler, Calhoun, Clayton, Davis of Miss., Dickinson, Douglas, Downs, Foote, Hannegan, Houston, Hunter, John- son of Md., Johnson of La., Johnson of Ga., King, Lewis, Mangum, Mason, Metcalfe, Rusk, Sebastian, Sturgeon, Tur- ney, Underwood, Westcott, Yulee." On the same day— the 26th of July, 1848 — when we had that memorable session of twenty-two hours, the yeas and nays were taken on the question, " Shall this bill be engrossed and read a third time ?" and " It was determined in the affirmative — nays 33, nays 22." The yeas were: — " Messrs. Atchison, Atherton, Benton, Berrien, Borland, Breese, Bright, Butler, Calhoun, Clayton, Davis of Miss., Dickinson, Douglas, Downs, Foote, Hannegan, Houston, Hunter, Johnson of Md., Johnson of La., Johnson of Ga., King, Lewis, Mangum, Mason, Phelps. Rusk, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, Westcott, Yalee." The nays were : — K Messrs. Allen, Badger, Baldwin, Bell. Bradbury, Clarke, Oorwin, Davis of Mass., Dayton, Dix, Dodge, Felch, Fitz- gerald, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Metcalfe, Miller, Niles, Un- derwood, Upham, Walker." " The Senate adjourned at fifty-three min- utes after seven o'clock, on the morning of Thursday, July 27th," having been in ses- sion twenty-two hours. — See page 503 of the Journal. Well, sir, what were the principles con- tained in that bill? There are now on the floor of the Senate, if I count them right, eleven members who voted for it. The bill made provision for the organization of terri- tories in Oregon, California, and New Mexico. In New Mexico — I call the attention of the Senate to that, as the organization of Utah was on the same principle — provision was made for the territorial government by di- recting the appointment of a Governor, and Secretary, and three Judges, who. besides per- forming the appropriate duties incident to their own offices, were to constitute a Legisla tive Council for that territory. The twenty sixth section of the bill provided that this Legislative Council should have power to legislate upon all subjects consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, but no power to prohibit or establish African slavery by law. An appeal was provided from all decisions of the territorial judges in cases of writs of habeas corpus, or other cases where the issue of personal freedom should be presented to the court. This was indeed a non-intervention bilL By these means the parties in a controversy relating to personal freedom were necessarily driven into the courts. I shall, by-and-by, compare this measure with those which fol- lowed it, professing to be bills for non-in- tervention, and shall endeavor to show its superiority over them ; but for the present I must proceed with the history of the struggle between the North and the South on the sub- ject of slavery in the territories. Why was it that the committee and mem- bers of the Senate agreed to compromise upon a principle like that? Northern gentlemen had been contending in debate, before the committee reported, that the South had no right to take slaves within the limits of Cali- fornia and New Mexico. They claimed that by the decree of Guerrero, the Dictator, and the constitution of Mexico, slavery did not exist in those territories at the time of their annexation. They therefore denied the right asserted by the South to hold slaves in those territories, and insisted that the whole of them should be dedicated to free labor. The South contended that by the inevitable exten- sion of the Constitution of the United States to those territories, the southern slaveholder had the right to hold his slaves in them, and denied that any Mexican law prohibiting him from doing so could remain in force after their acquisition. Thus one of those very geogra- phical questions so much deprecated by Wash- ington in his Farewell Address had arisen ; and I felt called upon on the 12th of July ,1848, to redeem the pledge which I had previously given to compromise that question, if I could, " on terms equally fair and honorable for the North and South." Hence it was, I repeat, that I moved for the appointment of the com- mittee. The South agreed with extraordinary unan- imity to submit the validity of their claim to the Supreme Court. Many Northern gentle- men agreed to the same thing; but there was, by no means, the same unanimity in regard to it at the North which existed at the South. Still there was, as I have shown from the vote, an overwhelming majority of the Senate in favor of the bill of 1848, which carried out this principle. The bill having passed the Senate, was sent to the House of Representa- tives. It is not necessary for me to state its CLAYTON COMPROMISE.— CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY. 11 D fa<.e there. It was defeated by an indirect i vote of 110 to 97, laying it on the table; and by looking at the Journal, you will ascertain that three-fourths, perhaps five-sixths, of those who opposed the bill, and destroyed it by lay- ing it on the table, consisted of Northern gentlemen. In the House on the 28th of July, 1848, Mr. Stephens of Geo., moved to lay the bill on the table, which was carried by the follow- ing vote : — Yeas. — Messrs. Abbott of Mass., Adams of Ky., Ashmun of Mass., Belcher of Me., Bingham of Mich., BLanchard of Pa., Boydon of N. C, Buckner of Ky., Butler of Pa.,Canby of 0., Clapp of Me., Collamer of Vt, Collins of N. Y., Conger of N. Y., Cranston of R. I., Crowell of 0., Crozier of Teun., Darling of Wis., Dickey of Pa., Dixon of Conn., Donnell of N. C, Duer of N. Y., Duncan of 0., Dunn of Ind., Eckert of Pa., Edwards of 0., Embree of Ind., Evans of 0., Faran of 0., Farelly of Pa., Fisher of 0., Freedly of Pa., Fries of 0., Giddings of 0., Gott of N. Y., Gregory of N. J., Grinnell of Mass., Hale of Mass., Hall of N. Y., Hammonof Me., Hamp- ton of N. J., Hampton of Pa., Henley of Ind., Henry of Vt., Holmes of N. Y., Hubbard of Conn., Hudson of Mass., Jos. K. Ingersoll of Pa., Irvin of Pa., Jenkins of N. Y., Kellogg of N. Y., King of Mass., Laura of 0., Wm. T. Lawrence of N. Y., Sidney Lawrence of N.Y., Lincoln of 111., Lord of N. Y., Lynde of Wis., Maclay of N. Y., McClelland of Mich., Mcllvaine of Pa., Mann of Mass., Marsh of Vt., Marvin of N. Y., Morris of 6., Mullin of N. Y., Nelson of N. Y., Nes of Pa., Newell of N. J., Nicoll of N. Y., Palfrey of Mass., Peaslee of N. H., Peck of Vt, Pendleton of Va., Petrie of N. Y., Pollock of Pa., Putnam of N. Y., Reynolds of N. Y., Rockwell of Mass.. Rock- well of Conn., Rose of N.Y., Rumsey of N.Y., St John of N.Y., Schencfe of 0., Sherrell of N. Y., Silvester of N. Y., Slinger- land of N.Y., Smart of Me., Smith of Ind., Smith of 111., Smith of Conn., Starkweather of N. Y., Stephens of Ga., Stewart of Pa., Stuart of Mich., Strohm of Pa., Strong of Pa., Tall- madge of N. Y., Taylor of 0., Thompson of Pa., Thompson of Iud., Thompson of Ky., Thompson of la., Thurston of R. I., Tuck of N. H, Van Dyke of N. J., Vinton of 0., Warren of N. Y., Wentworth. of 111., White of N. Y., Wiley of Me., Wilmotof Pa.— 112. Nats. — Messrs. Atkinson of Va., Barringer of N. C, Bar- row of Tenn., Bayly of Va., Beale of Va., Bedinger of Va., BirdstiH of N. Y., Bocock of Va., Botts of Va., Bowdon of Ala., Bowlin of Mo., Boyd of Ky., Brodhead of Pa., Brown of Va., Burt of S. C, Cabell of Fla., Cathcart of Ind., Chapman of Md , Franklin Clark of Me., Clarke of Ky., Clingman of N. C, Cobb of Ga., Cobb of Ala., Cocke of Tenn., Crisfield of Md., Daniel of N. C, Dickinson of 0., Evans of Md., Featherston of Miss., Ficklinof 111., Flournoy of Va.. French of Ky., Fulton of Va., Gayle of Ala., Gentry of Tenn., Gog- ;:in of Va., Green of Mo., Hall of Mo., Haralson of Ga., Harmonson of La., Harris of Ala., Hill of Tenn., Hilliard of Ala., Holmes of S. C, Houston of Ala., Houston of Del., Inge of Ala., Charles J. Ingersoll of Pa., Iverson of Ga.. Jameson of Mo., Johnson of Tenn., Johnson of Ark., Jones of Tenn., Jones of Ga., Kaufman of Tex.. Kennon of 0., King of Ga., La Sere of La., Ligon of Md., Lumpkin of Md., McCler- nand of 111., McDowell of Va., McKay of N.C., MeLane of Md., Job Mann of Pa., Meade of Va., Miller of 0., Morehead of Ky., Outlaw of N. C, Pettit of Ind., Peyton of Ky., Pills- bury of Tex., Preston of Va., Rhett of S. C, Richardson of HI., Richey of 0., Robinson of Ind., Rockhill of Iud., Sawyer of 0-, Sheppard of N. C, Simpson of S. C, Sims of S, C, Stanton of Tenn., Thibodeaux of La., Thomas of Tenn., Thompson of Miss., Thompson of Va., Tompkins of Miss.. To-imbs of Ga., Turner of 111., Venable of N. C, Wallace of S C, Wick of Ind., Williams of Me., Woodward of S. C— 97. Clayton-Bulwei Treaty. The United States of America ana Her Britannic Majesty, being desirous of consoli- dating the relations of amity which so happily subsist between them, by setting forth ana fixing in a convention their views and inten- tions with reference to any means of com- munication by ship canal, which may be constructed between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, by the way of the river San Juan de Nicaragua, and either or both of the lakes of Nicaragua or Managua, to any port or place on the Pacific Ocean: the President of the United States has conferred full powers on John M. Clayton, Secretary of State of the United States; and Her Britannic Majesty on the Right Honorable Sir Henry Lytton Bul- wer, a member of Her Majesty's Most Honor- able Privy Council, Knight Commander of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath, and Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Her Britannic Majesty to the Unitt-d States, for the aforesaid purpose; and the said plenipotentiaries having exchanged their full powers, which were found to be in proper form, have agreed to the following articles : — Article I. The governments of the United States and Great Britain hereby declare, that neither the one or the other will ever obtain or maintain for itself any exclusive control over the said ship canal ; agreeing that neither will ever erect, or maintain any fortifications commanding the same or in the vicinity there- of, or occupy or fortify, or colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Musquito Coast, or any part of Central America ; nor will either make use of any protection which either affords, or may afford, or any alliance which either has, or may have, to or with any state or people for the purpose of erecting or maintaining any such fortifications, or of occupying, fortifying, or colonizing Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mus- quito Coast, or any part of Central America, or of assuming or exercising dominion over the same ; nor will the United States or Great Britain take advantage of any intimacy, or use any alliance, connection, or influence that either may possess, with any state or govern- ment through whose territory the said canal may pass, for the purpose of acquiring or holding, directly or indirectly, for the citizens or subjects of the one, any rights or advan- tages in regard to commerce or navigation through the said canal which shall not be offered on the same terms to the citizens or subjects of the other. Article II. Vessels of the United States or Great Britain traversing the said canal shall, in case of war between the contracting par- ties, be exempted from blockade, detention, or capture by either of the belligerents ; and this provision shall extend to such distance from the two ends of the said canal as may hereaf- ter be found expedient to establish. [Article 3d obligates the contracting parties to protect such persons as may be employed iu making said canal. Article 4th further obligates the contracting parties to use their influence with the govern- ment possessing jurisdiction to facilitate the construction of said canal, and to establish two free ports, one at each end of the same.] Article V. The contracting parties further engage that, when the said canal shall have been completed, they will protect it from in- terruption, seizure, or unjust confiscation, and that they will guarantee the neutrality there- of, so that the said canal may forever bi open and free, and the capital invested there in secure. Nevertheless, the governments of 116 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. the United States and Great Britain, in ac- cording their protection to the construction of the said canal, and guaranteeing its neutrality and security when completed, always under- stand that this protection and guarantee are granted conditionally, and may be withdrawn by both governments, or either government, if both governments, or either government should deem that the persons or company un- dertaking or managing the same adopt or establish such regulations concerning the traf- fic thereupon as are contrary to the spirit and intention of this convention, either by making unfair discriminations in favor of the com- merce of one of the contracting parties over the commerce of the other, or by imposing oppressive exactions or unreasonable tolls upon passengers, vessels, goods, wares, mer- chandise, or other articles. Neither party, however, shall withdraw the aforesaid protec- tion or guarantee without first giving six months' notice to the other. Article VI. The contracting parties in this convention engage to invite every state with which both or either have friendly intercourse, to enter into stipulations with them similar to those which they have entered into with each other, to the end that all other states may share in the honor and advantage of having contributed to a work of such general interest and importance as the canal herein contem- plated. And the contracting parties likewise agree that each shall enter into treaty stipula- tions with such of the Central American States as they may deem advisable, for the purpose of more effectually carrying out the great design of this convention, namely, that of constructing and maintaining the said canal as a ship communication between the two oceans for the benefit of mankind, on equal terms to all, and of protecting the same ; and they also agree that the good offices of either shall be employed, when requested by the other, in aiding and assisting the negotiation of such treaty stipulations ; and, should any differences arise as to right or property over the territory through which the said canal shall pass, — between the states or governments of Central America, — and such differences should, in any way, impede or obstruct the execution of the said canal, the governments of the United States and Great Britain will use their good offices to settle such differences in the manner best suited to promote the interests of the said canal, and to strengthen the bonds of friendship and alliance which exist between the contracting parties. Article VII. It being desirable that no time should be unnecessarily lost in com- mencing and constructing the said canal, the governments of the United States and Great Britain determine to give their support and encouragement to such persons or company as may first offer to commence the same, with the necessary capital, the consent of the local authorities, and on such principles as accord with the spirit and intention of this conven- tion ; and if any persons or company should already have, with any state through which the proposed ship canal may pass, a contract for the construction of such a canal as that specified in this convention, to the stipulations of which contract neither of the contracting parties in this convention have any just cause to object, and the said persons or company shall, moreover, have made preparations, and expended time, money, and trouble, on the faith of such contract, it is hereby agreed that such persons or company shall have a priority of claim, over every other person, persons, or company, to the protection of the governments of the United States and Great Britain, and be allowed a year from the date of the ex- change of the ratifications of this convention for concluding their arrangements, and pre- senting evidence of sufficient capital sub- scribed to accomplish the contemplated under- taking; it being understood that if, at the expiration of the aforesaid period, such persons or company be not able to commence and carry out the proposed enterprise, then the govern- ments of the United States and Great Britain shall be free to afford their protection to any other persons or company that shall be pre- pared to commence and proceed with the con- struction of the canal in question. Article VIII. The governments of the Uni* ted States and Great Britain, having not only desired, in entering into this convention, to ac- complish a particular object, but also to estab- lish a general principle, they hereby agree to extend their protection, by treaty stipulations, to any other practicable communications, whe- ther by canal or railway, across the isthmus which connects North and South America, and especially to the inter-oceanic communi- cations, should the same prove to be practica- ble, whether by canal or railway, which are now proposed to be established by the way of Tehuantepec or Panama. In granting, how- ever, their joint protection to any such canals or railways as are by this article specified, it is always understood by the United States and Great Britain, that the parties constructing or owning the same shall impose no other charges or conditions of traffic thereupon than the aforesaid governments shall approve of as just and equitable ; and that the same canals or railways, being open to the citizens and subjects of the United States and Great Brit- ain on equal terms, shall also be open, on like terms, to the citizens and subjects of every other state, which is willing to grant thereto such protection as the United States and Great Britain engage to afford. Article IX. The ratifications of this con- vention shall be exchanged at Washington within six months from this day, or sooner, if possible. In faith whereof, we, the respective pleni- potentiaries, have signed this convention, and have hereunto affixed our seals. Done at Washington, the nineteenth day of April, Anno Domini one thousand eight hun dred and fifty. John M. Clayton, [l. s.l Henry Lytton Bulwer. | l. s.] COBB, HOWELL.— COMPROMISES OF 1850. 117 On the 6th of May,1858, the House consider- ed the following resolution from the Committtee on Foreign Relations, reported by Mr. Cling- man, of North Carolina: Whereas, The treaty between the United States and Great Britain, designated as the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, is, under the interpretation placed upon it by Great Britain, a sur- render of the rights of this country, and, upon the Ameri- can construction, an entangling alliance without mutuality, either in its benefits or restrictions, and having hitherto b'en productive only of misunderstandings and controver- sies between the two governments; therefore, Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be requested to take such i-te; s as may be in his judgment, best calculated to effect a speedy abrogation of said treaty. The question being upon the engrossment of the resolution, it was decided in the affirm- ative — yeas 07, nays So ; as follows: Yeas — Messrs. Adrain, Anderson. Atkins. Avery, Barks- dale, Bishop. Blair, B-cock, Bryan, Burnett, Burns, Caskie, John B. Clark, Clay, Clemens, CUngman, Cobb, John Coch- rane, Cockerill, James Crai_'. Burt in Craige, Crawford. Curry, Davidson, Dewart, Dowdell, Kdmnndson, Elliott, English, Kustis. Florence, Foley, Gartrell, Uillis, Gilmer. Goode, Greenwood, Gregg. Groesbeek, Lawrence W. Hall, J. Mor- nisON Harris, Thomas L. Harris. Haskiu, Hatch, Hawkins, Hickman, Huylcr, Jackson, Jenkius, Jewett, J. Glancy Jones, Owen Jones, Kellogg. Jacob M. Kunkel, Landy, Law- rence. Leidy. McKibbin. McQueen, Humphrey Marshall, Samuel S. Marshall. Mason, Maynard, Miller, Moore, Isaac N. Morris, Mott, Niblack, Pendleton, Peyton, Phelps, Phil- lips, Reagan, Reilly, Ricaud, Ruffin, Russell, Sandidge, Scales, Seward, Aaron Shaw, Shorter, Singleton, Robert Smith, William Smith, Stallworth, Stephens, Stevenson, James A. Stewart, Miles Taylor. Watkins. White, Woodson, Wortendyke, Augustus R. Wright, John V. Wright, and ZOLLICOFFER — 97. Nats — Messrs. Abbott, Andrews, Bennett, BiUinghurst. Bingham, Bliss, Branch. Brayton, Buffintim, Burlingame, Campbell, Case, Chaffee, Horace F. Clark, Clawson, Colfax, Comins, C'ovode. Cragin, Damrcll, Davis of Maryland, Davis of Indiana. Davis of Mississippi, Davis of Massachusetts, Davis of Iowa, Dean, Dick, Dodd, Durfee, Farnsworth, Faulkner, Fenlnn. Foster. Garnett, Giddings, Gilman, Good- win, Granger. Grrnv, Robert B. Hall. Harlan, Hoard, Hor- ton, Howard. Hughes, George W. Jones, Kelsey, Kilgore, Knapp, Lamar. Leach. Leiter, Letcher. Lovejoy, Matteson. Milson. Morgan. Edward Joy Morris, Freeman' XL Morse, Olin. Palmer, Parker, Petit. Pike, Purviance, Ready, Ritchie. Robbins. John Sherman, Judson W. Sherman, Sickles, Spin- ner, Stanton. William Stewart, Tappan, Tompkins. Under- wood, Wade. WaXbridge, Waldron, Walton, CadwaUader C. Washburn?.. ElihuB. Washburne, Israel Washburne, Whiteley. and Winslow— 86. So the joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time. Democrats in roman, Republicans in italics, Americans in small caps. At this point, Mr. Daniel E. .Sickles, of New ifork, moving to proceed to the consideration of the business on the Speaker's table, his motion was adopted, and the resolution has never since been disposed of. duties of his position. His political associates ought not to expect of him any service to his party at the expense of his duty to the govern- ment. Holding, as you do, an office of great pecuniary responsibility, and one requiring your constant personal attention, I cannot sanction the propriety of your absence from your post for the purpose of an active engage- ment in the approaching election of your state. No one regards with more interest than I do the success of the national Democratic party at this important period in our history. But that success must not be purchased at the expense of the public interest, which might be the case if those holding high and impor- tant offices should absent themselves from their posts to conduct the canvass. Regard- ing your letter in the light of an application for leave of absence, I have withheld my ap- proval for the foregoing reasons. Very respectfully, H. Cobb, Secretary of the Treasury. Compromises of 1850. e< Cobb, Howell. Upon the relations of a Government Employee to his public duties. March 30, 1857. Dear Sir: I reply to your letter at once, that you may not misinterpret my silence into an approval of your suggestions. I do not think that a citizen loses his political identity or independence by accepting office under the government. He does, however, commit him- self to the service of the country, to the utmost extent required for a faithful discharge of the Early in February, 1850,* Mr. Clay present- 1 to the Senate a series of resolutions, which, after premising the desirableness for the peace, concord, and harmony of the Union, and a set- tlement of all questions relating to slavery, proposed the following compromise : — 1. That California with suitable boundaries, ought, upon her application, to be admitted as one of the states of the Union, without the imposition of any restriction by Congress, in respect to the exclusion or introduction of slavery within those boundaries. 2. That, as slavery does not exist by law, and is not likely to be introduced into any ter- ritory acquired by the United States from the republic of Mexico, it is inexpedient for Con- gress to provide by law, either for its introduc- tion or exclusion from any part of said terri- tory ; and that appropriate territorial govern- ments ought to be established by Congress in all the said territory not assigned as within the boundaries of the proposed state of Cali- fornia, without the adoption of any restriction or condition on the subject of slavery. 3. That the western boundary of the state of Texas ought to be fixed on the Rio del Norte. Commencing one marine league from its mouth, and running up that river to the southern line of New Mexico ; thence with that line eastwardly, and so continuing in the same direction to the line as established be- tween the United States and Spain, excluding any portion of New Mexico, whether lying on the east or west of that river. 4. That it be proposed to the state of Texas, that the United States will provide for the pay- ment of that portion of the legitimate and bona fide public debt of that state, contracted * The first part of this history is taken from a pamphlet published by Redfield & Co. of New York 118 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. prior to its annexation to the United States, and for which the duties on foreign imports were pledged by the said state to its creditors, not exceeding the sum of $ , in considera- tion of the said duties so pledged having been no longer applicable to that object after the said annexation, but having thenceforward be- come payable to the United States ; and upon the condition also, that the said state of Texas shall, by some solemn and authentic act of her legislature or of a convention, relinquish to the United States any claim which it has to any part of New Mexico. 5. That it is inexpedient to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, whilst that insti- tution continues to exist in the state of Mary- land, without the consent of that state, with- out the consent of the people of the District, and without just compensation to the owners within the District. 6. That it is expedient to prohibit within the District, the slave trade, in slaves brought into it from states or places beyond the Dis- trict, either to be sold therein as merchandise, or to be transported to other markets without the District of Columbia. 7. That some eifectual provision ought to be made by law, according to the requirements of the Constitution, for the restitution and de- livery of persons bound to service or labor in any state who may escape into any other state or territory in the Union. 8. That Congress has no power to obstruct or prohibit the trade of slaves between the slaveholding states ; but that the admission or exclusion of slaves, brought from one into an- other of them, depends exclusively upon their own particular laws. On the 5th of February, the debate on these resolutions commenced with a powerful speech from Mr. Clay, and was continued by Messrs. Webster, Cass, Seward,Walker, Douglas, Bald- win, Berrien, Butler, Calhoun, Badger, Mason, Hunter, and others. On the 13th of February, General Taylor, President, transmitted to Congress a message, apprising that body of the organization of the state of California, with an application through her Senators and Representatives, for admis- sion into the Union. It was under a motion to refer this message to the Committee on Terri- tories, that Mr. Calhoun, at that time prostrate with his last illness, prepared a speech which was read to the Senate on the 4th of March, by Mr. Mason of Virginia. Some days after, viz., the 7th of March, while the same motion was pending, Mr. Web- ster addressed the Senate, at great length. Mr. Webster was followed by Mr. Seward, on the 11th, in a speech favoring the immedi- ate admission of California. _ On the 12th of March, Mr. Foote, of Mis- sissippi, moved that a series of resolutions presented by Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, be refer- red to a committee of thirteen, six from the North, six from the South, and one to be by them chosen. Gen- Cass spoke at great length upon this motion, reviewing the whole series of subjects in controversy. On the 8th of April, Col. Benton took part in the debate, strenuously opposing the plan of commingling so many important and various matters in one bill. Mr. Clay replied to Mr. Benton with great earnestness. Mr. Foote's resolution was amended so as to embrace Mr. Clay's resolutions, and passed on the 18th of April :— Yeas. — Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Borland, Bright, Butler, Cass, Clay, Clemens, Davis of Miss., Dickinson, Dodge of la.. Downs, Foote, Hunter, King, Jones, Manguni. Mason, Morton, Pearce, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Spruanee, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, Whitcomb, Yulee. — 30. Nats. — Baldwin. Benton. Bradbury, Chase, Clarke, Corwin, Davis of Mass., Dayton, Dodge of Wis., Douglas, Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Norris, Phelps, Seward, Shields, Smith, Walker, Webster. — 22. On the following day, the compromise com- mittee of thirteen was elected by ballot, viz. : Clay, Cass, Dickinson, Bright,Webster, Phelps, Cooper, King, Mason, Downs, Mangum, Bell, and Berrien : seven from slave states — six from free states. On the 8th of May, 1850, Mr. Clay presented a* report from the committee, which embraced substantially the following provisions : — 1. The admission of any new state or states, formed out of Texas, to be postponed until they shall hereafter present themselves to be received into the Union, when it will be the duty of Congress fairly and faithfully to exe- cute the compact with Texas by admitting such new state or states. 2. The admission forthwith of California into the Union, with the boundaries which she has proposed. 3. The. establishment of territorial govern- ments, without the Wilmot proviso, for New Mexico and Utah, embracing all the territory recently acquired by the United States from Mexico, not contained in the boundaries of California. 4. The combination of these last two men- tioned measures in the same bill. 5. The establishment of the western and northern boundary of Texas, and the exclusion from her jurisdiction of all New Mexico, with the grant to Texas of a pecuniary equivalent. And the section for that purpose to be incor- porated in the bill admitting California, and establishing territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico, 6. More effectual enactments of law, to se- cure the prompt delivery of persons bound to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another state. 7. Abstaining from abolishing slavery: but, under a heavy penalty, prohibiting the slave trade in the District of Columbia. Mr. Mason, Mr. Berrien, Mr. Clemens, Mr. Yulee, and others opposed the report, at first, while Messrs. Bright, Downs, Cass, Dickinson, and others sustained it. During the debate which followed, it was vigorously opposed by Messrs. Benton, Seward, Davis, Smith, Day- ton, Hale, and others, and powerfully sup- ported by Clay, Cass, Dickinson, Webster, COMPROMISES OF 1850. 119 Mangum, Foote, Douglas, and others. On the last day of July, it had become, by a se- ries of amendments, divested of all its original features, except the portion relating to Utah,' so that Mr. Benton created considerable mer- riment by comparing the Senate to the woman described by Homer, who every night unra- velled what she had wove during the day. Separate bills, however, were subsequently passed, in a disconnected shape, embodying all the main features of the compromise. Eight months having thus been passed, prin- cipally in the discussion of these bills, the two Houses were at last brought to a vote on each bill by itself. The Utah territorial bill passed the Senate August 10, 1850, by a vote of yeas 32, nays 18. The Texas boundary bill passed the Senate August 10, 1850, by a vote of yeas 30, nays 20. The bill for the admission of California passed the Senate, Aug. 13, 1850, by a vote of 34 to 18. The New Mexico territorial bill passed the Senate, Aug. 14, 1850, by a vote of 27 to 10. The fugitive slave bill passed the Senate on the 23d of Aug., 1850, by a vote of 27 to 12. The bill abolishing the slave trade in the District of Columbia passed the Senate, Sept 14, 1850, by a vote of 33 to 19. The following table shows the vote in the Senate on each bill : — >> u d a Cfc. o o« 9 > 3 o t. ° 55 - u el Q Q o'S > *3 o -.2 3 G aj *** at 55 *£ °5 a A •2-3 55 'u °c MEMBERS' NAME8. O pq eq •- a x.2 S3 u 4> MEMBERS ' NAMES. o m »- -9 > U 1-2 y. — ii *'£ '2>S J3 j. °1 s-S *'b 'Sbst Si . — T3 2 => ■- •-■ •a oj 4> aj S d ■O - : - •O oj v e> 3 eS -£> u H» «!U 55H ft~ CM •5H HH ouglas of 111. yea yea yea yea yea Walker of Wis. . nay yea nay nay nay yea Downs of La. ... yea yea yea nay Winthrop of Mass. Whitcombe of Ind. yea yea nay nay nay yea Ewing of Ohio nay yea nay yea yea yea yea yea Fetch of Mich. - yea yea yea yea yea Yulee of Via.. nay nay yea yea nay Foote of Miss. ... yea nay yea Greene of R. I. - yea yea nay nay nay yea Yeas 30 34 27 27 32 31* Hale of N. H. - nay yea nay yea Nays 20 18 10 12 18 19 Hamlin of Me. ... yea nay nay yea Whigs in roman, Democrats in italic, Free Soilers in small caps. In the House, on motion of Mr. Boyd of Ky., the New Mexico territorial bill was added to the" Texan boundary bill, and thus united they passed together on the 6th of Sept. 1850. The bill admitting California passed the House on the 7th of Sept., 1850. The Utah bill passed the House on the wiue day. The fugitive slave bill passed the House on the 12th of Sept., 1850. The bill abolishing the slave trade in the District of Columbia passed the 17th of Sept., 1850. The following table shows the vote in the House on each bill : — * In addition to the above, Messrs. Fremont and Gwin. the two new senators from California, voted yea, making the vote yeas 33 ; nays 19. 120 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. MEMBERS' NAMES. Albertson of Ind. Alexander of N. Y. Allen of Mass. AlstoD of Ala. Anderson of Tenn. Audrews of N. Y. Ashe of N. C. Ashmun of Mass. Averett of Va. Baker of 111. Bay of Mo. - Bayly of Va. Beale of Va. Bennett of N. Y. Bingham of Mich. Bissell of 111. Bocock of Va. Bokee of N. Y. - Booth of Conn. - Bowdon of Ala. - Bowie of Md. Bowlin of Mo. Boyd of Ky. Brec.k of Ky. Briggs of N. Y. - Brooks of N. Y. - Brown of Miss. - Brown of Ind. Bud of Mich. Burrows of N. Y Burt of S. C. Butler of Pa. Butler of Conn. - Cabell of Fla. Cable of Ohio Caldwell of Ky. - Caldwell of N. C. Calvin of Pa. Campbell of Ohio Carter of Ohio Casey of Pa. Chandler of Pa. - Clarke of N. Y. - Cleveland of Conn. Clingman of N. C. Cobb of Ga. Cobb of Ala. - Colcock of S. C. - Cole of Wis. Conger of N. Y. - Conrad of La. Corwin of Ohio Crowell of Ohio • Daniel of N. C. - Deberry of N. C. - Dickey of Pa. Dimmick of Pa. - Disney of Ohio Dixon of 11. 1. Doty of Wis. Duncan of Mass. - Duer of N. Y. Dunham of Ind. - DURKEE Of Wis. - Edmunson of Va. Elliott of Mass. - Evans of Md. Evans of Ohio Eiving of Tenn. - FeathersUtn of Miss. Fitch of Ind. Fowler of Mass Freedley of Pa. - Fuller of Maine - Gentry of Tenn. - Gerry of Maine - Giddings of Ohio » Gilbert of Cal. 'l'ilmore of Pa. Goodenow of Me. Gorman of Ind. - Gott of N. Y. Gould of N. Y. - Green of Mo. Griunell of Mass. •e a yea nay nay yea yea yea nay nay yea yea yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea nay nay yea nay yea nay yea yea nay nay nay yea yea nay nay yea nay nay nay nay nay nay yea nay yea yea nay nay yea yea yea nay yea yea nay yea nay yea nay yea yea yea nay yea yea yea nay yea yea nay nay yea yea nay nay yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea nay yea yea yea nay yea yea yea nay yea yea nay yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay nay nay yea yea yea nay nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea M-3 £3 S3 yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea nay yea yea nuy nay yea yea yea nay yea yea yea nay nay yea nay yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea nay yea nay yea yea nay nay nay nay yea yea yea nay nay nay yea yea nay yea nay nay nay nay yea nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay nay yea yea yea nay yea yea nay nay yea yea, yea yea yea yea nay nay yea yea nay nay yea yea yea yea yea nay yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea nay nay yea nay nay yea nay nay nay nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay nay nay yea nay yea yea yea nay yea nay nay nay yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea nay nay yea nay yea. nay nay yea yea yea yea nay nay yea yea nay yea yea yea nay yea yea nay yea nay nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay nay nay yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea nay yea nay nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea MEMBERS' NAMES. nay nay yea nay nay yea yea nay yea Hackett of Geo. - Hall of Missouri ... Halloway of N. Y. Hamilton of Md. ... Hammond of Md. . . . Hampton of Pa. - - - - Haralson of Geo. ... Harlan of Ind. .... Harmanson of La. ... Harris of Tenn. ... Harris of Ala. - . - - Harris of 111. - - - - Hay of N. Y. Haymond of Va. ... Hebard of Vt. - Henry of Vt. - Hibbard of N. H. Hilliard of Ala. - - - - Hoagland of Ohio ... Holladay of Va. - - Holmes of S. C. - - - - Houstou of Del. - - - - Howard of Texas ... Howe of Pa. .... Hubbard of Ala. - Hunter of Ohio - - - - Inge of Ala. .... Jackson of Geo. - Jackson of N. Y. Johnson of Ky. - - - - Johnson of Tenn. ... Johnson of Ark. - - - - Jones of Tenn. - Julian of Ind. - Kaufman of Texas - Kerr of Md. - - King of R. I. - King of N.J. - - - .. J. A. King of N. Y. - King of Mass. - P. King of N. Y. La Sere of La. .... Leffler of Iowa .... Levin of Pa. (Native American) Littlefield of Me. - Mann of Mass. - Mann of Pa. - Marshall of Ky. - - - Mason of Ky. - Matteson of N. Y. - McClemand of 111. - McDonald of Ind. - McDowell of Va. - McGaughey of Ind. - - - McKissock of N. Y. - McLanahan of Pa. . - - McLane of Md. - - - - Mc Lean of Ky. - - - - McMullen of Va. McQueen of S. C. McWillie of Miss. - Meacham of Vt. - Meade of Va. Miller of Ohio - Millson of Va. - Moore of Pa. - Moorehead of Ky. - Morse of La. ... Morris of Ohio . - - - Morton of Va. - Nelson of N. Y. . Nes of Pa. - Newell of N. J. - Ogle of Pa. . Olds of Ohio - On- of S. C. Otis of Me. - Outlaw of N. C. - - - - Owen of Geo. - - Parker of Va. - Peaslee of N. H. - Peck of Vt. Phelps of Mo. - Phoenix of N. Y. _ Pitman of Pa. - a ° 0> V yea nay yea nay nay yea nay yea yea nay nay yea yea yea nay nay yea yea nay nay nay nay nay nay yea yea nay yea nay yea yea yea nay nay nay nay yea yea yea nay yea yea yea nay yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea nay nay nay nay nay nay yea yea yea yea nay yea nay nay yea yea yea nay yea nay yea nay yea nay yea nay nay yea yea yea nay yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea nay nay nay yea uay nay yea yea nayj nay nay | yea yea nay yea yea 9% £ 3 i & 2 < h yea nay yea nay yea nay yea yea yea nay yea nay nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea nay yea yea nay yea yea yea yea uay yea yea nay nay nay nay na nay nay nay nay nay yea yea yea yea uay nay yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea nay yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea nay nay yea nay yea ] yea ua\ | yea nay yea yea | nay nay yea yea Day yea yea nay nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea nay yea yea nay yea yea yea uay yea yea nay nay uay yea yea yea nay yea nay yea nay yea nay | yea yea yea yea yea i\'ea yea yea i nay yea n;u yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea nay yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea nay yea nay nuy nay yea nay yea uay nay nay uaj nay yea yea yea yea nay nay nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay nay yea nay yea nay nay yea nay nay yea uay nay yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea nay yea yea yea nay nay nay yea yea uay yea n.iy >ea yea , yea nay Veil nay nay yea nay yea Vf8 COMPROMISES OF 1850. 12J ■a d f3\ 1° 3 So members' names. °* 2 p ° 3.2 S " o J. 2 > 53 o o u V 55 -^ "a J. 2 members' names. a o 3.2 S x Z. a O i.i « 2 o 3 55 9 o 52 ^ °s J 3 cS "i s > •3 H .« a> Crt JS p ~ £-■ ~ s> Si a! M— .a^ * 3J Ss 3*3 Jjj si CJ V ■a * = =: A £ - - T3 aj a - &. Nays.— Messrs. Adams of Mass., Allen of Me., S. J. An- drews of 0., Aycrigg of X. J., Baker of Mass.. Bjrdseye of N. Y., Blair of X. Y.i Boardman of Conn.. Borden of Mas.-., Brockway of Conn.. Bronson of Me.. J. Brown of Pa., Cal- houn of Mass.. Childs of X. Y., Chittenden of X. Y., J. C. Clark of X. Y.. Cowen of 0.. Cranston of K. I., Cravens of Ind.. Cashing of Mass.. R. D. Davis of X. Y.. Doig of X. "i., J. Edwards of Mo.. Egbert of X. Y., Everett of Vt., Ferris of X. Y., Fessenden of Me., Fillmore of X. Y., Gates of X.Y., P. G. Goode of 0., Gorden of X. Y., Granger of X. Y.. Hall of Vt.. Wm. S. Hastings of Mass.. Henry of Pa., Howard of Mich.. Heedson of Mass.. Wm. W. Irwin of Pa.. James Linn of X. Y., McKeon of X. Y.. S. Mason of 0., Mathiot of 0., Mattocks of Vt., Maxwell of X. J., Maynard of X. J., Mor- gan of X. Y.. Morris of 0.. Morrow of 0.. Osborne of Conn., Parmenter of Mass., Pendleton of 0., Pope of Ky., Benj. Randall of Me., Ridgwav of 0., Roosevelt of X. Y., J. M. Russell of 0., Saltonstall of Mass., Simonton of Pa., T. Smith, Stokely of 0.. Tomlinson of X. Y., Trumbull of Conn., Underwood of Ky., Van Rensselaer of X. Y., Jos. L. White of Ky., Thomas W. Williams of Conn., A\ inthrop of Mass., Augustus Young of Vt. — 69. Cuba. Proclamation' respecting ax apprehexded invasion of. Bij the President of the United States of America : — Whereas there is reason to believe that a military expedition is about to be fitted out in the United States with intention to invade the Island of Cuba, a colony of Spain, with which # this country is at peace; and whereas it is believed that this expedition is instigated and set on foot chiefly by foreigners who dare to make our shores the scene of their guilty and hostile preparations against a friendly power ; and seek by falsehood and misrepresentation to seduce our own citizens, especially the young and inconsiderate, into their wicked schemes,— an ungrateful return for the benefits conferred upon them by this people, in per- 134 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. mitting them to make our country an asylum from oppression, — and in flagrant abuse of the hospitality thus extended to them : And whereas such expeditions can only be regarded as adventures for plunder and rob- bery, and must meet the condemnation of the civilized world, whilst they are derogatory to the character of our country, — in violation of the laws of nations, — and expressly prohibited by our own. Our statutes declare " that if any person shall, within the territory or juris- diction of the United States, begin or set on foot, or provide or prepare the means for, any military expedition or enterprise, to be carried on from thence against the territory or do- minions of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace, every person, so offending, shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be fined not exceed- ing three thousand dollars, and imprisoned not more than three years :" Now, therefore, I have issued this my Procla- mation, warning all persons who shall connect themselves with any such enterprise or expedi- tion in violation of our laws and national obli- gations that they will thereby subject them- selves to the heavy penalties denounced against such offences, and will forfeit their claim to the protection of this government, or any interference in their behalf, no matter to what extremities they may be reduced in conse- quence of their illegal conduct. And there- fore I exhort all good citizens, as they regard cur national reputation, as they respect their own laws and the laws of nations, as they value the blessings of peace and the welfare of their country, to discountenance, and, by all lawful means, prevent any such enterprise ; and I call upon every officer of this govern- ment, civil or military, to use all efforts in his power, to arrest for trial and punishment every such offender against the laws of the country. Given under my hand, the twenty-fifth day of April, in the year of our Lord [l. s.] one thousand eight hundred and fifty- one, and the seventy-fifth of the Inde- pendence of the United States. Millard Fillmore. By the President : W. S. Derrick, Acting Secretary of State. Davis, II. Winter, of Maryland. Extract from Mr. Davis's speech in the House of Representatives, on the 6th of Jan., 1857, on the results of the recent Presidential election : — " Still more, sir, it dissipates the sweet de- lusion of the dead heroes of the Nebraska act, that there was a day of resurrection for them. It demonstrates that the blast which prostra- ted its friends in the North was no passing squall ; that no sober second thought has changed their first thought ; but that a settled and unchangeable hostility through all the North condemns them to a hopeless and pitiable minority. The death-wound, I rather think, has been dealt to that party which in- solently boasted itself a perpetual plague to the republic, but now — worse than the scotched snake — staggers to its grave, like a wounded gladiator, whose fall, even in the arms of vic- tory, wins for him neither pity nor a crown. " These are some of the lessons about which I think there can be very little difference of opinion. They need only the teaching of numbers. They need only to count the re- sults of the ballot-box. They depend on no adjustment of the difference of principle be- tween the different portions of the party. They are irrespective of the question, whether the approval of President Pierce's administra- tion was made or evaded north of Mason and Dixon's line. They still stand, no matter what meaning was assigned to the Kansas- Nebraska act anywhere. On a simple count of the voices of the judges — even admitting a northern and a southern Democrat to mean the same thing — it appears that the great majority of the country are tired of its men, are hostile to its principles, condemn its mea- sures, mock at its blunders, are weary of its agitations, abhor its sectional warfare, and have ordered hue and cry to be made against everything bearing the name of Democrat as a disturber of the public peace. Instead of repentance and reform under the discipline administered two years age, the majority of the people of the country have beheld with alarm every element of electioneering torture applied to wring from the terrors of the country an approval, real or apparent, of the conduct of the administration ; and they have by this great vote indicated their abiding hos- tility to a policy which has brought the re- public to the verge of ruin. This, I take it, is the judgment of the American people — only they were so unfortunate as to differ as to the measures of redress ; and the penalty of this blunder is the continuance of that domination in the executive chair for four vears more. ******** " The great lesson is taught by this election that both the parties which rested their hopes on sectional hostility, stand at this day con- demned by the great majority of the country, as common disturbers of the public peace of the country. " The Republican party was a hasty levy, en masse, of the Northern people to repel or revenge an intrusion by Northern votes alone. With its occasion it must pass away. The gentlemen of the Republican side of the House can now do-nothing. They can pass no law excluding slavery from Kansas in the next Congress — for they are in a minority. Within two years Kansas must be a state of the Union. She will be admitted with or without slavery, as her people prefer. Beyond Kansas there is no question that is practically open. I speak to practical men. Slavery does not exist in any other territory,- —it is excluded by law from several, and net likely DAVIS, H. WINTER. 135 to exist anywhere ; and the Republican party has nothing to do, and can do nothing. It has no future. Why cumbers it the ground ? " Between these two stand the firm ranks of the American party, thinned by desertions, but still unshaken. To them the eye of the country turns in hope. The gentleman from Georgia saluted the Northern Democrats with the title of heroes — who swam vigorously down the current. The men of the American party faced, in each section, the sectional madness. They would cry neither free nor slave Kansas; but proposed a safe administration of the laws, before which every right would find protec- tion. Their voice was drowned amid the din of factions. The men of the North would have no moderation, and they have paid the penalty. The American party elected a ma- jority of this House : had they of the North held fast to the great American principle of silence on the negro question, and, firmly refusing to join either agitation, stood by the American candidate, they would not now be writhing, crushed beneath an utter overthrow. If they would now destroy the Democrats, they can do it only by returning to the Ameri- can party. By it alone can a party be created strong at the South as well as at the North. To it alone belongs a principle accepted wherever the American name is heard — the same at the North as at the South, on the Atlantic or the Pacific shore. It alone is free from sectional affiliations at either end of the Union which would cripple it at the other. Its principle is silence, peace, and compro- mise. It abides by the existing law. It allows no agitation. It maintains the present condition of affairs. It asks no change in any territory, and it will countenance no agitation for the aggrandizement of either section. I'hough thousands fell off in the day of trial — allured by ambition, or terrified by fear — at the North and at the South, carried away by the torrent of fanaticism in one part of the Union, or driven by the fierce onset of the Democrats in another, who shook Southern institutions by the violence of their attack, and half waked the sleeping negro by paint- ing the Republican as his liberator, still a million of men, on the great day, in the face of both factions, heroically refused to bow the knee to either Baal. They knew the necessi- ties of the times, and they set the example of sacrifice, that others might profit by it. They now stand the hope of the nation, around whose firm ranks the shattered elements of the great majority may rally and vindicate the right of the majority to rule, and of the native of the land to make the law of the land. The recent election has developed, in an aggravated form, every evil against which the American party protested. Again in the war of domestic parties, Republican and Democrat have rivalled each other in bidding for the foreign vote to turn the balance of a domestic election. Foreign allies have decided the government of the country — men naturalized in thousands on the eve of the election — eagerly struggled for by competing parties, mad with sectional fury, and grasping any instrument which would prostrate their oppo- nents. Again, in the fierce struggle for supremacy, men have forgotten the ban which the Republic puts on the intrusion of religious influence on the political arena. These in- fluences have brought vast multitudes of foreign-born citizens to the polls, ignorant of American interests, without American feel- ings, influenced by foreign sympathies, to vote on American affairs ; and those votes have, in point of fact, accomplished the present result. The high mission of the American is to restore the influence of the interests of the people in the conduct of affairs ; to exclude appeals to foreign birth or religious feeling as elements of power in politics ; to silence the voice of sectional strife — not by joining either section, but by recalling the people from a profitless and maddening controversy which aids no interest, and shakes the foundation not only of the common industry of the people, but of the Republic itself; to lay a storm amid whose fury no voice can be heard in behalf of the industrial interests of the country, no eye can watch and guard the foreign policy of the government, till our ears may be opened by the crash of foreign war waged for pur- poses of political and party ambition, in the name, but not by the authority nor for the interests, of the American people. Return, then, Americans of the North, from the paths of error to which in an evil hour fierce passions and indignation have seduced you, to the sound position of the American party — silence on the slavery agitation. Leave the territories as they are — to the operation of natural causes. Prevent aggression by ex- cluding from power the aggressors, and there will be no more wrong to redress. Awake the national spirit to the danger and degrada- tion of having the balance of power held by foreigners. Recall the warnings of Washing- ton against foreign influence — here in our midst — wielding part of our sovereignty ; and with these sound words of wisdom let us recall the people from paths of strife and error to guard their peace and power ; and when once the mind of the people is turned from the sla- very agitation, that party which waked the agitation will cease to have power to disturb the peace of the land. This is the great mission of the American party. The first condition of success is to prevent the administration from having a majority in the next Congress ; for, with that, the agitation will be resumed for very different objects. The Ostend manifesto is full of warn- ing ; and they who struggle over Kansas may awake and find themselves in the midst of an agitation compared to which that of Kansas was a summer's sea ; whose instruments will be, not words, but the sword. 136 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Declaration and Pledge. The undersigned, members of the thirty- first Congress of the United State?, believing that a renewal of sectional controversy upon the subject of slavery would be both danger- ous to the Union and destructive to its objects, and seeing no mode by which such controver- sies can be avoided, except by a strict adhe- rence to the settlement thereof, effected by the compromise passed at the last session of Con- gress, do hereby declare their intention to maintain the same settlement inviolate, and to resist all attempts to repeal or alter the acts aforesaid, unless by general consent of the friends of the measure, and to remedy such evils, if any, as time and experience may de- velop. And for the purpose of making this resolution effective, they further declare that they will not support fqr the office of Presi- dent or Vice President, or of Senator or of Representative in Congress, or as member of a state legislature, any man, of whatever party, who is not known to. be opposed to the disturbance of the sentiment aforesaid, and to the renewal, in any form, of agitation upon the subject of slavery hereafter. Henry Clay of Ky., C. S. Morehead of Ky., Robert h. Rose, of N. Y., William C. Dawson of Geo., Thomas J. Rusk of Texas, Jeremiah Clemens of Ala., James Cooper of Pa., Thomas G. Pratt of Mil., William M. Qwinn of Cal., Samuel A. Elliott of Mass., David Outlaw ofN. C, C. H. Williams of Tenn., J. Philips Phoenix of N. Y., A. U. Sehermerhorn of X. Y., John R. Thurman of N. Y., D. A. Bokee of N. Y., George R. Andrews of N. Y., W. P. Mangum of N. C, Jeremiah Morton of Va., R. I. Bowie of Md., E. C. Cabell of Fla., HoiveU Onhb of Geo., H. S. Foote of Miss., William Duer of N.. James Brooks of N. Y., A. II. Stephens of Geo., R. Toombs of Geo., M. P. Gentry of Tenn., H. W. Hilliard of Ala., F. E. McLean of Ky.. A. G. Watkins of Tenn., II. A. Bullard of La., T. S. Havmond of Va., A. H. Sheppard of N. C, Edmund Deberry of N. C, H. Marshall of Ky., Daniel Breck of Ky., James L. Johnson of Ky., J. B. Thompson of Ky., J. M. Anderson of Tenn., John B. Kerr of N. C, J. P. Caldwell of N. C, Allen F. Owen of Geo. Alexander Evans of Md., Those in italics Democrats ; those in roman Whigs. Declaration of Independence. When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of na- ture's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain in- alienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are insti- tuted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ; and that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Pru- dence, indeed, will dictate that governments, long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes ; and, accordingly, all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are suffer- able, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute des- potism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the colonies, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of govern- ment. The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having, in direct object, the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be sub- mitted to a candid world : He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operations till his assent should be obtained ; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature — a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the repository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved representative houses re- peatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused, for a long time after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected ; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise ; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states ; for that purpose, obstructing the laws of naturalization of foreigners, re- fusing to pass others to encourage their migra- tion thither, and raising the conditions of new- appropriations of lands. He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. He has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass uur people, and eat out their substance. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. 137 lie has kept among us, in time of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the military inde- pendent of, and superior to, the civil power. He has combined, with others, to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws : giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation : For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us : For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states : For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world : For imposing taxes on us without our consent : For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefit of trial by jury : For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offences : For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarg- ing its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies :_ For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering, funda- mentally, the forms of our governments : For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated government here, by de- claring us out of his protection, and waging war against us. He has plundered our seas, coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed lives of our people. He is, at this time, transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun, with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the execu- tioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions. In every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injuries. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have we been wanting in attention to cur British brethren. We have warned them, from time to 'time, of the attempts by their ravaged our the legislature to extend an unwarrantable juris- diction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them, by the ties of" our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connexions and correspondence. They, too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind — enemies in war, in peace, friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Con- gress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the autho- rity of the "good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free, and independent States ; that they are ab- solved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connexion between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved ; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. And, for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. The foregoing declaration was, by order of Congress, engrossed, and signed by the follow- ing members JOHN HANCOCK. NEW HAMPSHIRE. Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton. MASSACHUSETTS BAY. Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry. RHODE ISLAND. Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery. CONNECTICUT. Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott. NEW YORK. William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris. NEW JERSEY. Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart. Abraham Clark. PENNSYLVANIA. Robert Morris, ' Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, Oeurge Clyiner, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross. DELAWARE. Caasar Rodney, George Read, Thomas M'Kean. MARYLAND. Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll, of Carrolltoa. VIRGINIA. George Wythe. Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., i'ranejs Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton. NORTH CAROLINA. William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn. SOUTH CAROLINA. Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton. GEORGIA. Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton. 138 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Democratic Caucus, 34th Congress. Resolutions of. — See Letter of Samuel Carutuers. Democratic Platforms. The following platform, adopted by the Cin- cinnati Convention of 185G, contains, besides the position of the Democratic party upon new issues, the material portions of all its previous platforms ; which renders a repetition of them useless. Resolved, That the American Democracy place their trust in the intelligence, the pa- triotism, and the discriminating justice of the American people. Resolved, That we regard this as a distinc- tive feature of our political creed, which we are proud to maintain before the world, as the great moral element in a form of government springing from and upheld by the popular will ; and we contrast it with the creed and practice of Federalism, under whatever name or form, which seeks to palsy the will of the constituent, and which conceives no imposture too monstrous for the popular credulity. Resolved, therefore, That, entertaining these views, the Democratic party of this Union, through their delegates assembled in a gene- ral Convention, coming together in a spirit of concord, of devotion to the doctrines and faith of a free representative government, and ap- pealing to their fellow citizens for the recti- tude of their intentions, renew and re-assert before the American people, the declarations of principles avowed by them when, on former occasions in general Convention, they have presented their candidates for the popular suffrages. 1. That the federal government is one of limited power, derived solely from the Consti- tution ; and the grants of power made therein ought to be strictly construed by all the de- partments and agents of the government ; and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exer- cise doubtful constitutional powers. 2. That the Constitution does not confer upon the general government the power to commence and carry on a general system of internal improvements. 3. That the Constitution does not confer authority upon the federal government, di- rectly or indirectly, to assume the debts of the several states, contracted for local and inter- nal improvements, or other state purposes ; nor would such assumption be just or expe- dient. 4. That justice and sound policy forbid the federal government to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of any other, or to cherish the interests of one portion to the injury of another portion of our common country ; that every citizen and every section of the country has a right to demand and in- sist upon an equality of rights and privileges, and to complete an ample protection of persons and property from domestic violence or foreign agression. 5. That it is the duty of every branch of the government to enforce and practise the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs, and that no more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the necessary ex- penses of the government, and for the gradual, but certain extinction of the public debt. 6. That the proceeds of the public lands ought to be sacredly applied to the national objects specified in the Constitution ; and that we are opposed to any law for the distribution of such proceeds among the states, as alike inexpedient in policy and repugnant to the Constitution. 7. That Congress has no power to charter a national bank ; that we believe such an insti- tution one of deadly hostility to the best inte- rests of the country, dangerous to our republi- can institutions and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and above the laws and the will of the people ; and that the results of Democratic legislation in this and all other financial measures upon which issues have been made between the two political parties of the country, have demonstrated to candid and practical men of all parties, their sound- ness, safety, and utility, in all business pur- suits. 8. That the separation of the moneys of the government from banking institutions is in- dispensable for the safety of the funds of the government, and the rights of the people. ■ 9. That we are decidedly opposed to taking from the President the qualified veto power, by which he is enabled, under restrictions and responsibilities amply sufficient to guard the public interests, to suspend the passage of a bill whose merits cannot secure the approval of two-thirds of the Senate and House of Re- presentatives, until the judgment of the people can be obtained thereon, and which has saved the American people from the corrupt and tyrannical domination of the Bank of the United States, and from a corrupting system of general internal improvements. 10. That the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independ- ence, and sanctioned in the Constitution, which makes ours the land of liberty, and the asylum of the oppressed of every nation, have ever been cardinal principles in the Democratic faith, and every attempt to abridge the privilege of becoming citizens and the owners of soil among us, ought to be resisted with the same spirit which swept the alien and sedition laws from our statute books. And, Whereas, Since the foregoing declara- tion was uniformly adopted by our predeces- sors in National Conventions, an adverse poli- tical and religious test has been secretly or- ganized by a party claiming to be exclusively American, it is proper that the American Democracy should clearly define its relation thereto, and declare its determined opposition DEMOCRATIC PLATFORMS. 139 to all secret political societies, by whatever name they may be called. Resolved, That the foundation of this union of states having been laid in, and its pros- perity, expansion, and pre-eminent example m free government built upon entire freedom in matters of religious concernment, and no respect of person in regard to rank or place of birth ; no party can justly be deemed na- tional, constitutional, or in accordance with American principles, which bases its exclusive organization upon religious opinions and ac- cidental birth-place. And hence a political crusade in the nineteenth century, and in the United States of America, against Catholic and foreign-born, is neither justified by the past history or the future prospects of the country, nor in unison with the spirit of toler- atiou and enlarged freedom which peculiarly distinguishes the American system of popular government. Resolved, That we reiterate with renewed energy of purpose, the well considered de- clarations of former Conventions upon the sectional issue of domestic slavery, and con- cerning the reserved rights of the states. 1. That Congress has no power under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution ; that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences ; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tend- ency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions. 2. That the foregoing proposition covers, and was intended to embrace, the whole sub- ject of slavery agitation in Congress ; and therefore, the Democratic party of the Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the Compromise Measures, set- tled by the Congress of 1850 ; " the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor," included ; which act being designed to carry out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot, with fidelity thereto, be repealed, or so changed as to destroy or impair its effi- ciency. 3. That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made. 4. That the Democratic party will faithfully abide by and uphold the principles laid down in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798, and in the report of Mr. Madison to the Virginia legislature, in 1799 ; that it adopts those principles as constituting one of the main foundations of its political creed, and is | resolved to carry them out in their obvious meaning and import. And that we may more distinctly meet the issue on which a sectional party, subsisting exclusively on slavery agitation, now relies to test the fidelity of the people, north and south, to the Constitution and the Union — 1. Resolved, That claiming fellowship with, and desiring the co-operation of, all who re- gard the preservation of the Union under the Constitution as the paramount issue — and re- pudiating all sectional parties and platforms concerning domestic slavery, which seek to embroil the states and incite to treason and armed resistance to law in the territories ; and whose avowed purposes, if consummated, must end in civil war and disunion ; the American Democracy recognise and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws establishing the territories of Kansas and Nebraska as embo- dying the only sound and safe solution of the " slavery question" upon which the great national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in its determined conser- vatism of the Union — Non-interference by Congress with slavery in state and territory, or in the District of Columbia. 2. That this was the basis of the compro- mises of 1850 — confirmed by both the Demo- cratic and Whig parties in national Conven- tions — ratified by the people in the election of 1852 — and rightly applied to the organization of territories in 1854. 3. That by the uniform application of this Democratic principle to the organization of territories, and to the admission of new states, with or without domestic slavery, as they may elect — the equal rights of all the states will be preserved intact — the original compacts of the Constitution maintained inviolate — and the perpetuity and expansion of this Union insured to its utmost capacity of embracing, in peace and harmony, every future American state that may be constituted or annexed, with a republican form of government. Resolved, That we recognise the right of the people of all the territories, including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the legally and fairly expressed will of a majority of actual residents, and whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a Constitution, with or without domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other states. Resolved, finally, That in the view of the condition of popular institutions in the Old World (and the dangerous tendencies of sec- tional agitation, combined with the attempt to enforce civil and religious disabilities against the rights of acquiring and enjoying citizen- ship, in our own land), a high and sacred duty is devolved with increased responsibility upon the Democratic party of this country, as the party of the Union, to uphold and maintain the rights of every state, and thereby the union of the states ; and to sustain and ad- vance among us constitutional liberty, by con- tinuing to resist all monopolies and exclusive 140 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. legislation for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, and by a vigilant and constant adherence to those principles and compromises of the Constitution, which are broad enough and strong enough to embrace and uphold the Union as it was, the Union as it is, and the Union as it shall be, in the full expansion of the energies and capacity uf this great and progressive people. 1. Resolved, That there are questions con- nected with the foreign policy of this country, which are inferior to no domestic question whatever. The time has come for the people of the United States to declare themselves in favor of free seas and progressive free trade throughout the world, and, by solemn mani- festations, to place their moral influence at the side of their successful example. 2. Resolved, That our geographical and political position with reference to the other states of this continent, no less than the in- terest of our commerce and the development of our growing power, requires that we should hold as sacred the principles involved in the Monroe doctrine: their bearing and import admit of no misconstruction ; they should be applied with unbending rigidity. 3. Resolved, That the great highway which nature, as well as the assent of the states most immediately interested in its mainte- nance, lias marked out for a free communication between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, constitutes one of the most important achieve- ments realized by the spirit of modern times and the unconquerable energy of our people. That result should be secured by a timely and efficient exertion of the control which we have the right to claim over it, and no power on earth should be suffered to impede or clog its progress by any interference with the relations it may suit our policy to establish between our governments and the governments of the states within whose dominions it lies. We can, under no circumstance, surrender our preponderance in the adjustment of all ques- tions arising out of it. 4. Resolved, That in view of so command- ing an interest, the people of the United States cannot but sympathize with the efforts which are being made by the people of Central America to regenerate that portion of the continent which covers the passage across the Interoceanic Isthmus. 5. Resolved, That the Democratic party will expect of the next administration that every proper effort be made to insure our ascendancy in the Gulf of Mexico, and to maintain a per- manent protection to the great outlets through which are emptied into its waters the products raised out of the soil, and the commodities created by the industry of the people of our Western valleys, and of the union at large. 6. Resolved, That the administration of Franklin Pierce has been true to the great interests of the country. In the face of the most determined opposition it has maintained the laws, enforced economy, fostered progress, and infused integrity and vigor into every de- partment of the government at home. It has signally improved our treaty relations, ex- tended the field of commercial enterprise, and vindicated the rights of American citizens abroad. It has asserted with eminent impar- tiality the just claims of every section, and has at all" times been faithful to the Constitution. We therefore proclaim our unqualified appro- bation of its measures and its policy. 7. Resolved, That the Democratic party re- cognises the great importance, in a political and commercial point of view, of a safe and speedy communication through our own terri- tory between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the Union, and that it is the duty of th6 federal government to exercise all its consti- tutional power to the attainment of that object, thereby binding the Union of these states in indissoluble bonds, and opening to the rich commerce of Asia an overland transit from the Pacific to the Mississippi river, and the great lakes of the North. Deposite Bill. Copy of that part of Act of June 23, 183G, providing for a deposite of the surplus reve- nue with the states. Be it enacted, That the money which shall he in the Treasury of the United States on the first day of January, 1837 (reserving the sum of five millions of dollars), shall be deposited with" such of the several states, in proportion to their respective representation in the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, as shall, by law. autho- rize their treasurers or other competent authorities, to receive the same, on the terms hereinafter specified : and the Secretary of the Treasury shall deliver the same to such treasurers or other competent authorities, on receiving cer- tificates of deposit therefor, signed by such competent authi k- rities. in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary aforesaid, which certificates shall express the usual and legal obligations, and pledge the faith of the states for the safe- keeping and repayment thereof, and shall pledge the faith of the states receiving the same to pay the said moneys, and every part thereof, from time to time, whenever the same shall be required by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the purpose of defraying any wants of the public treasury, beyond the amount of the' five millions aforesaid: Provided, That if any state declines to receive its proportion of the surplus aforesaid, on the terms before named, the same shall be deposited with the other states agreeing to accept the same ou deposit in the proportioj aforesaid: And provided further, That when said money, or any part thereof, shall be wanted by the said Secretary, to meet appropriations by law. the same shall be called for. in rateable proportion, within one year, as nearly as conveniently may be, from the different states with which the same is deposited, and snail not be called for in sums exceeding ten thousand dollars from any one state in any one month, without previous notice of thirty days for every additional sum of twenty thousand dollars, which may at any time be required. On the 16th of June, 1836, the bill contain- ing this provision, which was originated by Mr. Calhoun, being before the Senate, Mr. Black of Miss, moved to strike out the part above quoted. The motion was rejected by yeas and nays as follows : — ■ Yeas.— Messrs. Benton of Mo., Black of Miss., Cuthbert of Ga.. Grundy of Tenn., Niles of Conn., Walker of .Miss., Wright f N, Y — 7. N its.— Messrs. Buchanan of Pa.. Calhoun of S. C. Clay and Crittenden of Ky.. Davis of Mass.. Ewing of 0.. Ewing of 111.. Goldsborough of Md., Hendricks of Ind., Hubbard of N. H.. Kent of Md.. King of Ala.. King of Ga.. Knight of 11. 1.. LeiL'h of Va.. Linn of Mo., McKean of Pa., Manguni of N. C, Moore of Ala.. Morris of 0„ Naudaiu of Del., Nicholas of La., Page of X. II., Porter of La., Prentiss of Vt„ i'reston of S. C.^ Rives of Va., Bobbins of It. I.. Bobinson of 111., Buggies of Me., Shepley of Me., Southard of N. J., DEPOSITE BILL. 141 Swift of Yt„ Talmadge of N. T., Tipton of Tnd.. Tomlinson of Conn., Wall of N. J., Webster of iMass., White of Tenn. —39. On the 18th of June, 1836, the vote was taken on the final passage of the bill — it was carried by yeas and nays as follows : The yeas were the same as the negative vote last recorded, with the exception of Mr. Naudain of Del., and the addition of Mr. Niles of Conn. The nays were the same as the affirmative vote last recorded, with the exception of Mr. Niles of Conn. The House passed the bill on the 22d of June, 1836, by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. John Quincy Adarus, Allan of Ky., Allen of Vt., Anthony of Pa., Ashley of Mo., Bailey of Me., Bell of Tenn., Bookee of N. Y.. Bond of 0., Boon of Ind., Borden of Mass., Bovee of N. Y., Boyd of Ky., Briggs of Mass., Bunch of Tenn., Bynum of N. C, Calhoon of Ky., Calhoun of Mass., Carr of Ind., Carter of Tenn.. Casey of 111., Chambers of Pa., Chaney of 0., Chapman of Ala., Chapin of N. Y., Childs of N. Y., Claiborne of Va., Clark of Pa., Cleveland of Ga., Conner of N. C, Corwin of 0., Craig of Va., Cramer of N. Y., Crane of 0., Cushing of Mass., Darlington of Pa.. Deberry of N. C, Denny of Pa., Dickerson of N. J., Doubleday of N. Y., Evans of Me., Everett of Vt., Forester of Tenn., Fowler of N. J., French of Ky., Fry of Pa., Fuller of N. Y., Galbraith of Pa., Garland of Va., Garland of La., Granger of N. Y., Grautland of Ga., Graves of Ky., Grayson of S. C, Grennell of Mass., Criffin of S. C, Haley of Conn., Hannegan of Ind., Hard of N. Y., Hardin of 111., Harlan of Ky., Harrison of Pa., Har- rison of Mo., Hawes of Ky., Hawkins of N. C, Hazletine of N. Y., Henderson of Pa., Heister of Pa., Hoar of Mass., Hop- kins of Va., Howard of Md , Howell of 0., Hubley of Pa., Hunt of N. Y., Huntsman of Tenn., Ingersoll of Pa., Ingham of Conn.. Jackson of Mass., Jackson of Ga., Janes of Vt., Jenifer of Md., Johnson of Va., Jones of Va., Jones of 0., Judson of Conn., Kilgore of 0., Kinnard of Ind., Lane of Ind., Laporte of Pa., Lawler of Ala., Lawrence of Mass., Lay of N. Y., Lee of N. J., Lea of Tenn., Leonard of N. Y., Lewis, Lincoln of Mass., Logan of Pa., Love of N. Y., Lyon of Ala., Mann of Pa.. Martin of Ala.. Mason of Me., Mason of 0., May of 111., McCarty of Ind.. McComas of Va., McKennan of Pa., Mercer of Va., Milligan of Del., Miller of Pa., Mont- gomery of N. C, Morgan of Va., Morris of Pa., Muhlenberg of Pa., Parker of N. J., Patterson of 0., Patten of Va., Pearce of R. I., Pearce of Md.. Pettigrew of N. C, Peyton of Tenn., Phelps of Conn., Phillips of Mass.. Pickens of S. C, Potts of Pa., Reed of Mass., Bencher of N. C, Reynolds of N. Y*., Kipley of La., Robertson of Va., Russell of N. Y., Shepperd of N. C, Shields of Tenn., Shinn of N. J., Slade of Vt., Smith of Me., Spangler of 0., Speight of N. C, Standifer of Tenn., Storer of 0., Sutherland of Pa., Taliaferro of Va., Thomson of S. C, Toucey of Conn., Underwood of Ky., Vinton of 0., Wagener of Pa., Washington of Md., Webster of 0., White of Ky.. Whittlesey of Conn., Whittlesey of 0., Williams of X. C, Williams of Ky.— 155. Nats. — Messrs. Ash of Pa., Beale of Va., Bean of N. H., Beaumont of Pa., Brown of N. Y., Burns of N. H., Claiborne of Miss., Coles of Va., Cushman of N. II., Dromgoole of Va., Fairfield of Me., Fuller of N. Y.. Gillett of N. Y., Hall of Me., 1 lamer of 0., Jarvis of Me., Johnson of Ky., Lansing of N. Y., G. Lee of N. Y., Loyall of Va., Mann of N. Y., Mason of Va., McKay of N. C, McKean of N. Y., McKim of Md., Parke of Me., Pierce of N. H., Pinckney of S. C, Roane of Va., Rogers of S. C, Sickles of N. Y., Taylor of N. Y., Thomas of M*., Turrillof N. Y., Vanderpoel of N". Y., Ward of N. Y., Wurdwell of N. Y., Wise of Va.— 38. Extract from speech of Mr. Benton on the Deposite Bill, June 17, 1836 : — Mr. Benton said — The bad consequences of this distribution of money to the states are palpable and frightful. It is complicating the federal and state systems, and multiplying their points of contact and hazards of colli- sion. Take it as ostensibly presented, that of a deposite, or loan, to be repaid at some future time ; then it is establishing the rela- tion of debtor and creditor between them ; a relation critical between friends, embarrass- ing between a state and its citizens, and emi- nently dangerous between confederate states and their common head. It is a relation al- ways deprecated in our federal system. The land credit system was abolished by Congress fifteen years ago, to get rid of the relation of debtor and creditor between the federal go- vernment and the citizens of the states ; and seven or eight millions of debt, principal and interest, was then surrendered. The collection of a large debt from numerous individual debtors was found to be almost impossible. How much worse if the state itself becomes the debtor ! and more, if all the states become indebted together ! An attempt to collect the debt would be attended, first, with ill blood, then with cancellation. It must be the repre- sentatives of the states who are to enforce the collection of the debt. This they would not do. They would stand together against credi- tor. No member of Congress would vote to tax his state to raise money for the general purposes of the confederacy. No one could vote an appropriation which was to become a charge on his own state treasury. Taxation would first be resorted to, and the tariff and the public lands would become the fountain of supply to the federal government. Taken as a real transaction, as a deposite with the states, or a loan to the states, as this measure professes to be, and it is fraught with consequences adverse to the harmony of the federal system, and fraught with new burdens upon the customs and upon the lands ; taken as a fiction to avoid the Constitution, as a John Doe and Richard Roe invention to con- vey a gift under the name of a deposite, and to effect a distribution under the disguise of a loan, and it is an artifice which makes deri- sion of the Constitution, lets down the Senate from its lofty station, and provides a facile way for doing anything that any Congress may choose to do in all time to come. It is only to depose one word and instal another — it is merely to change a name — and the frown- ing Constitution immediately smiles on the late forbidden attempt. To the federal government the conse- quences of these distributions must be deplo- rable and destructive. It must be remitted to the helpless condition of the old confede- racy, depending for its supplies upon the vo- luntary contributions of the states. Worse than depending on the voluntary contribu- tions, it will be left to the gratuitous leavings, to the eleemosynary crumbs which remaiu upon the table after the feast of the states is over. God grant they may not prove to be the feasts of the Lapithas and Centaurs ! But the states will be served first ; and what re- mains may go to the objects of common de- fence and national concern for which the con- federacy was framed, and for which the power of raising money was confided to Congress. The distribution bills will be passed first, and the appropriation bills afterwards ; and every appropriation will be cut down to the lowest point and kept off to the last moment. To stave off as long as possible, to reduce as lew 142 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. as possible, to defeat whenever possible, will be the tactics of federal legislation ; and when at last some object of national expenditure has miraculously run the gauntlet of all these as- saults, and escaped the perils of these multi- plied dangers, behold the enemy still ahead, and the recapture which awaits the devoted appropriation in the shape of unexpended ba- lances, on the first day of January then next Extract from the speech of Mr. Buchanan in the Senate, June 17, 1836 : — " What, then, is the true nature of the mea- sure now before the Senate ? It is a deposite with the states in form, and a deposite in effect. It is no distribution — no gift of the public money. The bill requires the states receiving the money to deliver to the Secretary of the Treasury certificates of deposit for such amounts, and in such form as he may pre- scribe — payable to the United States or their assigns ; and, without any direction from Con- gress, he is authorized to sell and assign these certificates, rateably, in proportion to the sums received, and thus convert them into money whenever it shall become necessary for the payment of any of the appropriations made by Congress. How any constitutional objec- tion can arise to this disposition of the public money, I am utterly at a loss to conceive. In order to maintain such an objection, gentle- men must establish the position that Congress do not possess the power of depositing the public money where they think proper. This would, indeed, be a Herculean task. " This bill provides merely for a deposit of the public money with the states ; not for a do- nation of it to them. In its terms and in its spirit, it proposes nothing more than to make the state treasuries the depositories of a por- tion of the public money, instead of the depo- site banks. If the states should derive inci- dental advantages from the use of this money, without interest, the deposite banks have here- tofore used it, and, under the provisions of this bill will continue to use it, upon the very same terms, to the extent of one-fourth of their capitals. Surely no Senator upon this floor can complain of the benefits which may be conferred upon the states by the adoption of this measure." Extract from the speech of Mr. Calhoun, May 27, 1836 :— " But the plan proposed is supported by its justice, as well as these high considerations of political expediency. The surplus money in the treasury is not ours. It properly belongs to those who made it, from whom it has been un- justly taken. I hold it an unquestionable principle that the government has no right to take a cent from the people beyond what is necessary to meet its legitimate and constitu- tional wants. To take more intentionally would be robbery ; and if the government has not incurred the guilt in the present case, its | exemption can only be found in its folly — the folly of not seeing and guarding against a vast excess of revenue, which the most ordinary understanding ought to have foreseen and pre- vented. If it were in our power — if we could ascertain from whom the vast amount now in the treasury was improperly taken, justice would demand that it should be returned to its lawful owners. But, as that is impossible, the measure next best, as approaching nearest to restitution, is that which is proposed, to de- posit it in the treasuries of the several states, which will place it under the disposition of the immediate representatives of the people, to be used by them as they may think fit, till the wants of the government may require its return." Mr. Calhoun, six years afterwards, in Ja- nuary, 1841, made the following reference to the deposite bill of 1836 : — " I regarded it then, and still do, as simply a deposite. But while I regarded it as a depo- site, I did then and now do believe that it should never be withdrawn but in the event of war, when it would be found a valuable resource. The surplus was not lawfully collected. Con- gress had no right to take a cent from the peo- ple but for the just and constitutional wants of the country. To take more, or for other purposes, is neither more nor less than rob- bing — more criminal for being perpetrated by a trustee appointed to guard their interest. It, in fact, belonged to those from whom it was unjustly plundered ; and if the individual and the share of each could have been ascer- tained, it ought, upon every principle of jus- tice, to have been returned to them. But as that was impossible, the nearest practicable approach to justice was to return it propor- tionately to the states as a deposit till wanted for the use of the people from whom it was unjustly taken, instead of leaving it with the banks for the benefit of speculators and stock- jobbers. So far from this (being distribution |, the deposite act, whether viewed in the cause- which led to it, or its object and effects, stands in direct contrast with it." Extract from a speech of Mr. Walker of Mississippi, May 30, 1836 : — Mr. Walker said he had other objections to this bill. It was a dangerous and untried ex- periment. It would greatly complicate and embarrass the relations between the states and the general government. It would make all the states debtors of the general government, and create a new and strong pecuniary^ in- terest in favor of a dissolution of the Union, as a means of absolving themselves from the heavy debts they may incur to the general government under this law. The relation of debtor and creditor was not generally one of long-continued friendship. It was an old, but true remark, if you wish to make a friend your enemy, loan him money beyond his means of convenient payment. It is admitted DEPOSITE BILL. Ul that the states will expend this money, and when we call upon them for payment, will it be made? Suppose a minority of states re- fuse payment, or that a single state refuses, how will we collect the money? A suit is impracticable. Will we then collect it by force, or leave it uncollected, to the injury of all the states that make payment ? But if the general government must loan the money, and the states must make good the loan, how will they do it? Will the state legislatures dare to impose a direct tax upon the people of each state to refund these uncounted millions? No, they will instruct their representatives in Congress to collect the money required by the general government by increasing the tariff and the price of the public lands. If the loan be not a gift in disguise, an increase of the tariff and the price of the publiclands is the inevitable result of this measure. If it be a gift in dis- guise, it is a distribution of the surplus reve- nue, which the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] has denounced as a gross vio- lation of the Constitution. The effect upon the deposite banks of the delivery of the first and second instalments to the states, draining, as it did, from them so many millions each quarter, was such as to force them to close their doors. The first instalment, says Col. Benton, in his Thirty Years' View, was paid to the states in specie, or its equivalent ; the second also in valid money, the third one was accepted in depreciated paper, and the fourth they were very willing to take in the same way. Before the payment of the fourth instal- ment, the federal government needed the money itself, even more than the amount already deposited. To remedy the difficulty a bill was reported to the Senate to postpone the payment of the fourth instalment of the deposite. The Finance Committee brought in a bill to repeal the obligation to deposit that instal- ment. This bill was opposed by Messrs. McDuffie and Crittenden, on the ground that the states had anticipated the fourth instalment by con- tracts for public works, and that they would suffer more from not receiving it than the federal treasury otherwise would from sup- plying its place. Other Senators, says Col. Benton, treated the deposit act as a contract which the United States was bound to comply with, by deliver- ing all the instalments. In the progress of the bill, Mr. Buchanan proposed an amendment to release the Secre- tary from the duty of calling upon the states fur' a return of the deposit when needed by the federal treasury, and to enact that the in- stalments already delivered should remain in deposite with the states until called for by Congress. Mr. Nilcs of Conn., opposing the amend- ment of Mr. Buchanan, remarked: — " He must ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment, and was sorry it had been offered. If it was to be fully considered, it would renew the debate on the deposite act, as it went to change the essential principles and terms of that act. A majority of those who voted for that act, about which there had been so much said, and so much misrepresentation, had pro- fessed to regard it — and he could not doubt that at the time they did so regard it — as sim- ply a deposit law ; as merely changing the place of deposite from the banks to the states, so far as related to the surplus. The money was still to be in the treasury, and liable to be drawn out, with certain limitations and restric- tions, by the ordinary appropriation laws, with- out the direct action of Congress. The amend- ment, if adopted, will change the principles of the deposite act, and the condition of the money deposited with the states under it. It will no longer be a deposite ; it will not be in the trea- sury, even in point of legal effect or form : the deposite will be changed to a loan, or, perhaps more properly, a grant to the states. The rights of the United States will be changed to a mere claim, like that against the late Bank of the United States ; and a claim without any means to enforce it. We were charged, at the time, withmakingadistributionof thepublicrevenue to the states, in the disguise and form of a de- posite ; and this amendment, it appeared to him, would be a very bold step towards confirming the truth of that charge. He deemed the amendment an important one, and highly ob- jectionable ; but he saw that the Senate wero prepared to adopt it, and he would not pursue the discussion, but content himself with re- peating his request for the yeas and nays ou the question." The proposition of Mr. Buchanan was car- ried by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Allen of 0., Bayard of Del., Black of Miss., Brown of N. C, Buchanan of Pa.,'Calboun of S. C, Clayton of Del., Crittenden of Ky., Fulton of Arks.. Grundy of Tenn.. Kent of Md., King of Ala., King of Gen.. Knight of R. I.. Linn of Mo., Lyon of Mich., Morris of 0., ISMeholas of La., Norvell of Mich., Preston of S. C, Robbins of R. I., Robinson of I!!.. Sevier of Arks., Smith of Ind.. Southard of N. J., Strange of N. C. Swift of Vt. Tallmadge of N. V., Wall of N. J.. Web- ster of Mass., White of Tenn., Williams of Me., and Young of 111.— 33. Nays.— Messrs. Benton of Mo., Clay of Ala., Hubbard of N. H., Niles of Conn., Pierce of N. H.. Hives of Va.. Roane of Va., Ruggles of Me., Smith of Conn., Tipton of Ind., Walker of Miss., and Wright of N. Y— 12. In the House the bill was carried by a vote of 119 to 117. Mr. Pickens of S. C. moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill passed. He then moved to amend the bill so as to postpone the payment of the fourth instalment of the deposite, until the 1st day of January, 1839. This amendment was adopted by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas — Messrs. Ilcman Allen of Vt., Jno. W. Allen of 0.. Anderson of Me., Andrews, Atherton of N. H., Beatty of Pa.. Bicknell of N. Y., Borden of Mass., Briggs of Ma.ss., Bronson of N. Y., Bruyn of N. Y., Buchanan of Pa., Win. B. Calhoun of Mass., Jno. Calhoon of Ky., Cambreleng of N. Y.. Wm. B. Campbell of Tenn., Jno. Campbell of S. C , Timothy J. Carter of Me., Wm. B. Carter of Tenn., Casey of 144 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 111., Chancy of 0., Cheatham of Term., Cilley of Me., Clai- borne of Miss., Clark of N. Y., Cleveland of Geo., Clowney of S. C. Connor of N. C, Corwin of 0., Craig of Va., Crockett of Tenn., Cushman of Mass., Davee of Me.. Deberry of N. C, Degraff of N. Y., Durjcan of 0., Elmore of S. C. Fairfield of Me., Foster of N. Y., Gallup of N. Y., Kice Garland of La., Gholsou of Miss., Glascock of Geo., Grantland of Geo., Grant of N. Y., Gray of N. Y., Griffin of S. C, Hall of Yt., Ham- mond of Pa., Hamer of 0., Hastings of Mass., Hawkins of N. C, Henry of Pa., Herod of Ind., Holsey of Geo.. Howard of Md., Robt. M. T. Hunter of Va., Ingham of Conn., Jabez Jackson of Geo., Jenifer of Md., Henry Johnson of La., J antes Johnson of Va., Nathaniel Jones of N. Y.. Jno. W . Jones of Va., Kilgore of 0., Legare of S. C, Leadbetter of 0., Lewis of Ala., Logan of Pa., Andrew W. Looniis ot N. Y., Lyon of Ala., Martin of Ala., Maury of Tenn., Maxwell of IN. J., Robt. McClellan of N. Y., McClure of Pa., Mclvim of Md., Menefee of Ky., Montgomery of N. C, Morgan of Va., Matthias Morris of Pa., Samuel W. Morris of Pa., Murray, Naylor of Pa., Noble of N. Y., Owens of Geo.. Palmer of N, Y., Parker of N. Y.. Parmeter of Mass., Petriken of Pa.. Phelps of Conn., Pickens of S. C, Plumer of Pa., Pope of Ky., Potts of Pa., Potter of Pa., Pratt of N. Y.. Prentiss of N. Y., Rariden of Ind., Randolph of N. J.. Rhrtt of S. C, Richardson of S. C, Ridgway of Ohio, Rumsey of Ky., Rus- sell of N. Y., Sawyer of N. C, Sergeant of Pa.. Sheffer of Pa., A"ustine II. Shepherd of N. C, Chas. Sheppard of N. C, Shipler of 0., Slade of Vt., Smith of Me., Spencer of N. Y., Taylor of N. Y., Thomas of Md., Thompson of S. C, Titus of N. Y., Towns of Geo., Vail of N. Y.. Vanderveer of N. Y., Wagner of Pa.. Webster of 0., Weeks of N. H.. Albert S. White of Ind., Elisha Whittlesey of 0., Thos. T. Whittlesey of Conn., Sherrod Williams of Ky., Worthington of Md., Yell of Arks.— 131. Nats.— Messrs. Adams of Mass., Aycrigg of N. .J., Bieme of Va., Bell of Tenn., Biddle of Pa., Birdsall of N. Y., Bond of 0., Bouldin of Va., Brodhead of N. Y., Chambers of Ky., Chapman of Ala.; Childs of N. Y., Coles of Va., Crary of Mich., Cranston of R. I., Curtis of N. Y., Cushing of Mass., Darlington of Pa.. Dawson of Ga., Davies of Pa., Dennis of Md.. Dromgoole of Va., Dunn of Ind., Edwards of N. Y., Evans of Me., Everett of Vt., Ewing of Ind., Farrington of N. H., Richard Fletcher of Vt., Fillmore of N. Y., Fry of Pa., Goode of 0., Jas. Graham of N. C, Wm. Graham of Ind., Graves of Ky., Grennell of Mass., Haley of Conn., Halstead of N. J., Harlan of Ky., Harrison of Mo., Harper of 0., Hawes of Ky., Haynes of Ga., Hoffman of N. Y., Holt of Conn., Hubley of Me., Wm. II. Hunter of 0., Thos. B. Jackson of N. Y., Wm. Cost. Johnson of Md., Kemble of N. Y., Klingen- smith of Pa., Lincoln of Mass., Arphaxed Loomis of N. Y., Mallory of Va., Marvin of N. Y., Jas. M. Mason of Va., Samson Mason of 0., McKay of N. C, Abraham McClellan of Tenn., McKennan of Pa., Mercer of Va., Millijcan of Del., Miller of Mo., Moore of N. Y., Calvary Morris of 0., Muhlen- berg of Pa., Noves of Me.. Ogle of Pa , Patterson of N. Y., Paynter of Pa.,'Pearce of Md., Peck of N. Y., Pennybacker of Va., Phillips of Mass., Reed of Mass., Reiley of Pa., Ren- cher of N. C, Rives of Va., Robertson of Va.. Shields of Tenn., Southgate of Ky., Stanby of N. C, Stuart, Taliaferro of Va., Tillinghast of R. I., Sibley of N. Y., Snyder of 111., Toland of Pa., Toucey of Conn., Turney of Tenn., Under- wood of Kv., John White of Ky.. Lewis Williams of N. C, Jared W. Williams of N. H., Joseph L. Williams of Term., Christopher U. Williams of Tenn., Wise of Va., Yoike of N. J.— 90. Col. Benton says : " The three instalments already delivered were not to lie recalled until r\mgress should so order, and it was quite cer- tain it would never so order. At the same time the nominal discretion of Congress over the deposite of the remainder was denied, and the duty of the Secretary made peremptory to de- liver it in the brief space of one year and a quarter from that time. But events frustrated that order. The treasury was in no condition on the 1st day of January, 1839, to deliver that amount of money. It was penniless itself. The compromise act of 1833, making periodi- cal reductions in the tariff, until the whole duty was reduced to an ad valorem of twenty per cent., had nearly run its course, and left the treasury in the condition of a borrower instead of that of a donor or lender of money. The fourth instalment could not be delivered at the time appointed, nor subsequently, and was finally relinquished ; the states retaining the amount they had received. At the third session of the 34th Congress, Mr. Campbell of 0., from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported the following bill :— A bill to provide for the deposite of the surplus in the Trea- sury of the United States with the several states. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the money which shall be in the Treasury of the United States on the first day of July. 1857, reserving the sum of $2,000,000, shall be deposited with such of the several states, in proportion to their respective representation in the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, as shall by law authorize their treasurers or other competent autho- rities to receive the same on the terms hereinafter specified ; and the Secretary of the Treasury shall deliver the same to such treasurers or other competent authorities on receiving certificates of deposite therefor, signed by such competent authorities, in such form as may be prescribed by the Sec- retary aforesaid: which certificates shall express the usual and legal obligations and pledge the faith of the state for the safe-keeping and repayment thereof, and shall pledge the faith of the states receiving the same to pay the said moneys and every part thereof, frgm time to time, whenever the same shall be required by the Secretary of the Treasury for the purpose of defraying any wants of the public Trea- sury beyond the amount of the two millions aforesaid: Provided, That if any state declines to receive its proportion of the surplus aforesaid on the terms before named, the same shall be deposited with the other states agreeing to accept the same on deposite in the proportion aforesaid : And provided further, That when said money, or any part thereof, shall be wanted by the said Secretary to meet appropriations by law, the same shall be called for, in rateable proportions, within one year, as nearly as conveniently may tie, from the different states with which the same is deposited, and shall not be called for in sums exceeding $10,000 from any one state, in any one month, without previous notice of thirty days for every additional sum of $20,000 which may at any time be required. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted. That the said deposites shall be made with the said states in the following propor- tions and at the following terms, to wit : one half part on the first day of July, 1857, and one-half part on the first day of October, 1857. Mr. Orr called for the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken ; and it was decided in the affirmative — yeas 119, nays 79 ; as fol- lows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Akeks, Albright, Allison. Ball. Henry Ben- nett, Benson, Bingham, Bishop, Bococl:, Bowie, BraoShaw. Branch, Brenton. Broom, Burlingame. James II. Campbell, John P. Campbell, Lewis D. Campbell, Caslie, Ezra Clark. Clawson, Clingman. Colfax. Covode, Cox, Cragin, Craipe, Cullen, Curnback, Henry Winter Davis, Timothy Davis, Dean, Dick. Dickson, Dodd, Dunn. Durfee, Edie, Faulkner, Flagler, Henry M. Fuller, Galloway, Harlan, J. Morrison Harris, Harrison, Haven, Hodges, Hoffman, Holloway, Thomas R. Horton, Valentine B. Horton, Howard. Hughs ton, Kelly, Kelsey, Kennett, King, Knapp. Knight, Knowlton. Knox, Kunkel, Alexander K. Marshall. Humphrey Mar- shall, MeCarty, McMullin, Killian Miller, Millson, Millward, Moore, Morgan, Morrill, Murray. Norton. Paine. Parker. Pennington, Perry, Porter. Prinsle. Puryiance, Puryear. Ready, Ricaud, Ritchie, Robbins, Roberts, Robinson, Ruffin. Sabin, Sage, Sapp, Scott, Sherman. Simmons. William Smith, Sneed, Stanton, Stewart, Stranahan, Swope, Tappan. Thoi- ington, Thurston, Tyson,* Underwood, Valk. Wade, Wake man, Walbridge, Waldron, Elihu B. Washburne, Israel Washburne, Welch, Williams, Winslow, Wood, Woodruff, Zollicoffer. — 119. Nays.— Messrs. Aiken. Allen, Barbour, Barclay. Hendley S. Bennett, Billinghurst, Boyce, Buffington, Burnett, Codwala der, Carlile, "Caruthers, Chaffee, Williamson B. W. Cobb, Comins, Crawford. Damrell, Davidson, Jacob C. Davis, Day, Denver, Doivdell, FAliott, FIustis, Evans, Florence, Foster, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Garnelt, Goode, Greenwood, Augustus Hall, Sampson W. Harris, Thomas L. Harris, Herbert, Hous- ton, Jewett, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Kidwell, Lake, * Does not profess to be a Democrat, but supported Mr. Buchanan. DEPOSITE BILL.— DRAYTON AND SAYRES PARDON. 145 Leiter, Letcher, Lumpkin, Mace, Samuel S. Marshall, Max- well, McQueen, Smith Miller, Morrison, Mott. Nichols, An- drew Oliver, Orr, Packer, Peck, Pettit, Powell, Quitman, Sandidge, Savage, Seward, Shorter, Samuel A. Smith, Wil- liam K. Smith, Spinner, Talbott, Taylor, Trat'ton, Vail, Wal- ker, Warner, Cadwalader C. Washburne, Watson, Weils, Wlweler, Woodworth, Daniel B. WriglU,John V. Wright.— -79. Fillmore Americans in small caps ; Repub- licans in roman ; Democrats in italics. So the bill was passed. Mr. Campbell of 0. moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed, and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table ; which latter motion was agreed to. Pending the vote, Mr. Smith of Va. said : Protesting against the policy which creates the necessity of this act, and compels me to vote for it, I vote " ay." Mr. Etheridge stated that if he had been present when his name was called, he would have voted " ay." The bill was not acted on by the Senate. Distribution of Proceeds of Public Lands. See Public Lands. Douglas, Stephen A. (See Nebraska, &c. Tonnage Duties.) Chicago Resolutions of. On the 23d of October, 1850, Judge Douglas delivered a speech at the City Hall, Chicago, in defence of his support of the Compromise measures of 1850. At the conclusion of his speech he offered the following resolutions, which were passed without a dissenting voice : — Kesolved, That it is the sacred duty of every friend of the 1 uion to maintain, and preserve inviolate, every provision of our Federal Constitution. Kesolved, That any law enacted by Congress, in pursuance of the Constitution, should he respected as such by all good ii nd law-abiding citizens; and should be faithfully carried into effect by the officers charged with its execution. Kesolved, That so long as the Constitution of the United States provides, that all persons held to service or labor in one state, escaping into another state, " shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom the service or labor may he due," and so long as members of Congress are re- quired to take an oath to support the Constitution, it is their solemn and religious duty to pass all laws necessary t<> carry that provision of the Constitution into effect. Kesolved, that if we desire to preserve the Union, and render our great republic inseparable and perpetual, we must perform all our obligations under the Constitution, at the same time that we call upon our brethren in other slates to yield implicit obedience to it. Resolved, That as the lives, property, and safety of our- selves and our families depend upon the observance and protection of the laws, every effort to excite any portion of out population to make resistance to the due execution of the laws of the land, should be promptly and emphatically condemned by every good citizen. Resolved, That we will stand or fall by the American Union and its Constitution, with all its compromises; with its glorious memories of the past and precious hopes of the future. [The following was offered in addition by B. S. Morris, and also adopted :] Resolved, That we, the people of Chicago, repudiate the resolutions, passed by the common council of Chicago, upon the subject of the fugitive slave law passed by Congress at its last session. The resolutions of the council referred to were as follows : — Whereas, The Constitution of the United States provides that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it ; and, 10 Whereas, The late act of Congress, purporting to tie for the recovery of fugitive slaves, virtually suspends the habeas corpus and abolishes the right of trial by jury, and by its provisions, not only fugitive slaves, but white men. "owing service" to another in another state, viz., the apprentice, the mechanic, the farmer, the laborer engaged on contract or otherwise, whose terms of service are unexpired, may be captured and carried off summarily, and without legal re- source of any kind ; and. Whereas, No law can be legally or morally binding on us which violates the provisions of the Constitution ; and, Whereas, Above all, in the responsibilities of human life, and the practice and propagation of Christianity, the laws of God should be held paramount to all human compacts and statutes: Therefore, Resolved, That the Senators and Representatives in Con- gress from the free states, who aided and assisted in the passage of this infamous law, and those who so basely sneaked away from their seats, and there.by evaded the question, richly merit the reproach of all lovers of freedom, and are fit only to he ranked with the traitors. Benedict Arnold and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed his Lord and Master for thirty pieces of silver. And Resolved, That the citizens, officers, and police of the city be, and they are hereby, requested to abstain from any and all interference in the capture and delivering up of the fugitive from unrighteous oppression, of whatever nation, name, or color. Resolved, That the fugitive slave law lately passed by Congress is a cruel and unjust law, and ought not to be respected by any intelligent community, and that this council will not require the city police to render any assist- ance for the arrest of fugitive slaves. Yeas.— Aid. Milliken, Loyd. Sherwood, Foss, Throopi Sher- man, Richards, Brady, and Dodge. Nats. — Aid. Page and Williams. On the succeeding night the common coun- cil of the city repealed their nullifying reso- lution by a vote of 12 to 1. Drayton and Sayres Pardon. In the year 1848 the city of Washington was startled by the announcement that a very large number of its slave population had absconded upon the same night. Suspicion was directed against a particular vessel which had left the port of Washington ; it was pur- sued and overtaken, and concealed under hatches were found seventy-three slaves be- longing to citizens of the District of Columbia and of the states of Maryland and Virginia The vessel was in charge of three white men from the North. The slaves and the kidnap- pers were brought back to the city and placed in prison. The following record shows the action of the Criminal Court in the case : — Criminal Court of the District of Columbia. for the county of Washington. March term, 1849. United States ] May 8. Convicted of v. > transporting slaves in 73 : Daniel Drayton. ) cases, and sentenced by the court in each case to pay a fine of $140 and costs, one half of the fine to the owner of the slaves, according to the act of Md. of 1796, ch. 67. Ordered to be committed to the jail of Washington county till fines and costs are paid. Same number of cases v. Edward Sayres, and fined $100 and costs in each, and com- mitted as above. Test : John A. Smith, Clerk. Under the law of Maryland, in force in the District of Columbia, the penalty is a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars, with imprison. 146 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ment in the county jail as the alternative of non-payment. This act was passed in 1796. The court did not impose the maximum fine in either case, one-half of which, under the terms of the law, enured to the owners of the slaves, and the other to the " commissioners of the county." The costs belonged to the United States, by whom all the expenses of the prosecution had been paid. They remained in jail four years, when Mr. Fillmore pardoned them. Record of pardon. — Criminal Court of the District of Columbia for the county of Wash- ington : — United States v. Daniel Drayton. August 12, 1852. — Discharged from jail by the President of the United States, Millard Fillmore. Same v. Edward Sayres. — Also discharged, at the same time, by the President. Test: John A. Smith, Clerk. In the speeches and addresses of Mr. Sumner of Mass., will be found an argument which he laid before Mr. Fillmore, and to which- is credited their pardon. On the 22d of April, 1852, Mr. Crittenden, the Attorney-General, submitted an opinion on the right of the President to pardon the prisoners, from which the following is an extract : — Under these statutes, Daniel Drayton and Edward Sayres were severally indicted, in the Criminal Court for the District of Columbia and county of AVashington, in many cases, for transporting various slaves, the property of persons residing in the city of Washington, Georgetown, and the county of Washington, to the number of fifty or sixty slaves or more. The slaves were transported in a vessel which was pursued by some of the inhabitants of the District, overtaken in the Chesapeake Bay, and the vessel, slaves, and the offenders, were brought back to the city of Washington. Upon the convictions on the several indict- ments, the court pronounced judgments for fines in various sums, under two hundred dollars each and costs ; amounting in all the several convictions of the two offenders to up- wards of $18,000. The cases of Daniel Drayton and Edward Sayres are convictions under a law, which gave one half of the penalties for its violation to the parties aggrieved, and the other half to the use of the county. The judgments are so given and recorded. According to the uni- form and unbroken current of opinions pro- nounced by the sages of the common law of England, the prerogative power of pardon, vested in the crown of Great Britain, and ex- ercised from time immemorial, does not com- prehend such cases as those of Drayton and Sayres. I have given you a citation of the decisions in the courts of the United States, bearing upon the power of granting pardons, as vested by the Constitution of the United States in the President. I cannot advise that this power is of greater scope and extent than that vested in the King of Great Britain, as a branch of the royal pre- rogative, and as understood and exercised in that country from time immemorial. I cannot advise that your power of pardon, as President of the United States, extends to any portion of the several fines imposed by the judgments against Drayton and Sayres. The imprisonment is to compel payment of the fines, and not to be released by the power of granting pardons, any more than the fines themselves. If the power of granting pardons had been, in practice, applied to the release of the por- tion of fines, penalties, and forfeitures, which, by the laws of the United States, are directed to be distributed to individuals, the question of such a power would have been brought before the judiciary, and into the Supreme Court of the United States, for final adjudica- tion: the individuals, deprived of their interests by such pardons, would not have suffered their losses to go by default, without seeking the opinion of the judiciary. In the long series of sixty years and more, during which the Federal Constitution has been in operation, that no such question has been brought into the Supreme Court of the United States, leads rationally to the conclusion that no one of your predecessors in office (twelve in number), during the whole operations of the Constitu- tion and laws of the United States, has exer- cised the power of pardon, by way of remitr ting or releasing a private right or interest in a fine, penalty, or forfeiture, accrued under laws of the United States, and consum- mated by judgment or condemnation. The non-user of such a power in any instance, during such a great length of time, and under such multiplied prosecutions, lays the founda- tion for rational belief that your predecessors in office have construed the Constitution as not conferring such a power ; as limiting and confining the prerogative power of pardon by the principles of the common law ; and as not conferring on the President of the United States a more extensive power than the pre- rogative of granting pardons, vested in the king by the British constitution. Having given my advice and opinion on the question as propounded to me, with the rea- sons and authorities on which my opinion has been formed, it remains for you, in your high- est trust and better judgment, to decide for yourself this very important question of con- stitutional law. I have the honor to be, Very respectfully, J. J. Crittende.v. To the President. On the 4th of Aug.,1852, Mr. Crittenden submitted another opinion, of which the fol- lowing is an extract : — I shall trouble the President with no fur- ther authorities or remarks on the question he has been pleased to refer to me. I regret URAYTON AND SAYRES PARDON.— DRED SCOTT CASE. 147 the length to which they have been already extended ; and will close by a simple and brief statement of the conclusions to which my mind has been brought, and which seem to me to be sustained by the remarks and authorities I have hereinbefore presented. They are : — First — That the pardoning power of the President extends over the whole case of Drayton and Sayres ; and that, by his par- don, he may discharge them from prison, and remit the tines for which they were impri- soned. Second — That if the President cannot re- mit the fines in this case, because they have become private property, he can still pardon and release the offending parties from impri- sonment, because that is part of the proceed- ings against them, as criminals, and at the instance of the United States, and is a thing distinct from any individual right of property in the fines. Third — That the President may pardon the offence and imprisonment, with an exception or saving as to the fines ; in which case, as I suppose, the fines would remain as a debt to the United States, or to those to whom the United States had granted or transferred it ; and would be recoverable accordingly by the appropriate legal remedies. And such reme- dies I suppose, the distributees of the fines, in this case, will have, if they are entitled to any absolute right or property in said fines. It has been my intention to confine my re- marks exclusively to the question of your con- stitutional power to pardon, .a question of much greater or graver consequence than the disposition to be made of this particular case. Whether that power should be exercised, in this instance, is another and very different question, not referred to me, and on which it is not my intention or province to pronounce here any opinion, though I shall be quite ready to express my sentiments on that sub- ject also, whenever it may be proper for me to do so. I have the honor to be, Very respectfully yours, J. J. Crittenden. To the President. Dred Scott Case. Opinions of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States thereon. Dred Scott, Plaintiff in Error, v. John F. A. Sanford. — This case was brought up, by writ of error, from theCircuit Court of the United States for the district of Missouri. It was an action of trespass vi et armis instituted in the Circuit Court by Scott against Sandford. Prior to the institution of the present suit, an action was brought by Scott for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county (State Court), where there was a verdict and judgment in his favor. On a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State, the judgment below was reversed, and the case remanded to the Circuit Court, where it was con- tinued to await the decision of the case now in question. The declaration of Scott contained three counts : one, that Sandford had assaulted the plaintiff; one, that he had assaulted Harriet Scott, his wife; and one, that he had assaulted Eliza Scott and Lizzie Scott, his children. Sandford appeared, and filed the following plea: }' Dred Scott "• \-Plea to the jurisdiction of the Court. John F. A. Sandford. April Term, 1854. And the said John F. A. Sandford, in his own proper per- son, conies and says, that this court ought not to have or take further cognisance of the action aforesaid, because he says that said cause of action, and each and every of them (if any such have accrued to the said Dred Scott), accrued to the said Dred Scott out of the jurisdiction of this court, and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Courts of the state of Missouri, for that, to wit: the said plaintiff. Dred Scott, is not a citizen of the state of Missouri, as alleged in his declaration, because he is a negro of African descent ; his ancestors were of pure African blood, and were brought into this country and sold as negro slaves, and this the said Sandford is ready to verify. Wherefore he prays judgment, whether this court can or will take further cognisance of the action aforesaid. John F. A. Sandford. To this plea there was a demurrer in the usual form, which was argued in April, 1854, when the court gave judg- ment that the demurrer should be sustained. In May, 1§54, the defendant, in pursuance of an agree- ment between counsel, and with the leave of the court, pleaded in bar of the action : 1. Not guilty. ' 2. That the plaintiff was a negro slave, the lawful pro- perty of the defendant, and, as such, the defendant gently laid his hands upon him, and thereby had only restrained him, as the defendant had a right to do. 3. That with respect to the wife and daughters of the plaintiff, in the second and third counts of the declaration mentioned, the defendant had, as to them, only acted in the same manner, and in virtue of the same legal right. In the first of these pleas, the plaintiff joined issue; and to the second and third, filed replications alleging that the defendant, of his own wrong and without the cause in his second and third pleas alleged, committed the trespasses, &c. The counsel then filed the following agreed statement of facts, viz. : — In the year 1834, the plaintiff was a negro slave belong- ing to Dr. Emerson, who was a surgeon in the army of the United States. In that year, 1834, said Dr. Emerson took the plaintiff frAm the state of Missouri to the military post at Rock Island, in the state of Illinois, and held him there as a slave until the month of April or May. 1836. At the time last mentioned, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff from said military post at Rock Island to the military post at Fort Snelling, situate on the west bank of the Mississippi river, in the territory known as Upper Louisiana, acquired by the United States of Fiance, and situated north of the latitude of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north, and north of the state of Missouri. Said Dr. Emerson held the plaintiff in slavery at Fort Snelling, from said last-mentioned date until the year 1838. In the year 1835, Harriet, who is named in the second count of the plaintiff's declaration, was the negro slave of Major Taliaferro, who belonged to the army of the United States. In that year, 1835, said Major Taliaferro took said Harriet to said Fort Snelling, a military post, situated as here- inbefore stated, and kept her there as a slave until the year 1S36, and then sold and delivered her as a slave at said Fort Snelling unto the said Dr. Emerson hereinbefore named. Said Dr. Emerson held said Harriet in slavery at said Fort Snelling until the year 1838. In the year 1836, the plaintiff and said Harriet, at said Fort Snelling, with the consent of said Dr. Emerson, who then claimed to be their master and owner, intermarried, and took each other for husband and wife. Eliza and Liz- zie, named in the third count of the plaintiff's declaration, are the fruit of that marriage. Eliza is about fourteen years old, and was born on board the steamboat Gipsey, north of the north line of the state of Missouri, and upon the river Mississippi. Lizzie is about seven years old, and was born in the state of Missouri, at the military post called Jefferson Barracks. In the year 1838, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff and said Harriet, and their said daughter Eliza, from said Fort Snelling to the state of Missouri, where they have ever since resided. Before the commencement of this suit, said Dr. Emerson sold and conveyed the plaintiff, said Harriet, Eliza, and Lizzie, to the defendant, as slaves, and the defendant has ever since claimed to hold them, and each of them, as slaves. At the times mentioned in the plaintiff's declaration, the defendant, claiming to be owner as aforesaid, laid his hands upon said plaintiff, Harriet, Eliza, and Lizzie, and impri- soned them, doing in this respect, however, no more than what he might lawfully do, if they were of right his slaves at such times. Further proof may be given on the trial for either party It is agreed that Dred Scott brought suit for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county; that there was a 148 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. verdict and judgment in his favor ; that on a writ of error to the Supreme Court the judgment below was reversed, and the same remanded to the Circuit Court, where it has been continued to await the decision of this case. In May, 1854, the cause went before a jury, who found the following verdict, viz. : " As to the first issue joined in this case, we of the jury find the defendant not guilty ; and as to the issue secondly above joined, we of the jury find that, before and at the time when, &c, in the first count mentioned, the said Bred Seott was a negro slave, the law- ful property of the defendant ; and as to the issue thirdly above joined, we, the jury, find that, before anil at the time when. &c, in the second and third counts mentioned, the said Harriet, wife of said Dred Scott, and Eliza and Lizzie, the daughters of the said Dred Scott, were negro slaves, the lawful property of the defendant." Whereupon, the court gave judgment for the defendant. After an ineffectual motion for a new trial, the plaintiff filed the following bill of exceptions. On the trial of this cause by the jury, the plaintiff, to maintain the issues on his part, read to the jury the follow- ing agreed statement of facts (see agreement above). No further testimony was given to the jury by either party. Thereupon the plaintiff moved the court to give to the jury the following instruction, viz. : " That, upon the facts agreed to by the parties, they ought to find for the plaintiff. The court refused to give such in- struction to the jury, and the plaintiff, to such refusal, then and there duly excepted." The court then gave the following instruction to the jury, on motion of the defendant: " The jury are instructed, that upon the facts in this ease, the law is with the defendant." The plaintiff excepted to this instruction. Upon these exceptions, the case came up to this court. It was argued at December term, 1855, and ordered to be reargued at the present term. It was now argued by Mr. Blair and Mr. G. F. Curtis for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Geyer and Mr. Johnson for the defendant in error. Mr. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opin- ion of the court. This case has been twice argued. After the argument at the last term, differences of opin- ion were found to exist among the members of the court ; and as the questions in controversy are of the highest importance, and the court was at that time much pressed by the ordinary business of the term, it was deemed advisable to continue the case, and direct a re-argument on some of the points, in order that we might have an opportunity of giving to the whole subject a more deliberate consideration. It has accordingly been again argued by counsel, and considered by the court ; and I now proceed to deliver its opinion. There are two leading questions presented by the record : 1. Had the Circuit Court of the United States jurisdiction to hear and determine the case between these parties ? And 2. If it had jurisdiction, is the judgment it has given erroneous or not ? The plaintiff in error, who was also the plaintiff in the court below, was, with his wife and children, held as slaves by the defendant, in the state of Missouri ; and he brought this action in the Circuit Court of the United States for that district, to assert the title of himself and his family to freedom. The declaration is in the form usually adopt- ed in that state to try questions of this descrip- tion, and contains the averment necessary to give the court jurisdiction ; that he and the defendant are citizens of different states ; that is, he is a citizen of Missouri, and the defend- ant a citizen of New York. The defendant pleaded in abatement to the jurisdiction of the court, that the plaintiff was not a citizen of the state of Missouri, as al- leged in his declaration, being a negro of Afri- can descent, whose ancestors were of pure African blood, and who were brought into this* country and sold as slaves. To this plea the plaintiff demurred, and the defendant joined in demurrer. The court over- ruled the plea, and gave judgment that the defendant should answer over. And he there- upon put in sundry pleas in bar, upon which issues were joined ; and at the trial the verdict and judgment were in his favor. Whereupon the plaintiff brought this writ of error. Before we speak of the pleas in bar, it will be proper to dispose of the questions which have arisen on the plea in abatement. That plea denies the right of the plaintiff to sue in a court of the United States for the rea- sons therein stated. If the question raised by it is legally before us, and the court should be of opinion that the facts stated in it disqualify the plain tiff from be- coming a citizen, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, then the judgment of the Circuit Court is erroneous, and must be reversed. It is suggested, however, that this plea is not before us ; and that as the judgment in the court below on this plea was in favor of the plaintiff, he does not seek to reverse it, or bring it before the court for revision by his writ of error ; and also that the defendant waived this defence by pleading over, and thereby admitted the jurisdiction of the court. But, in making this objection, we think the peculiar and limited jurisdiction of courts of the United States has not been adverted to. This peculiar and limited jurisdiction has made it necessary, in these courts, to adopt different rules and principles of pleading, so far as jurisdiction is concerned, from those which regulate courts of common law in Eng- land, and in the different states of the Union which have adopted the common law rules. . In these last-mentioned courts, where their character and rank are analogous to that of a Circuit Court of the United States ; in other words, where they are what the law terms courts of general jurisdiction ; they are pre- sumed to have jurisdiction, unless the con- trary appears. No averment in the pleadings of the plaintiff is necessary, in order to give jurisdiction. If the defendant objects to it, he must plead it specially, and unless the fact on which he relies is found to be true by a jury, or admitted to be true by the plaintiff, the jurisdiction cannot be disputed in an ap- pellate court. Now, it is not necessary to inquire whether in courts of that description a party _ who pleads over in bar, when a plea to the juris- diction has been ruled against him, does or does not waive his plea ; nor whether upon a judgment in his favor on the pleas in bar, and a writ of error brought by the plaintiff, the question upon the plea in abatement would be open for revision in the appellate court. Cases that may have been decided ia DRED SCOTT CASE— CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY'S OPINION. 149 such courts, or rules that may have been laid down by common-law pleaders, can have no in- fluence in the decision in this court. Because, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the rules which govern the pleadings in its courts, in questions of jurisdiction, stand on different principles and are regulated by different laws. This difference arises, as we have said, from the peculiar character of the government of the United States. For although it is sovereign and supreme in its appropriate sphere of ac- tion, yet it does not possess all the powers ■which usually belong to the sovereignty of a nation. Certain specified powers, enumerated in the Constitution, have been conferred upon it ; and neither the legislative, executive, nor judicial departments of the government can lawfully exercise any authority beyond the limits marked out by the Constitution- And in regulating the judicial department, the cases in which the courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction are particularly and specifically enumerated and defined ; and they are not authorized to take cognisance of any case which does not come within the descrip- tion therein specified. Hence, when a plain- tiff sues in a court of the United States, it is necessary that he should show, in his plead- ing, that the suit he brings is within the juris- diction of the court, and that he is entitled to sue there. And if he omits to do this, and should, by any oversight of the Circuit Court, obtain a judgment in his favor, the judgment would be reversed in the appellate court for want of jurisdiction in the court below. The jurisdiction would not be presumed, as in the ease of a common-law English or state court, unless the contrary appeared. But the record, when it comes before the appellate court, must show, affirmatively, that the inferior court had authority, under the Constitution, to hear and determine the case. And if the plaintiff claims a right to sue in a Circuit Court of the United States, under that provision of the Constitu- tion which gives jurisdiction in controversies between citizens of different states, he must distinctly aver in his pleading that they are citizens of different states ; and he cannot maintain his suit without showing that fact in the pleadings. This point was decided in the case of Bing- ham v. Cabot, (in 3 DalL, 382,) and ever since adhered to by the court. And in Jackson v. Ashton, (8 Pet,, 148,) it was held that the ob- jection to which it was open could not be waived by the opposite party, because consent of parties could not give jurisdiction. It is needless to accumulate cases on this subject. Those already referred to, and the cases of Capron v. Van Noorden, (in 2 Cr», 126,) and Montalet v. Murray, (4 Cr., 4G,) are sufficient to show the rule of which we have spoken. The case of Capron v. Van Noorden strikingly illustrates the difference between a common-law court and a court of the United States. If, however, the fact of citizenship is averred in the declaration, and the defendant does not deny it, and put it in issue by plea in abate- ment, he cannot offer evidence at the trial to disprove it, and consequently cannot avail him- • self of the objection in the appellate court, unless the defect should be apparent in some other part of the record. For if there is no plea in abatement, and the want of jurisdic- tion does not appear in any other part of the transcript brought up by the writ of error, the undisputed averment of citizenship in the declaration must be taken in this court to be true. In this case, the citizenship is averred, but it is denied by the defendant in the man- ner required by the rules of pleading, and the fact upon which the denial is based is admit- ted by the demurrer. And, if the plea and demurrer, and judgment of the court below upon it, are before us upon this recor \ the question to be decided is, whether the facts stated in the plea are sufficient to show that the plaintiff is not entitled to sue as a citizen in a court of the United States. We think they are before us. The plea in abatement and the judgment of the court upon it, are a part of the judicial proceedings in the Circuit Court, and are there recorded as such ; and a writ of error always brings up to the superior court the whole record of the proceedings in the court below. And in the case of the United States v. Smith, (11 Wheat., 172,) this court said, that the case being brought up by writ of error, the whole record was under the consideration of this court. And this being the case in the present in- stance, the plea in abatement is necessarily under consideration ; and it becomes, there- fore, our duty to decide whether the facts stated in the plea are or are not sufficient to show that the plaintiff is not entitled to sue as a citizen in a court of the United States. This is certainly a very serious question, and one that now for the first time has been brought for decision before this court. But it is brought here by those who have a right to bring it, and it is our duty to meet it and decide it. The question is simply this : Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this coun- try, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen ? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution. It will be observed, that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and im- ported into this country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emanci- pated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a state, in the sense in which the word citizen 150 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. is used in the Constitution of the United States. And this being the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be •understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only. That is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were im- ported into this country, and sold as slaves. The situation of this population was alto- gether unlike that of the Indian race. The latter, it is true, formed no part of the colonial communities, and never amalgamated with them in social connexions or in government. But although they were uncivilized, they were yet a free and independent people, as- sociated together in nations or tribes, and governed by their own laws. Many of these political communities were situated in terri- tories to which the white race claimed the ultimate right of dominion. But that claim was acknowledged to be subject to the right of the Indians to occupy it as long as they thought proper, and neither the English nor colonial governments claimed or exercised any dominion over the tribe or nation by whom it was occupied, nor claimed the right to the possession of the territory, until the tribe or nation consented to cede it. These Indian governments were regarded and treated as foreign governments, as much so as if an ocean had separated the red man from the white ; and their freedom has constantly been acknowledged, from the time of the first emigration to the English colonies to the present day, by the different governments which succeeded each other. Treaties have been negotiated with them, and their alliance sought for in war ; and the people who com- pose these Indian political communities have always been treated as foreigners, not living under our government. It is true that the course of events has brought the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States under subjection to the white race ; and it has been found necessary, for their sake as well as our own, to regard them as in a state of pupilage, and to legislate to a certain extent over them and the territory they occupy. But they may, without doubt, like the subjects of any other foreign government, be naturalized by the authority of Congress, and become citizens of a state, and of the United States ; and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe, and take up his abode among the white popu- lation, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emi- grant from any other foreign people. We proceed to examine the case as pre- sented by the pleadings. The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our re- publican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the go- vernment through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the " sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sove- reignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sover- eignty ? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word " citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instru- ment provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privi- leges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them. It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or im- policy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-mak- ing power ; to those who formed the sove- reignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is, to interpret the instru- ment they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to admin- ister it as we find it, according to its true in- tent and meaning when it was adopted. In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a state may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a state, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other state. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the state, and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states. Nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopt- ing the Constitution of the United States. Each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons ; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and im- munities of a citizen in the other states. The rights which he would acquire would be re- stricted to the state which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturali- zation, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no state, since the adoption naturalizing an and privi- | of the Constitution, can by i alien invest him with the rights DRED SCOTT CASE— CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY'S OPINION. 151 legos secured to a citizen of a state under the federal government, although, so far as the state alone was concerned, he would undoubt- edly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the state attached to that character. It is very clear, therefore, that no state can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States. It cannot make him a member of this commu- nity by making him a member of its own. And for the same reason it cannot introduce any person, or description of persons, who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family, which the Constitution brought into existence, but were intended to be exclud- ed from it. The question then arises, whether the pro- visions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a state should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any state ; and to put it in the power of a single state to make him a citizen of the United States, and endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other state with- out their consent ? Does the Constitution of the- United States act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a state, and raised there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in every other state, and in its own courts ? The court think the affirmative of these pro- positions cannot be maintained. And if it cannot, the plaintiff in error could not be a citizen of the state of Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its courts. It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several states, became also citizens of this new political body ; but none other ; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new sovereignty were in- tended to embrace those only who were then members of the several state communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or other- wise become members, according to the pro- visions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for cer- tain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States. And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his state which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other state upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property : it made him a citizen of the United States. It becomes necessary, therefore, to deter- mine who were citizens of the several states when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the govern- ments and institutions of the thirteen colo- nies, when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were re- cognised as the people or citizens of a state, whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English government; and who declared their independence, and assumed the powers of government to defend their rights by force of arms. In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument. It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortu- nate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had, for more than a century before, been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations ; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect ; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordi- nary article of merchandise and traffic, when- ever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute ; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public con- cern, without doubting for a moment the cor- rectness of this opinion. And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed, or more uniformly acted upon, than by the English government and English people. They not only seized them on the coast of Africa, and sold them, or held them in slavery for their own use ; but they took them as ordinary articles of merchandise to every country where they could make a prone on them, and were far more extensively en- gaged in this commerce than any other nation in the world. 152 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. The opinion thus entertained and acted upon in England, was naturally impressed upon the colonies they founded on this side of the Atlantic. And, accordingly, a negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property, and held, and bought, and sold as such, in every one of the thirteen colonies which united in the Declaration of Independence, and afterwards formed the Constitution of the United States. The slaves were more or less numerous in the different colonies, as slave labor was found more or less profitable. But no one seems to have doubted the correctness of the prevailing opi- nion of the time. The legislation of the different colonies fur- nishes positive and indisputable proof of this fact. It would be tedious, in this opinion, to enu- merate the various laws they passed upon this subject. It will be sufficient, as a sample of the legislation which then generally prevailed throughout the British colonies, to give the laws of two of them ; one being still a large slaveholding state, and the other the first state in which slavery ceased to exist. The province of Maryland, in 1717 (ch. 13, 8. 5), passed a law declaring " that if any free negro or mulatto intermarry with any white woman, or if any white man shall in- termarry with any negro or mulatto woman, such negro or mulatto shall become a slave during life, excepting mulattoes born of white women, who, for such intermarriage, shall only become servants for seven years, to be disposed of as the justices of the county court, where such marriage so happens, shall think fit ; to be applied by them towards the support of a public school within the said county. And any white man or white woman who shall intermarry as aforesaid, with any negro or mulatto, such white man or white woman shall become servants during the term of seven years, and shall be disposed of by the justices as aforesaid, and be applied to the uses aforesaid." The other colonial law to which we refer was passed by Massachusetts, in 1705 (chap. 6.) It is entitled " An act for the better pre- venting of a spurious and mixed issue," &c. ; and it provides that " if any negro or mulatto shall presume to smite or strike any person of the English or other Christian nation, such negro or mulatto shall be severely whipped, at the discretion of the justices before whom the offender shall be convicted." And "that none of her Majesty's English or Scottish subjects, nor of any other Christian nation, within this province, shall contract matrimony with any negro or mulatto ; nor shall any person, duly authorized to solemnize marriage, presume to join any such in mar- riage, on pain of forfeiting the sum of fifty pounds; one moiety thereof to her Majesty, for and towards the support of the government within this province, and the other moiety to him or them that shall inform and sue for the same, in any of her Majesty's courts of record within the province, by bill, plaint, or mformav tion." We give both of these laws in the words used by the respective legislative bodies, be- cause the language in which they are framed, as well as the provisions contained in them, show, too plainly to be misunderstood, the degraded condition of this unhappy race. They were still in force when the Revolution began, and are a faithful index to the state of feeling towards the class of persons of whom they speak, and of the position they occupied throughout the thirteen colonies, in the eyes and thoughts of the men who framed the Declaration of Independence and established the state constitutions and governments. They show that a perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had re- duced to slavery, and governed as subjects with absolute and despotic power, and which they then looked upon as so far below them in the scale of created beings, that intermar- riages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral, and punished as crimes, not only in the parties, but in the person who joined them in marriage. And no distinction in this re- spect was made between the free negro or mulatto and the slave, but this stigma, of the deepest degradation, was fixed upon the whole race. We refer to these historical facts for the purpose of showing the fixed opinions con- cerning that race, upon which the statesmen of that day spoke and acted. It is necessary to do this, in order to determine whether the general terms used in the Constitution of the United States, as to the rights of man and the rights of the people, was intended to include them, or to give to them or their posterity the benefit of any of its provisions. The language of the Declaration of Inde- pendence is equally conclusive : It begins by declaring that, "when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the _ political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." It then proceeds to say: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and DRED SCOTT CASE— CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY'S OPINION. 153 formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration ; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men Kho framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly incon- sistent with the principles they asserted ; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation. Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men — high in literary acquire- ments — high in their sense of honor, and in- capable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the lan- guage they used, and how it would be under- stood by others ; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be sup- posed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized governments and the family of na- tions, and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines aud principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunder- stood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as pro- perty, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection. This state of public opinion had undergone no change when the Constitution was adopted, as is equally evident from its provisions and language. The brief preamble sets forth by whom it was formed, for what purposes, and for whose benefit and protection. It declares that it is formed by the people of the United States ; that is to say, by those who were members of the different political communities in the several states ; and its great object is declared to be to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. It speaks in general terms of the people of the United States, and of citizens of the several states, when it is providing for the exercise of the powers granted or the privileges secured to the citizen. It does not define what descrip- tion of persons are intended to be included under these terms, or who shall be regarded as a citizen and one of the people. It uses them as terms so well understood, that no further description or definition was neces- sary. But there are two clauses in the constitu- tion which point directly and specifically to the negro race as a separate class of persons, and show clearly that they were not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the government then formed. One of these clauses reserves to each of the thirteen states the right to import slaves until the year 1808, if it thinks proper. And the importation which it thus sanctions was un- questionably of persons of the race of which we are speaking, as a traffic in slaves in the United States had always been confined to them. And by the other provision the states pledge themselves to each other to maintain the right of property of the master, by deliver- ing up to him any slave who may have es- caped from his service, and be found within their respective territories. By the first above- mentioned clause, therefore, the right to pur- chase and hold this property is directly sane- tiond and authorized for twenty years by the people who framed the Constitution. And by the second, they pledge themselves to maintain and uphold the right of the master in the manner specified, as long as the government they then formed should endure. And these two provisions show, conclusively, that neither the description of persons therein referred to, nor their descendants, were embraced in any of the other provisions of the Constitution ; for certainly these two clauses were not in- tended to confer on them or their posterity the blessings of liberty, or any of the per- sonal rights so carefully provided for the citizen. No one of that race had ever migrated to the United States voluntarily ; all of them had been brought here as articles of merchandise. The number that had been emancipated at that time were but few in comparison with those held in slavery ; and they were identi- fied in the public mind with the race to which they belonged, and regarded as a part of the slave population rather than the free. It is obvious that they were not even in the minds of the framers of the Constitution when they were conferring special rights and privileges upon the citizens of a state in every other part of the Union. Indeed, when we look to the condition of this race in the several states at the time, it is impossible to believe that these rights and privileges were intended to be extended to them. It is very true, that in that portion of the Union where the labor of the negro race was found to be unsuited to the climate and un- profitable to the master, but few slaves were held at the time of the Declaration of Inde- pendence ; and when the Constitution was adopted, it had entirely worn out in one of them, and measures had been taken for its gradual abolition in several others. But this change had not been produced by any change of opinion in relation to this race ; but because it was discovered, from experience, that slave labor was unsuited to the climate and pro- ductions of these states: for some of the states, where it had ceased or nearly ceased to exist, were actively engaged in the slave trade, procuring cargoes on the coast of Africa, and transporting them for sale to those parts of the Union where their labor was found to be profitable, and suited to the climate and productions. And this traffic was openly car- ried on, and fortunes accumulated by it, with- out reproach from the people of the states 154 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. where they resided. And it can hardly be supposed that, in the states where it was then countenanced in its worst form — that is, in the seizure and transportation — the people could have regarded those who were emanci- pated as entitled to equal rights with them- selves. And we may here again refer, in support of this proposition, to the plain and unequi- vocal language of the laws of the several states, some passed after the Declaration of Indepeodence and before the Constitution was adopted, and some since the government went into operation. * We need not refer, on this point, parti- cularly to the laws of the present slaveholding states. Their statute books are full of provi- sions in relation to this class, in the same spirit with the Maryland law which we have before quoted. They have continued to treat them as an inferior class, and to subject them to strict police regulations, drawing a broad line of distinction between the citizen and the slave races, and legislating in relation to them upon the same principle which prevailed at the time of the Declaration of Independence. As relates to these states, it is too plain for argument, that they have never been regarded as a part of the people or citizens of the state, nor supposed to possess any political rights which the dominant race might not withhold or grant at their pleasure. And as long ago as 1822, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky decided that free negroes and mulattoes were not citizens within the meaning of the Con- stitution of the United States ; and the cor- rectness of this decision is recognised, and the same doctrine affirmed, in 1 Meigs's Tenn. Reports, 331. And if we turn to the legislation of the states where slavery had worn out, or mea- sures taken for its speedy abolition, we shall find the same opinions and principles equally fixed and equally acted upon. Thus, Massachusetts, in 1786, passed a law similar to the colonial one of which we have spoken. The law of 1786, like the law of 1705, forbids the marriage of any white per- son with any negro, Indian, or mulatto, and inflicts a penalty of fifty pounds upon any one who shall join them in marriage; and declares all such marriages absolutely null and void, and degrades thus the unhappy issue of the marriage by fixing upon it the stain of bas- tardy. And this mark of degradation was renewed, and again impressed upon the race, in the careful and deliberate preparation of their revised code published in 1836. This code forbids any person from joining in mar- riage any white person with any Indian, ne- gro, or mulatto, and subjects the party who shall offend in this respect, to imprisonment, not exceeding six months, in the common jail, or to hard labor, and to a fine of not less than fifty nor more than two hundred dollars ; and, like the law of 1786, it declares the mar- riage to be absolutely null and void. It will bo seen that the punishment is increased by the code upon the person who shall marry them, by adding imprisonment to a pecuniary penalty. So, too, in Connecticut. We refer more particularly to the legislation of this state, because it was not only among the first to put an end to slavery within its own territory, but was the first to fix a mark of reprobation upon the African slave trade. The law last mentioned was passed in October, 1788, about nine months after the state had ratified and adopted the present Constitution of the United States ; and by that law it prohibited its own citizens, under severe penalties, from engag- ing in the trade, and declared all policies of insurance on the vessel or cargo made in the state to be null and void. But, up to the time of the adoption of the constitution, there is nothing in the legislation of the state indicat- ing any change of opinion as to the relative rights and position of the white and black indicating that it upon a races m this country, or * meant to place the latter, when free, level with its citizens. And certainly nothing which would have led the slaveholding states to suppose, that Connecticut designed to claim for them, under the new Constitution, the equal rights and privileges and rank of citi- zens in every other state. The first step taken by Connecticut upon this subject was as early as 1774, when it passed an act forbidding the further import - tion of slaves into the state. But the section containing the prohibition is introduced by the following preamble : — " And whereas the increase of slaves in this state is injurious to the poor, and incon- venient." This recital would appear to have been carefully introduced, in order to prevent any misunderstanding of the motive which in- duced the legislature to pass the law, and places it distinctly upon the interest and con- venience of the white population — excluding the inference that it might have been in- tended in any degree for the benefit of the other. And in the act of 1784, by which the issue of slaves, born after the time therein men- tioned, were to be free at a certain age, the section is again introduced by a preamble as- signing a similar motive for the act. It is in these words: — " Whereas sound policy requires that the abolition of slavery should be effected as soon as may be consistent with the rights of indi- viduals, and the public safety and welfare" — ■ showing that the right of property in the master was to be protected, and that the mea- sure was one of policy, and to prevent the in- jury and inconvenience, to the whites, of a slave population in the state. And still further pursuing its legislation, we find that in the same statute passed in 1774, which prohibited the further importa- tion of slaves into the state, there is also a provision by which any negro, Indian, or mulatto servant, who was found wandering DRED SCOTT CASE— CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY'S OPINION. 155 out of the town or place to which he belonged, without a written pass such as therein de- scribed, was made liable to be seized by any one, and taken before the next authority to be examined and delivered up to his master — who was required to pay the charge which had accrued thereby. And a subsequent sec- tion of the same law provides, that if any free negro shall travel without such pass, and shall be stopped, seized, or taken up, he shall pay all charges arising thereby. And this law was in full operation when the Constitu- tion of the United States was adopted, and was not repealed till 1797. So that up to that time free negroes and mulattoes were associ- ated with servants and slaves in the police regulations established by the laws of the state. And again, in 1833, Connecticut passed an- other law, which made it penal to set up or establish any school in that state for the in- struction of persons of the African race not inhabitants of the state, or to instruct or teach in any such school or institution, or board or harbor for that purpose, any such person, without the previous consent in writing of the civil authority of the town in which such school or institution might be. And it appears by the case of Crandall v. The State, reported in 10 Conn. Rep. 340, that upon an information filed against Pru- dence Crandall for a violation of this law, one of the points raised in the defence was, that the law was a violation of the Constitution of the United States ; and that the persons instructed, although of the African race, were citizens of other states, and therefore entitled to the rights and privileges of citizens in the state of Connecticut. But Chief Justice Dag- get, before whom the case was tried, held, that persons of that description were not citi- zens of a state, within the meaning of the word citizen in the Constitution of the United States, and were not therefore entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens in other states. The case was carried up to the Supreme Court of Errors of the state, and the question fully argued there. But the case went off upon another point, and no opinion was ex- pressed on this question. We have made this particular examination into the legislative and judicial action of Con- necticut, because, from the early hostility it displayed to the slave trade on the coast of Africa, we may expect to find the laws of that state as lenient and favorable to the subject race as those of any other state in the Union ; and if we find that at the time the Constitu- tion was adopted, they were not even there raised to the rank of citizens, but were still held and treated as property, and the laws relating to them passed with reference alto- gether to the interest and convenience of the white race, we shall hardly find them elevated to a higher rank anywhere else. A brief notice of the laws of two other states, and we shall pass on to other conside- rations. By the laws of New Hampshire, collected and finally passed in 1815, no one was per- mitted to be enrolled in the militia of the state, but free white citizens ; and the same provision is found in a subsequent collection of the laws, made in 1855. Nothing could more strongly mark the entire repudiation of the African race. The alien is excluded, be- cause, being born in a foreign country, he cannot be a member of the community until he is naturalized. But why are the African race, born in the state, not permitted to share in one of the highest duties of the citizen ? The answer is obvious ; he is not, by the in- stitutions and laws of the state, numbered among its people. He forms no part of the sovereignty of the state, and is not therefore called on to uphold and defend it. Again, in 1822, Rhode Island, in its revised code, passed a law forbidding persons who were authorized to join persons in marriage, from joining in marriage any white person with any negro, Indian, or mulatto, under the penalty of two hundred dollars, and declaring all such marriages absolutely null and void ; and the same law was again re-enacted in its revised code of 1844. So that, down to the last-mentioned period, the strongest mark of inferiority and degradation was fastened upon the African race in that state. It would be impossible to enumerate and compress in the space usually allotted to _ an opinion of a court, the various laws, marking the condition of this race, which were passed from time to time after the Revolution, and before and since the adoption of the Constitu- tion of the United States. In addition to those already referred to, it is sufficient to say, that Chancellor Kent, whose accuracy and research no one will question, states in the sixth edition of his Commentaries, (published in 1848, 2 vol., 258, note b), that in no part of the country except Maine, did the African race, in point of fact, participate equally with the whites in the exercise of civil and political rights. The legislation of the states therefore shows, in a manner not to be mistaken, the inferior and subject condition of that race at the time the Constitution was adopted, and long after- wards, throughout the thirteen states by which that instrument was framed ; and it is hardly consistent with the respect due to these states, to suppose that they regarded at that time, as fellow citizens and members of the sovereignty, a class of beings whom they had thus stigma- tized ; whom, as we are hound, out of respect to the state sovereignties, to assume they had deemed it just and necessary thus to stigma- tize, and upon whom they had impressed such deep and enduring marks of inferiority and degradation ; or, that when they met in con- vention to form the Constitution, they looked upon them as a portion of their constituents, or designed to include them in the provisions so carefully inserted for the security and pre- 156 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tcction of the liberties and rights of their citi- zens. It cannot be supposed that they in- tended to secure t? them rights, and privi- leges, and rank, in the new political body throughout the Union, which every one of them denied within the limits of its own dominion. More especially, it cannot be be- lieved that the large slaveholding states re- garded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another state. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one state of the Union, the right to enter every other state whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without moles- tation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished ; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens Blight speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and sla.ves, and inevita- bly producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the state. It is impossible, it would seem, to believe that the great men of the slaveholding states, who took so large a share in framing the Con- stitution of the United States, and exercised so much influence in procuring its adoption, could have been so forgetful or regardless of their own safety and the safety of those who trusted and confided in them. Besides, this want of foresight and care would have been utterly inconsistent with the caution displayed in providing for the admis- sion of new members into this political family. For, when they gave to the citizens of each state the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, they at the same time to >k from the several states the power of natu- ralization, and confined that power exclusively to the Federal Government. No state was willing to permit another state to determine who should or should not be admitted as one of its citizens, and entitled to demand equal rights and privileges with their own people, within their own territories. The right of naturalization was therefore, with one accord, mrrendered by the states, and confided to the federal government. And this power granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is, by the well-understood mean- ing of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign government. It is not a power to raise to the rank of a citi- zen any one born in the United States, who, from birth or parentage, by the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and subordi- nate class. And when we find the states guarding themselves from the indiscreet or improper admission by other states of emi- grants from other countries, by giving the power exclusively to Congress, we cannot fail to see that they could never have left with the states a much more important power — that is, the power of transforming into citizens a nu- merous class of persons, who in that character would be much more dangerous to the peace and safety of a large portion of the Union, than the few foreigners one of the states might improperly naturalize. The Constitution upon its adoption obviously took from the states all power by any subsequent legislation to intro- duce as a citizen into the political family of the United States any one, no matter where he was born, or what might be his character or condition ; and it gave to Congress the power to confer this character upon those only who were born outside of the dominions of the United States. And no law of a state, therefore, passed since the Constitution was adopted, can give any right of citizenship out- side of its own territory. A clause similar to the one in the Constitu- tion, in relation to the rights and immunities of citizens of one state in the other states, was contained in the Articles of Confederation. But there is a difference o£ language, which is worthy of note. The provision in the Arti- cles of Confederation was, " that the free inhabitants of each of the states, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice ex- cepted, should be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states." It will be observed, that under this Confed- eration, each state had the right to decide for itself, and in its own tribunals, whom it would acknowledge as a free inhabitant of another state. The term free inhabitant, in the gen- erality of its terms, would certainly include one of the African race who had been manu- mitted. But no example, we think, can be found of his admission to all the privileges of citizenship in any state of the Union after these Articles were formed, and while they continued in force. And, notwithstanding the generality of the words " free inhabitants," it- is very clear that, according to their accepted meaning in that day, they did not include the African race, whether free or not: for the fifth section of the ninth article provides that Congress should have the power " to agree upon the number of land forces to be raised, and to make requisitions from each state for its quota in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such state, which requisition should be binding." Words could hardly have been used which more strongly mark the line of distinction between the citizen and the subject ; the free and the subjugated races. The latter were DRED SCOTT CASE— CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY'S OPINION. 157 not even counted when the inhabitants of a state were to be embodied in proportion to its numbers for the general defence. And it cannot for a moment be supposed, that a class of persons thus separated and rejected from those who formed the sovereignty of the states, were yet intended to be included under the words " free inhabitants," in the preced- ing article, to whom privileges and immuni- ties were so carefully secured in every state. But although this clause of the Articles of Confederation is the same in principle with that inserted in the Constitution, yet the com- prehensive word inhabitant, which might be construed to include an emancipated slave, is omitted ; and the privilege is confined to citizens of the state. And this alteration in words would hardly have been made, unless a different meaning was intended to be con- veyed, or a possible doubt removed. The just and fair inference is, that as this privilege was about to be placed under the protection of the general government, and the words expounded by its tribunals, and all power in relation to it taken from the state and its courts, it was deemed prudent to describe with precision and caution the persons to whom this high privi- lege was given — and the word citizen was on that account substituted for 'the words free inhabitant. The word citizen excluded, and no doubt intended to exclude, foreigners who had not become citizens of some one of the states when the Constitution was adopted ; aud also every description of persons who were not fully recognised as citizens in the several states. This, upon any fair construc- tion of the instruments to which we have re- ferred, was evidently the object and purpose of this change of words. To all this mass of proof we have still to add, that Congress has repeatedly legislated upon the same construction of the Constitution that we have given. Three laws, two of which were passed almost immediately after the government went into operation, will be abun- dantly sufficient to show this. The two first are particularly worthy of notice, because many of the men who assisted in framing the *. 'onstitution, and took an active part in pro- curing its adoption, were then in the halls of legislation, and certainly understood what they meant when they used the words " people of the United States" and "citizen" in that well- considered instrument. The first of these acts is the naturalization law, which was passed at the second session of the first Congress, March 26, 1790, and confines the right of becoming citizens " to aliens being free white persons." Now, the Constitution does not limit the power of Congress in this respect to white persons. And they may, if they think proper, authorize the naturalization of any one, of any color, who was born under allegiance to ano- ther government. But the language of the law above quoted, shows that citizenship at that time was perfectly understood to be con- fined to the white race; and that they alone constituted ment. Congress the sovereignty in the govern- might, as we before said, have authorized the naturalization of Indians, be- cause they were aliens and foreigners. But, in their then untutored and savage state, no one would have thought of admitting them as citizens in a civilized'community. And, more- over, the atrocities they had but recently com- mitted, when they were the allies of Great Britain in the revolutionary war, were yet fresh in the recollection of the people of the United States, and they were even then guard- ing themselves against the threatened renewal of Indian hostilities. No one supposed then that any Indian would ask for, or was capable of enjoying, the privileges of an American citizen, and the word white was not used with any particular reference to them. Neither was it used with any reference to the African race imported into or born in this country ; because Congress had no power to naturalize them, and therefore there was no necessity for using particular words to exclude them. It would seem to have been used merely be- cause it followed out the line of division which the Constitution has drawn between the citizen race, who formed and held the government, and the African race, which they held in sub- jection and slavery, and governed at their own pleasure. Another of the early laws of which we have spoken, is the first militia law, which was passed in 1792, at the first session of the second Congress. The language of this law is equally plain and significant with the one just mentioned. It directs that every " free able- bodied white male citizen" shall be enrolled in the militia. The word white is evidently used to exclude the African race, and the word " citizen" to exclude unnaturalized foreigners ; the latter forming no part of the sovereignty, owing it no allegiance, and there- fore under no obligation to defend it. The African race, however, born in the country, did owe allegiance to the government, whether they were slave or free ; but it is repudiated and rejected from the duties and obligations of citizenship in marked language. The third act to which we have alluded is even still more decisive ; it was passed as late as 1813 (2 Stat., 809), and it provides : " Thjit from and after the termination of the war in which the United States are now engaged with Great Britain, it shall not be lawful to em- ploy, on board of any public or private vessels of "the United States, any person or persons except citizens of the United States, or per- sons of color, natives of the United States." Here the line of distinction is drawn in ex- press words. Persons of color, in the judg- ment of Congress, were not included in the word citizens, and they are described as another and different class of persons, and authorized to be employed, if born in the United States. And even as late as 1820, (chap. 104, sec. 8,) in the charter to the city of Washington, 158 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. the corporation is authorized "to restrain and prohibit the nightly and other disorderly meet- ings of slaves, free negroes, and mulattoes," thus associating them together in its legisla- tion ; and after prescribing the punishment that may be inflicted on the slaves, proceeds in the following words : " And to punish such free negroes and mulattoes by penalties not exceeding twenty dollars for any one offence ; and in case of the inability of any such free negro or mulatto to pay any such penalty and costs thereon, to cause him or her to be confined to labor for any time not exceeding six calen- dar months." And in a subsequent part of the same section, the act authorizes the cor- poration " to prescribe the terms and condi- tions upon which free negroes and mulattoes may reside in the city." This law, like the laws of the states, shows that this class of persons were governed by special legislation directed expressly to them, and always connected with provisions for the government of slaves, and not with those for the government of free white citizens. _ And after such an uniform course of legislation as we have stated, by the colonies, by the states. and by Congress, running through a period of more than a century, it would seem that to call persons thus marked and stigmatized, " citizens" of the United States, " fellow- citizens," a constituent part of the sovereign- ty, would be an abuse of terms, and not cal- culated to exalt the character of an American citizen in the eyes of other nations. The conduct of the executive department of the government has been in perfect har- mony upon this subject with this course of legislation. The question was brought officially before the late William Wirt, when he was the Attorney General of the United States, in 1821, and he decided that the words " citizens of the United States" were used in the acts of Congress in the same sense as in the Consti- tution ; and that free persons of color were not citizens, within the meaning of the Con- stitution and laws ; and this opinion has been confirmed by that of the late Attorney Gene- ral, Caleb Cushing, in a recent case, and acted upon by the Secretary of State, who refused to grant passports to them as "citizens of the United States." But it is said that a person may be a citizen, and entitled to that character, although he does not possess all the rights which may be- long to other citizens ; as, for example, the right to vote, or to hold particular offices ; and that yet, when he goes into another state, he is entitled to be recognised there as a citizen, although the state may measure his rights by the rights which it allows to persons of a like character or class resident in the state, and refuse to him the full rights of citizenship. This agrument overlooks the language of the provision in the Constitution of which we are speaking. Undoubtedly, a person may be a citizen, that is, a member of the Community who form the sovereignty, although he exercises no share of the political power, and is incapacitated from holding particular offices. Women and minors, who form a part of the political family, cannot vote ; and when a property qualifica- tion is required to vote or hold a particular office, those who have not the necessary quali- fication cannot vote or hold the office, yet they are citizens. So, too, a person may be entitled to vote by the law of the state, who is not a citizen even of the state itself. And in some of the states of the union foreigners not naturalized are allowed to vote. And the state may give the right to free negroes and mulattoes, but that does not make them citizens of the state, and still less of the United States. And the pro- vision in the Constitution giving privileges and immunities in other states, does not apply to them. Neither does it apply to a person who, being the citizen of a state, migrates to another state. For then he becomes subject to the laws of the state in which he lives, and he is no longer a citizen of the state from which he removed. And the state in which he resides may then, unquestionably, determine his status or condition, and place him among the class of persons who are not recognised as citizens, but belong to* an inferior and subject race; and may deny him the privileges and immuni- ties enjoyed by its citizens. But so far as mere rights of person are con- cerned, the provision in question is confined to citizens of a state who are temporarily in another state without taking up their resi- dence there. It gives them no political rights in the state, as to voting or holding office, or in any other respect. For a citizen of one state has no right to participate in the govern- ment of another. But if he ranks as a citizen in the state to which he belongs, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, then, whenever he goes into another state, the Constitution clothes him, as to the rights of person, with all the privileges and immunities which belong to citizens of the state. And if persons of the African race are citizens of a state, and of the United States, they would be entitled to all of these privileges and immunities in every state, and the state could not restrict them ; for they would hold these privileges and immunities under the paramount authority of the federal govern- ment, and its courts would be bound to main- tain and enforce them, the Constitution and laws of the state to the contrary notwithstand- ing. And if the states could limit or restrict them, or place the party in an inferior grade, this clause of the Constitution would be un- meaning, and could have no operation ; and would give no rights to the citizen when in another state. He would have none but what the state itself chose to allow him. This is evidently not the construction or meaning of the clause in question. It guaranties rights to the citizen, and the state cannot withhold them. And these rights are of a character and would lead to consequences which make DRED SCOTT CASE— CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY'S OPINION. 159 it absolutely certain that the African race were not included under the name of citizens of a state, and were not in the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution when these privileges and immunities were provided for the protection of the citizen in other states. The case of Legrand v. Darnall (2 Peters, 664) has been referred to for the purpose of showing that this court has decided that the descendant of a slave may sue as a citizen in a court of the United States ; but the case itself shows that the question did not arise and could not have arisen in the case. It appears from the report, that Darnall was born in Maryland, and was the son of a white man by one of his slaves, and his father executed certain instruments to manumit him, and devised to him some landed property in the state. This property Darnall afterwards sold to Legrand, the appellant, who gave his notes for the purchase-money. But becoming afterwards apprehensive that the appellee had not been emancipated according to the laws of Maryland, he refused to pay the notes until he could be better satisfied as to DarnalPs right to convey. Darnall. in the mean time, had taken up his residence in Pennsylvania, and brought suit on the notes, and recovered judgment in the Circuit Court for the district of Maryland. The whole proceeding, as appears by the report, was an amicable one ; Legrand being perfectly willing to pay the money, if he could obtain a title, and Darnall not wishing him to pay unless he could make him a good one. In point of fact, the whole proceeding was under the direction of the counsel who argued the case for the appellee, who was the mutual friend of the parties, and confided in by both of them, and whose only object was to have the rights of both parties established by judi- cial decision in the most speedy and least expensive manner. Legrand, therefore, raised no objection to the jurisdiction of the court in the suit at law, because he was himself anxious to obtain the judgment of the court upon his title. Conse- quently, there was nothing in the record before the court to show that Darnall was of African descent, and the usual judgment and award of execution was entered. And Le- grand thereupon filed his bill on the equity side of the Circuit Court, stating that Darnall was born a slave, and had not been legally emancipated, and could not therefore take the land devised to him, nor make Legrand a good title ; and praying an injunction to re- strain Darnall from proceeding to execution on the judgment, which was granted. Dar- nall answered, averring in his answer that he was a free man, and capable of conveying a good title. Testimony was taken on this point, >nl at the hearing the Circuit Court was of opinion that Darnall was a free man and his title good, and dissolved the injunc- tion and dismissed the bill ; and that decree was affirmed here, upon the appeal of Le- grand. Now, it is difficult to imagine how any question about the citizenship of Darnall, or his right to sue in that character, can be sup- posed to have arisen or been decided in that case. The fact that he was of African de- scent was first brought before the court upon the bill in equity. The suit at law had then passed into judgment and award of execution, and the Circuit Court, as a court of law, had no longer any authority over it. It was a valid and legal judgment, which the court that rendered it had not the power to reverse or set aside. And unless it had jurisdiction as a court of equity to restrain him from using its process as a court of law, Darnall, if he thought proper, would have been at liberty to proceed on his judgment, and com- pel the payment of the money, although the allegations in the bill were true, and he was incapable of making a title. No other court could have enjoined him, for certainly no state equity court could interfere in that way with the judgment of a Circuit Court of the United States. But the Circuit Court as a court of equity certainly had equity jurisdiction over its own judgment as a court of law, without regard to the character of the parties ; and had not only the right, but it was its duty — no matter who were the parties in the judgment — to prevent them from proceeding to enforce it by execution, if the court was satisfied that the money was not justly and equitably due. The ability of Darnall to convey did not de- pend upon his citizenship, but upon his title to freedom. And if he was free, he could hold and convey property, by the laws of Maryland, although he was not a citizen. But if he was by law still a slave, he could not. It was therefore the duty of the court, sitting as a court of equity in the latter case, to prevent him from using its process, as a court of common law, to compel the payment of the purchase-money, when it was evident that the purchaser must lose the land. But if he was free, and could make a title, it was equally the duty of the court not to suffer Le- grand to keep the land, and refuse the pay- ment of the money, upon the ground that Darnall was incapable of suing or being sued as a citizen in a court of the United States. The character or citizenship of the parties had no connexion with the question of juris- diction, and the matter in dispute had no rela- tion to the citizenship of Darnall. Nor is such a question alluded to in the opinion of the court. Besides, we are by no means prepared to say that there are not many cases, civil as well a-s criminal, in which a Circuit Court of the Uni- ted States may exercise jurisdiction, although one of the African race is a party ; that broad question is not before the court. The question with which we are now dealing is, whether a person of the African race can be a citizen of the United States, and become thereby entitled to a special privilege, by virtue of his title to that character, and which, under the Const:- 160 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tution, no one but a citizen can claim. It is manifest that the case of Legrand and Dar- nall has no bearing on that question, and can have no application to the case now before the court. This case, however, strikingly illustrates the consequences that would follow the con- struction of the Constitution which would give the power contended for to a state. It would in effect give it also to an individual. For if the father of young Darnall had manu- mitted him in his lifetime, and sent him to reside in a state which recognised him as a citizen, he might have visited and sojourned in Maryland when he pleased, and as long as he pleased, as a citizen of the United States ; and the state officers and tribunals would be compelled, by the paramount authority of the Constitution, to receive him and treat him as one of its citizens, exempt from the laws and police of the state in relation to a person of that description, and allow him to enjoy all the rights and privileges of citizenship, with- out respect to the laws of Maryland, although such laws were deemed by it absolutely essen- tial to its own safety. The only two provisions which point to them and include them, treat them as pro- perty, and make it the duty of the government to protect it ; no other power, in relation to this race, is to be found in the Constitution ; and as it is a government of special delegated powers, no authority beyond these two provi- sions can be constitutionally exercised. The government of the United States had no right to interfere for any other purpose but that of protecting the rights of the owner, leaving it altogether with the several states to deal with this race, whether emancipated or not, as each state may think justice, humanity, and the i uterests and safety of society, require. The states evidently intended to reserve this power exclusively to themselves. No one, we presume, supposes that any change in public opinion or feeling, in rela- tion to this unfortunate race, in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country, should induce the court to give to the words of the < 'ondtitution a more liberal construction in their favor than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted. .Such an argument would be altogether inad- missible in any tribunal called on to interpret it. If any of its provisions are deemed unjust, there is a mode prescribed in the instrument itself by which it may be amended; but while it remains unaltered, it must be construed now as it was understood at the time of its adoption. It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the government, and reserves and secures the flame rights and privileges to the citizen ; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judical character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or pas- sion of the day. This court was not created by the Constitution for such purposes. Higher and graver trusts have been confided to it, and it must not falter in the path of duty. What the construction was at that time, we think can hardly admit of doubt. We have the language of the Declaration of Indepen- dence and of the Articles of Confederation, in addition to the plain words of the Constitution itself; we have the legislation of the different states, before, about the time, and since, the Constitution was adopted ; we have the legis* lation of Congress, from the time of its adop- tion to a recent period ; and we have the con- stant and uniform action of the executive department, all concurring together, and lead- ing to the same result. And if anything in relation to the construction of the Constitu- tion can be regarded as settled, it is that which we now give to the word "citizen" and the word " people." And upon a full and careful consideration of the subject, the court is of opinion, that, upon the facts stated in the plea in abate- ment, Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and not entitled as such to sue in its courts ; and, consequently, that the Cir- cuit Court had no jurisdiction of the case, and that the judgment on the plea in abatement is erroneous. We are aware that doubts are entertained by some of the members of the court, whether the plea in abatement is legally before the court upon this writ of error ; but if that plea is regarded as waived, or out of the case upon any other ground, yet the question as to the juris- diction of the Circuit Court is presented on the face of the bill of exception itself, taken by the plaintiff at the trial ; for he admits that he and his wife were born slaves, but endea- vors to make out his title to freedom and citi- zenship by showing that they were taken by their owner to certain places, hereinafter men- tioned, where slavery could not by law exist, and that they thereby became free, and upon their return to Missouri became citizens of that state. Now, if the removal of which he speaks did not give them their freedom, then by his own admission he is still a slave ; and whatever opinions may be entertained in favor of the citizenship of a free person of the African race, no one supposes that a slave is a citizen of the state or of the United States. If, there- fore, the acts done by his owner did not make them free persons, he is still a slave, and cer- tainly incapable of suing in the character of a citizen. The principle ot law is too well settled to be disputed, that a court can give no judgment for either party, where it has no jurisdiction ; and if, upon the showing of Scott himself, it appeared that he was still a slave, the case ought to have been dismissed, and the judg DRED SCOTT CASE— CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY'S OPINION. 161 ment against him and in favor of the defend- ant for costs, is, like that on the plea in abate- ment, erroneous, and the suit ought to have been dismissed by the Circuit Court for want of jurisdiction in that court. But, before we proceed to examine this part of the case, it may be proper to notice an ob- jection taken to the judicial authority of this court to decide it ; and it has been said, that as this court has decided against the jurisdic- tion of the Circuit Court on the plea in abate- ment, it has no right to examine any question presented by the exception ; and that anything it may say upon that part of the case will be extrajudicial, and mere obiter dicta. This is a manifest mistake ; there can be no doubt as to the jurisdiction of this court to re- vise the judgment of a Circuit Court, and to reverse it for any error apparent on the record, whether it be the error of giving judgment in a case over which it had no jurisdiction, or any other material error ; and this too whether there is a plea in abatement or not. The objection appears to have arisen from confounding writs of error to a state court, with writs of error to a Circuit Court of the United States. Undoubtedly, upon a writ of error to a state court, unless the record shows a case that gives jurisdiction, the case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court. And if it is dismissed on that ground, we have no right to examine and decide upon any ques- tion presented by the bill of exceptions, or any other part of the record. But writs of error to a state court, and to a Circuit Court of the United States, are regulated by different laws, and stand upon entirely different principles. And in a writ of error to a Circuit Court of the United States, the whole record is before this court for examination and decision ; and if the sum in controversy is large enough to give jurisdiction, it is not only the right, but it is the judicial duty of the court, to examine the whole case as presented by the record ; and if it appears upon its face that any material error or errors have been committed by the court below, it is the duty of this court to reverse the judgment and remand the case. And cer- tainly an error in passing a judgment upon the merits in favor of either party, in a case which it was not authorized to try, and over which it had no jurisdiction, is as grave an error as a court can commit. The plea in abatement is not a plea to the jurisdiction of this court, but to the jurisdic- tion of the Oircuit Court. And it appears by the record before us, that the Circuit Court committed an error in deciding that it had ju- risdiction upon the facts in the case, admitted by the pleadings. It is the duty of the appel- late tribunal to correct this error ; but that could not be done by dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction here — for that would leave the erroneous judgment in full force, and the injured party without remedy. And the ap- pellate court therefore exercises the power for j which alone appellate courts are constituted, i by reversing the judgment of the court below ' for this error. It exercises its proper and ap- propriate jurisdiction over the judgment and proceedings of the CircuitCourt. as they appear upon the record brought up by the writ of error . The correction of one error in the court below does not deprive the appellate court of the power of examining further into the record. and correcting any other material errors which may have been committed by the inferior court. There is certainly no rule of law — nor any practice — nor any decision of a court — which even questions this power in the appellate tri- bunal. On the contrary, it is the daily prac- tice of this court, and of all appellate courts where they reverse the judgment of an infe- rior court for error, to correct by its opinions whatever errors may appear on the record ma- terial to the case ; and they have always held it to be their .duty to do so where the silence of the court might lead to misconstruction or future controversy, and the point has been relied on by either side, and argued before the court. In the case before us, we have already de- cided that the Circuit Court erred in deciding that it had jurisdiction upon the facts ad- mitted by the pleadings. And it appears that, in the further progress of the case, it acted upon the erroneous principle it had de- cided on the pleadings, and gave judgment for the defendant, where, upon the facts ad- mitted in the exception, it had no jurisdiction. We are at a loss to understand upon what principle of law, applicable to appellate juris- diction, it can be supposed that this court has not judicial authority to correct the last- mentioned error, because they had before corrected the former ; or by what process of reasoning it can be made out, that the error of an inferior court in actually pronouncing judgment for one of the parties, in a case in which it had no jurisdiction, cannot be looked into or corrected by this court, because we have decided a similar question presented in the pleadings. The last point is distinctly presented by the facts contained in the plain- tiff's own bill of exceptions, which he himself brings here by this writ of error. It was the point which chiefly occupied the attention of the counsel on both sides in the argument — and the judgment which this court must ren- der upon both errors is precisely the same. It must, in each of them, exercise jurisdiction over the judgment, and reverse it for the errors committed by the court below ; and issue a mandate to the Circuit Court to con- form its judgment to the opinion pronounced by this court, by dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court. This is the constant and invariable practice of this court, where it reverses a judgment for want of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court. It can scarcely be necessary to pursue such a question further. The want of jurisdiction in the court below may appear on the record without any plea in abatement. This is familiarly the case where a court of chancery has exercised jurisdiction in a case where the 162 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. plaintiff had a plain and adequate remedy at law, and it so appears by the transcript when brought here by appeal. So also where it appears that a court of admiralty has exer- cised jurisdiction in a case belonging exclu- sively to a court of common law. In these cases there is no plea in abatement. And for the same reason, and upon the same princi- ples, where the defect of jurisdiction is patent on the record, this court is bound to reverse the judgment, although the defendant has not pleaded in abatement to the jurisdiction of the inferior court. The cases of Jackson v. Ashton and of Capron v. Van Noorden, to which we _ have referred in a previous part of this opinion, are directly in point. In the last-mentioned case, Capron brought an action against Van Noorden in a Circuit Court of the United States, without showing, by the usual aver- ments of citizenship, that the court had juris- diction. There was no plea in abatement put in, and the parties went to trial upon the merits. The court gave judgment in favor of the defendant with costs. The plaintiff thereupon brought his writ of error, and this court reversed the judgment given in favor of the defendant, and remanded the case with directions to dismiss it, because it did not ap- pear by the transcript that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction. The case before us still more strongly im- poses upon this court the duty of examining whether the court below has not committed an error, in taking jurisdiction and giving a judgment for costs in favor of the defendant ; for in Capron v. Van Noorden the judgment was reversed, because it did not appear that the parties were citizens of different states. They might or might not be. But in this case it does appear that the plaintiff was born a slave ; and if the facts upon which he relies have not made him free, then it appears affirm- atively on the record that he is not a citizen, and consequently his suit against Sandford was not a suit between citizens of different states, and the court had no authority to pass any judgment between the parties. The suit ought, in this view of it, to have been dis- missed by the Circuit Court, and its judgment in favor of Sandford is erroneous, and must be reversed. It is true that the result either way, by dismissal or by a judgment for the defendant, makes very little, if any, difference in a pecu- niary or personal point of view to either party. But the fact that the result would be very nearly the same to the parties in either form of judgment, would not justify this courtin sanctioning an error in the judgment which is patent on the record, and which, if sanc- tioned, might be drawn into precedent, and lead to serious mischief and injustice in some future suit. We proceed, therefore, to inquire whether the facts relied on by the plaintiff entitled him to his freedom. The case, as he himself states it, on the record brought here by his writ of error, is this : The plaintiff was a negro slave, belonging to Dr. Emerson, who was a surgeon in the army of the United States. In the year 1834, he took the plaintiff from the state of Missouri to the military post at Rock Island, in the state of llinois, and held him there as a slave until the month of April or May, 1836. At the time last mentioned, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff from said military post at llock Island to the military post at Fort Snelling, situate on the west bank of the Mississippi river, in the territory known as Upper Louisiana, ac- quired by the United States of France, and situate north of the latitude of thirty-six de- grees thirty minutes north, and north of the state of Missouri. Said Dr. Emerson held the plaintiff in slavery at said Fort Snelling, from said last-mentioned date until the year 1838. In the year 1835, Harriet, who is named in the second count of the plaintiff's declaration, was the negro slave of Major Taliaferro, who belonged to the army of the United States. In that year, 1835, said Major Taliaferro took said Harriet to said Fort Snelling, a military post, situated as hereinbefore stated, and kept her there as a slave until the year 1836, and then sold and delivered her as a slave, at said Fort Snelling, unto the said Dr. Emerson hereinbefore named. Said Dr. Emerson held said Harriet in slavery at said Fort Snelling until the year 1838. In the year 1836, the plaintiff and Harriet intermarried at Fort Snelling, with the con- sent of Dr. Emerson, who then claimed to be their master and owner. Eliza and Lizzie, named in the third count of the plaintiff's decla- ration, are the fruit of that marriage. Eliza is about fourteen years old, and was born on board the steamboat Gipsey, north of the north line of the state of Missouri, and upon the river Mississippi. Lizzie is about seven years old, and was born in the state of Mis- souri, at the military post called Jefferson Barracks. In the year 1838, said Dr. Emerson re- moved the plaintiff and said Harriet, and their said daughter Eliza, from said Fort Snelling to the state of Missouri, where they have ever since resided. Before the commencement of this suit, said Dr. Emerson sold and conveyed the plaintiff, and Harriet, Eliza, and Lizzie, to the defend- ant, as slaves, and the defendant has ever since claimed to hold them, and each of them, as slaves. In considering this part of the controversy, two questions arise : 1. Was he, together with his family, free in Missouri by reason of the stay in the territory of the United States hereinbefore mentioned? And 2. If they were not, is Scott himself free by reason of his removal to Rock Island, in the state of Illinois, as stated in the above admissions ? We proceed to examine the first question. The act of Congress, upon which the plain tiff relies, declares that slavery and involua L*RED SCOTT CASE— CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY'S OPINION. lG'i tsry servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall be for ever prohibited in all that part of the territory ceded by France, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty- six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, and not included within the limits of Missouri. And the difficulty which meets us at the threshold of this part of the inquiry is, whether Congress was authorized to pass this law under any of the powers granted to it by the Constitution ; for if the authority is not given by that instrument, it is the duty of this court to declare it void and inoperative, and incapable of conferring freedom upon any one who is held as a slave under the laws of any one of the states. The counsel for the plaintiff has laid much stress upon that article in the Constitution which confers on Congress the power to " dis- pose of and make all needful rules and regula- tions respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States ;" but, in the judgment of the court, that provision has no bearing on the present controversy, and the power there given, whatever it may be, is confined, and was intended to be confined, to the territory which at that time belonged to, or was claimed by, the United States, and was within their boundaries as settled by the treaty with Great Britain, and can have no influence upon a territory afterwards acquired from a foreign government. It was a special provision for a known and particular territory, and to meet a present emergency, and nothing more. A brief summary of the history of the times, as well as the careful and measured terms in which the article is framed, will show the correctness of this proposition. It will lie remembered that, from the com- mencement of the Revolutionary war, serious difficulties existed between the states, in rela- tion to the disposition of large and unsettled territories which were included in the char- tered limits of some of the states. And some of the other states, and more especially Mary- land, which had no unsettled lands, insisted that as the unoccupied lands, if wrested from Great Britain, would owe their preservation to the common purse and the common sword, the money arising from them ought to be ap- plied in just proportion among the several states to pay the expenses of the war, and ought not to be appropriated to the use of the state in whose chartered limits they might happen to lie, to the exclusion of the other states, by whose combined efforts and common expense the territory was defended and pre- served against the claim of the British go- vernment. These difficulties caused much uneasiness during the war, while the issue was in some degree doubtful, and the future boundaries of the United States yet to be defined by treaty, if we achieved our independence. The majority of the Congress of the Con- federation obviously concurred in opinion with the stat( ?f Maryland, and desired to obtain from the states which claimed it a ces- sion of this territory, in order that Congress might raise money on this security to carry on the war. This appears by the resolution passed on the 6th of September, 1780, strongly urging the states to cede these lands to the United States, both for the sake of peace and union among themselves, and to maintain the public credit ; and this was followed by the resolution of October 10th, 1780, by which C in- gress pledged itself, that if the lands were ceded, as recommended by the resolution above men- tioned, they should be disposed of for the common benefit of the United States, and be settled and formed into distinct republican states, which should become members of the Federal Union, and have the same rights of sovereignty, and freedom, and independence, as other states. But these difficulties became much more serious after peace took place, and the boun- daries of the United States were established. Every state, at that time, felt severely the pressure of its war debt ; but in Virginia, and some other states, there were large territories of unsettled lands, the sale of which would enable them to discharge their obligations without much inconvenience ; while other states, which had no such resource, saw be- fore them many years of heavy and burden- some taxation ; and the latter insisted, for the reasons before stated, that these unsettled lands should be treated as the common pro- perty of the states, and the proceeds applied to their common benefit. The letters from the statesmen of that day will show how much this controversy occupied their thoughts, and the dangers that were apprehended from it. It was the disturbing element of the time, and fears were enter- tained that it might dissolve the Confedera- tion by which the states were then united. These fears and dangers were, however, at once removed, when the state of Virginia, in 1784, voluntarily ceded to the United States the immense tract of country lying north-west of the river Ohio, and which was within the acknowledged limits of the state. The only object of the state, in making this cession, was to put an end to the threatening and ex- citing controversy, and to enable the Congress of that time to dispose of the lands, and ap- propriate the proceeds as a common fund for the common benefit of the states. It was not ceded, because it was inconvenient to the state to hold and govern it, nor from any expectation that it could be better or more conveniently governed by the United States. The example of Virginia was soon after- wards followed by other states, and, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, all of the states, similarly situated, had ceded their un- appropriated lands, except North Carolina and Georgia. The main object for which these cessions were desired and made, was on account of their money value, and to put an end to a dangerous controversy, as to who was justly entitled to the proceeds when tho 164 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. lands should be sold. It is necessary to bring this part of the history of these cessions thus distinctly into view, because it will enable us the better to comprehend the phraseology of the article in the Constitution, so often re- ferred to in the argument. Undoubtedly the powers of sovereignty and the eminent domain were ceded with the land. This was essential, in order to make it effectual, and to accomplish its objects. But it must be remembered that, at that time, there was no government of the United States in existence with enumerated and limited powers ; what was then called the United States, were thirteen separate, sovereign, in- dependent states, which had entered into a league or confederation for their mutual pro- tection and advantage, and the Congress of the United States was composed of the repre- sentatives of these separate sovereignties, meeting together, as equals, to discuss and decide on certain measures which the states, by the Articles of Confederation, had agreed to submit to their decision. But this con- federation had none of the attributes of sove- reignty in legislative, executive, or judicial power. It was little more than a congress of ambassadors, authorized to represent separate nations, in matters in which they had a com- mon concern. It was this Congress that accepted the ces- sion from Virginia. They had no power to accept it under the Articles of Confederation. But they had an undoubted right, as indepen- dent sovereignties, to accept any cession of territory for their common benefit, which all of them assented to ; and it is equally clear, that as their common property, and having no superior to control them, they had the right to exercise absolute dominion over it, subject only to the restrictions which Virginia had imposed in her act of cession. There was, as we have said, no government of the United States then in existence with special enumerated and limited powers. The terri- tory belonged to sovereignties, who, subject to the limitations above mentioned, had a right to establish any form of government they pleased, by compact or treaty among themselves, and to regulate rights of person and rights of property in the territory, as they might deem proper. It was by a congress, representing the authority of these several and separate sovereignties, and acting under their authority and command (but not from any authority derived from the Articles of Confederation), that the instrument usually called the ordinance of 1787 was adopted; regulating in much detail the principles and the laws by which this territory should be go- verned ; and among other provisions, slavery is prohibited in it. We do not question the power of the states, by agreement among themselves, to pass this ordinance, nor its obligatory force in the territory, while the confederation or league of the states in their separate sovereign character continued to exist. This was the state of things when the Con- stitution of the United States was formed. The territory ceded by Virginia belonged to several confederated states as common pro- perty, and they had united in establishing in it a system of government and jurisprudence, in order to prepare it for admission as states, according to the terms of the cession. They were about to dissolve this federative Unioii, and to surrender a portion of their independ- ent sovereignty to a new government, which, for certain purposes, would make the people of the several states one people, and which was to be supreme and controlling within its sphere of action throughout the United States ; but this government was to be carefully limited in its powers, and to exercise no authority beyond those expressly granted by the Constitution, or necessarily to be implied from the language of the instrument, and the objects it was intended to accomplish ; and as this league of states would, upon the adoption of the new government, cease to have any power over the territory, and the ordinance they had agreed upon be incapable of execu- tion, and a mere nullity, it was obvious that some provision was necessary to give the new government sufficient power to enable it to carry into effect the objects for which it was ceded, and the compacts and agreements which the states had made with each other in the exercise of their powers of sovereignty. It was necessary that the lands should be sold to pay the war debt ; that a government and system of jurisprudence should be maintained in it, to protect the citizens of the United States who should migrate to the territory, in their rights of person and of property. It was also necessary that the new government, about to be adopted, should be authorized to main- tain the claim of the United States to the un- appropriated lands in North Carolina and Georgia, which had not then been ceded, but the cession of which was confidently antici- pated upon some terms that would be arranged between the general government and these two states. And, moreover, there were many articles of value besides this property in land, such as arms, military stores, munitions, and ships of war, which were the common pro- perty of the states, when acting in their in- dependent characters as confederates, which neither the new government nor any one else would have a right to take possession of, or control, without authority from them ; and it was to place these things under the guardian- ship and protection of the new government, and to clothe it with the necessary powers, that the clause was inserted in the Constitu- tion, which gives Congress the power to " dis- pose of and make all needful rules and regu- lations respecting the territory or other pro- perty belonging to the United States." It was intended for a specific purpose, to provide for the things we have mentioned. It was to transfer to the new government the property then held in common by the states, and to give to that government power to apply it to BRED SCOTT CASE— CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY'S Ol'INION. 165 the objects for which it had been destined by mutual agreement among the states before their league was dissolved. It applied only to the property which the states held in com- mon at that time, and has no reference what- ever to any territory or other property which the new sovereignty might afterwards itself acquire. The language used in the clause, the ar- rangement and combination of the powers, and the somewhat unusual phraseology it uses, when it speaks of the political power to be exercised in the government of the terri- tory, all indicate the design and meaning of the* clause to be such as we have mentioned. It dues not speak of any territory, nor of ter- ritories, but uses language which, according to its legitimate meaning, points to a particu- lar thing. The power is given in relation only to the territory of the United States ; that is, to a territory then in existence, and then known or claimed as the territory of the Uni- ted States. It begins its enumeration of powers by that of disposing, in other words, making sale of the lands, or raising money from them, which, as we have already said, was the main object of the cession, and which is accordingly the first thing provided for in the article. It then gives the power which was necessarily associated with the disposi- tion and sale of the lauds ; that is, the power of making needful rules and regulations respecting the territory. And whatever con- struction may now be given to these words, every one, we think, must admit that they are not the words usually employed by statesmen in giving supreme power of legislation. They are certainly very unlike the words used in the power granted to legislate over territory which the new government might afterwards itself obtain by cession from a state, either for its seat of government, or for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful build- ings. And the same power of making needful rules respecting the territory is, in precisely the same language, applied to the other pro- perty belonging to the United States — asso- ciating the power over the territory in this respect with the power over movable or per- sonal property — that is, the ships, arms, and munitions of war, which then belonged in common to the state sovereignties. And it will hardly be said that this power, in rela- tion to the last-mentioned objects, was deemed necessary to be thus specially given to the new government, in order to authorize it to make needful rules and regulations respecting the ships it might itself build, or arms and munitions of war it might itself manufacture or provide for the public service. No one, it is believed, would think a mo- ment of deriving the power of Congress to make needful rules and regulations in rela- tion to property of this kind from this clause of the Constitution. Nor can it, upon any fair construction, be applied to any property but that which the new government was about to receive from the confederated states. And if this be true as to this property, it must be equally true and limited as to the territory, which is so carefully and precisely coupled with it — and like it, referred to as property in the power granted. The concluding words of the clause appear to render this construc- tion irresistible ; for, after the provisions we have mentioned, it proceeds to say, " that nothing in the Constitution shall be so con- strued as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state." Now, as we have before said, all of the states, except North Carolina and Georgia, had made the cession before the Constitution was adopted, according to the resolution of Congress of October 10, 1780. The claims of other states, that the unappropriated lands in these two states should be applied to the com- mon benefit, in like manner was still insisted on, but refused by the states. And this mem- ber of the clause in question evidently applies to them, and can apply to nothing else. It was to exclude the conclusion that either party, by adopting the Constitution, would surrender what they deemed their rights. And when the latter provision relates so ob- viously to the unappropriated lands not yet ceded by the states, and the first clause makes provision for those then actually ceded, it is impossible, by any just rule of construction, to make the first provision general, and ex- tend to all territories which the federal gov- ernment might in any way afterwards ac- quire, when the latter is plainly and unequi- vocally confined to a particular territory ; which" was a part of the same controversy, and involved in the same dispute, and de- pended upon the same principles. The union of the two provisions in the same clause shows that they were kindred subjects ; and that the win ile clause is local, and relates only to lands within the limits of the United States, which had been or then were claimed by a state ; and that no other territory was in the mind of the framers of the Constitution, or intended to be embraced in it. Upon any other con- struction it would be impossible to account for the insertion of the last provision in the place where it is found, or to comprehend why or for what object it was associated with the previous provision. This view of the subject is confirmed by the manner in which the present government of the United States dealt with the subject as soon as it came into existence. It must be borne in mind that the same states that formed the Confederation also formed and adopted the new government, to which so large a portion of their former sovereign pow- ers were surrendered. It must also be borne in mind that all of these same states which had then ratified the new Constitution were represented in the Congress which passed the first law for the government of this territory ; and many of the members of that legislative body hau been deputies from the states under the Confederation — had united in adopting the 166 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ordinance of 1787, and assisted in forming the new government under which they were then acting, and whose powers they were then exercising. And it is obvious, from the law they passed to carry into effect the principles and provisions of the ordinance, that they re- garded it as the act of the states done in the exercise of their legitimate powers at the time. The new government took the territory as it found it, and in the condition in which it was transferred, and did not attempt to undo any- thing that had been done. And, among the earliest laws passed under the new govern- ment, is one reviving the ordinance of 1787, which had become inoperative, and a nullity upon the adoption of the Constitution. This law introduces no new form or principles for its government, but recites, in the preamble, that it is passed in order that this ordinance may continue to have full effect, and proceeds to make only those rules and regulations which were needful to adapt it to the new government, into whose hands the power had fallen. It appears, therefore, that this Con- gress regarded the purposes to which the land in this territory was to be applied, and the form of government and principles of juris- prudence which were to prevail there, while it remained in the territorial state, as already determined on by the states when they had full power and right to make the decision ; and .that the new government, having received it in this condition, ought to carry substan- tially into effect the plans and principles which had been previously adopted by the states, and which no doubt the states antici- pated when they surrendered their power to the new government. And if we regard this clause of the Constitution as pointing to this territory, with a territorial government already established in it, which had been ceded to the states for the purposes hereinbefore mention- ed — every word in it is perfectly appropriate, and easily understood, and the provisions it contains are in perfect harmony with the ob- jects for which it was ceded, and with the condition of its government as a territory at the time. We can, then, easily account for the manner in which the first Congress legis- lated on the subject — and can also understand why this power over the territory was asso- ciated in the same clause with the other pro- perty of the United States, and subjected to the like power of making needful rules and regulations. But if the clause is construed in the expanded sense contended for, so as to embrace any territory acquired from a foreign nation by the present government, and to give it in such territory a despotic and unlimited power over persons and property, such as the confederated states might .exercise in their common property, it would be difficult to ac- count for the phraseology used, when com- pared with other grants of power — and also for its association with the other provisions in the same clause. The Constitution has always been remarka- ble for the felicity of its arrangement of dif- ferent subjects, and the perspicuity and ap- propriateness of the language it uses. But if this clause is construed to extend to territory acquired by the present government from a foreign nation, outside of the limits of any charter from the British government to a co- lony, it would be difficult to say, why it was deemed necessary to give the government the power to sell any vacant lands belonging to the sovereignty which might be found within it ; and if this was necessary, why the grant of this power should precede the power to le- gislate over it and establish a government there ; and still more difficult to say, why it was deemed necessary so specially and par- ticularly to grant the power to make needful rules and regulations in relation to any per- sonal or movable property it might acquire there. For the words other property, neces- sarily, by every known rule of interpretation, must mean property of a different description from territory or land. And the difficulty would perhaps be insurmountable in endea- voring to account for the last member of the sentence, which provides that "nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to preju- dice any claims of the United States or any particular state," or to say how any particu- lar state could have claims in or to a territory ceded by a foreign government, or to account; for associating this provision with the preced- ing provisions of the clause, with which it would appear to have no connexion. The words "needful rules and regulations" would seem, also, to have been cautiously used for some definite object. They are not the words usually employed by statesmen, when they mean to give the powers of sovereignty. or to establish a government, or to authorize its establishment. Thus, in the law to renew and keep alive the ordinance of 1787, and to re-establish the government, the title of the law is : "An act to provide for the govern- ment of the territory northwest of the river Ohio." And in the Constitution, when grant- ing the power to legislate over the territory that may be selected for the seat of government in- dependently of a state, it does not say Con- gress shall have power "to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territo- ry ;" but it-declares that " Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District (not ex- ceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states and the acceptance of Con- gress, become the seat of the government of the United States. The words "rules and regulations" are usually employed in the Constitution in speak- ing of some particular specified power which it means to confer on the government, and not, as we have seen, when granting general pow- ers of legislation. As, for example, in the particular power to Congress "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, or the particular and specific power to regulate commerce ;" " to establish an uniform rule of naturalization ;" " to coia DRED SCOTT CASE— CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY'S OPINION. lo, money and regulate the value thereof." And to construe the words of which we are speak- ing as a general and unlimited grant of sove- reignty over territories which the government might afterwards acquire, is to use them in a sense and for a purpose for which they were not used in any other part of the instrument. But if confined to a particular territory, in which a government and laws had already been established, but which would require some alterations to adapt it to the new govern- ment, the words are peculiarly applicable and appropriate for that purpose. The necessity of this special provision in relation to property and the rights or property held in common by the confederated states, is illustrated by the first clause of the sixth article. This clause provides that " all debts, contracts, and engagements entered into be- fore the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this government as under the Confederation." This provision, like the one under consideration, was indispensable if the new Constitution was adopted. The new government was not a mere change in a dynasty, or in a form of government, leaving the nation or sovereignty the same, and clothed with all the rights, and bound by all the obligations, of the preceding one. But, when the present United States came into existence under the new govern- ment, it was a new political body, a new na- tion, then for the first time taking its place in the family of nations. It took nothing by succession from the Confederation. It had no right, as its successor, to any property or rights of property which it had acquired, and was not liable for any of its obligations. It was evidently viewed in this light by the framers of the Constitution. And as the several states would cease to exist in their former confeder- ated character upon the adoption of the Con- stitution, and could not, in that character, again assemble together, special provisions were indispensable to transfer to the new gov- ernment the property and rights which at that time they held in common ; and at the same time to authorize it to lay taxes and appro- priate money to pay the common debt which they had contracted ; and this power could only be given to it by special provisions in the Constitution. The clause in relation to the territory end other property of the United States provided for the first, and the clause last quoted provided for the other. They have no • connexion with the general powers and rights of sovereignty delegated to the new gov- ernment, and can neither enlarge nor diminish them. They were inserted to meet a present emergency, and not to regulate its powers as a government Indeed, a similar provision was deemed ne- cessary, in relation to treaties made by the Con- federation ; and when in the clause next suc- ceeding the one of which we have last spoken, it is declared that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land, care is taken to include, by express words, the treaties made by the con- federated states. The language is : "and all treaties made, or which shall bo made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." Whether, therefore, we take the particular clause in question, by itself, or in connexion with the other provisions of the Constitution. we think it clear, that it applies only to the particular territory of which we have spoken. and cannot, by any just rule of interpretation, be extended to territory which the new gov- vernment might afterwards obtain from a foreign nation. Consequently, the power which Congress may have lawfully exercised in this territory, while it remained under a territorial government, and which may have been sanctioned by judicial decision, can furnish no justification and no argument to support a similar exercise of poAver over terri- tory afterwards acquired by the federal gov- ernment. We put aside, therefore, any argu- ment, drawn from precedents, showing the extent of the power which the general gov- ernment exercised over slavery in this terri- tory, as altogether inapplicable to the case before us. But the case of the American and Ocean Insurance Companies v. Canter (1 Pet., 511) has been quoted as establishing a different construction of this clause of the Constitution. There is, however, not the slightest conflict between the opinion now given and the one referred to ; and it is only by taking a single sentence out of the latter and separating it from the context, that even an appearance of conflict can be shown. We need not comment on such a mode of expounding an opinion of the court. Indeed it most commonly misre- presents instead of expounding it. And this is fully exemplified in the case referred to, where, if one sentence is taken by itself, the opinion would appear to be in direct conflict with that now given ; but the words which immediately follow that sentence show that the court did not mean to decide the point, but merely affirmed the power of Congress to establish a government in the territory, leav- ing it an open question, whether that power was derived from this clause in the Constitu- tion, or was to be necessarily inferred from a power to acquire territory by cession from a foreign government. The opinion on this part of the case is short, and we give the whole of it to show how well the selection of a single sentence is calculated to mislead. The passage referred to is in page 542, in which the court, in speaking of the power of Congress to establish a territorial government in Florida until it should become a state, uses the following language : — " In the mean time Florida continues to be a territory of the United States, governed by that clause of the Constitution which em- powers Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States. Perhaps the • power of governing a territory belonging to the United States, which has not, by be- 168 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK coming a state, acquired the means of self- government, may result, necessarily, from the facts that it is not within the jurisdiction of any particular state, and is within the power and jurisdiction of the United States. The right to govern may be the inevitable conse- quence of the right to acquire territory. Wliichever may be the source from which the power is derived, the possession of it is unques- tionable." It is thus clear, from the whole opinion on this point, that the court did not mean to de- cide whether the power was derived from the clause in the Constitution, or was the neces- sary consequence of the rie United States. For, whatever powers the states may exercise to confer privileges of citi- zenship on persons not born on their soil, the Constitution of the United States does not recognise such citizens. As has already been said, it recognises the great principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship spring from the place of birth. It leaves to the states the application of that principle to individual cases. It secured to the citizens of each state the privileges and immunities of citizens in every other state. But it does not allow to the states the power to make aliens citizens, or permit one state to take persons born on the soil of another state, and, contrary to the laws and policy of the state where they were born, make them its citizens, and so citizens of the United States. No such deviation from the great rule of public law was contemplated by the Constitution ; and when any such at- tempt shall be actually made, it is to be met by applying to it those rules of law and those principles of good faith which will be suffi- cient to decide it, and not, in my judgment, by denying that all the free native-born in- habitants of a state, who are its citizens under its constitution and laws, are also citizens of the United States. It has sometimes been urged that colored persons are shown not to be citizens of the United States by the fact that the naturaliza- tion laws apply only to white persons. But whether a person born in the United States be or be not a citizen, cannot depend on laws which refer only to aliens, and do not affect the status of persons born in the United States. The utmost effect which can be attributed to them is, to show that Congress has not deemed it expedient generally to apply the rule to colored aliens. That they might do so, if thought fit, is clear. The Constitution has not excluded them. And since that has con- ferred the power on Congress to naturalize colored aliens, it certainly shows color is not a necessary qualification for citize-nship under the Constitution of the United States. It may be added, that the power to make colored persons citizens of the United States, under the Constitution, has been actually exercised in repeated and important instances. (See the Treaties with the Choctaws, of September 27, 1830, art. 14 ; with the Cherokees, of Mav 23, 1836, art, 12 ; Treaty of Guadalupe Hi- dalgo, February 2, 1848, art. 8.) I do not deem it necessary to review at length the legislation of Congress having more or less bearing on the citizenship ot colored persons. It does not seem to me to have any 184 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. considerable tendency to prove that it has been considered by the legislative department of the government, that no such persons are citizens of the United States. Undoubtedly they have been debarred from the exercise of particular rights or privileges extended to white persons, but I believe, always in terms which, by implication, admit they may be citizens. Thus the act of May 17, 1792, for the organization of the militia, directs the enrolment of " every free, able-bodied, white male citizen." An assumption that none but white persons are citizens, would be as incon- sistent with the just import of this language, as that all citizens are able-bodied, or males. So the act of February 28, 1803 (2 Stat, at Large, 205), to prevent the importation of certain persons into states, when by the laws thereof their admission is prohibited, in its first section forbids all masters of vessels to import or bring " any negro, mulatto, or other person of color, not being a native, a citizen, or registered seaman of the United States," &c. The acts of March 3, 1813, section 1 (2 Stat, at Large, 809), and March 1, 1817, section 3 (3 Stat, at Large, 351), concerning seamen, certainly imply there may be persons of color, natives of the United States, who are not citizens of the United States. This implica- tion is undoubtedly in accordance with the fact. For not only slaves, but free persons of color, born in some of the states, are not citizens. But there is nothing in these laws inconsistent with the citizenship of persons of color in others of the states, nor with their being citizens of the United States. Whether much or little weight should be attached to the particular phraseology of these and other laws, which were not passed with any direct reference to this subject, I consider their tendency to be, as already indicated, to show that, in the apprehension of their fra- mers, color was not a necessary qualification of citizenship. It would be strange, if laws were found on our statute book to that effect, when, by solemn treaties, large bodies of Mexican and North American Indians as well as free colored inhabitants of Louisiana have been admitted to citizenship of the United States. In the legislative debates which preceded the admission of the state of Missouri into the Union, this question was agitated. Its result is found in the resolution of Congress, of March 5, 1821, for the admission of that state into the Union. The constitution of Missouri, under which that state applied for admission into the Union, provided, that it should be the duty of the legislature " to pass laws to pre- vent free negroes and mulattoes from coming to and settling in the state, under any pretext whatever." One ground of objection to the admission of the state under this constitution was, that it would require the legislature to exclude free persons of color, who would be entitled, under the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, not only to come within the state, but to enjoy there the privi. leges and immunities of citizens. The resolu- tion of Congress admitting the state was upon the fundamental condition, "that the consti- tution of Missouri shall never be construed to authorize the passage of any law and that no law shall be passed in conformity thereto, by which any citizen of either of the states of this Union shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immunities to which such citizen is entitled under the Con- stitution of the United States." It is true, that neither this legislative declaration, nor anything in the constitution or laws of Mis- souri, could, confer or take away any privi- lege or immunity granted by the Constitution. But it is also true, that it expresses the then conviction of the legislative power of the United States, that free negroes, as citizens of some of the states, might be entitled to the privi- leges and immunities of citizens in all the states. The conclusions at which I have arrived on this part of the case are : — First. That the free native-born citizens of each state are citizens of the United States. Second. That as free colored persons born within some of the states are citizens of those states, such persons are also citizens of the United States. Third. That every such citizen, residing in any state, has the right to sue and is liable to be sued in the federal courts, as a citizen of that state in which he resides. Fourth. That as the plea to the jurisdic- tion in this case shows no facts, except that the plaintiff was of African descent, and his ancestors were sold as slaves, and as these facts are not inconsistent with his citizenship of the United States, and his residence in the state of Missouri, the plea to the jurisdiction was bad, and the judgment of the Circuit Court overruling it was correct. I dissent, therefore, from that part of the opinion of the majority of the court, in which it is held that a person of African descent can- not be a citizen of the United States ; and I regret I must go further, and dissent both from what I deem their assumption of authority to examine the constitutionality of the act of Congress commonly called the Missouri com- promise act, and the grounds and conclusions announced in their opinion. Having first decided that they were bound to consider the sufficiency of the plea to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, and having decided that this plea showed that the Circuit Court had not jurisdiction, and consequently that this is a case to which the judicial power of the United States does not extend, they have gone on to examine the merits of the case as they appeared on the trial before the court and jury, on the issues joined on the pleas in bar, and so have reached the question of the power of Congress to pass the act of 1820. On so grave a subject as this, I feel obliged to say that, in my opinion, such an exertion of judicial power transcends the limits of ths DRED SCOTT CASE— JUSTICE CURTIS'S OPINION. 185 authority of the court, as described by its re- peated decisions, and, as I understand, ac- knowledged in this opinion of the majority of the court. In the course of that opinion, it became ne- cessary to comment on the case of Legrand v. Darnall (reported in 2 Peters's R. 664). In that case, a bill was filed, by one alleged to be a citizen of Maryland, against one alleged to be a citizen of Pennsylvania. The bill stated that the defendant was the son of a white man by one of his slaves ; and that the defendant's father devised to him certain lands, the title to which was put in controversy by the bill. These facts were admitted in the answer, and upon these and other facts the court made its decree, founded on the principle that a devise of land by a master to a slave was by implica- tion also a bequest of his freedom. The facts that the defendant was of African descent, and was born a slave, were not only before the court, but entered into the entire substance of its inquiries. The opinion of the majority of uiv brethren in this ease disposes of the case of Legrand v. Darnall, by saying, among other things, that as the fact that the defendant was born a slave only came before this court on the bill and answer, it was then too late to raise the question of the personal disability of the part}-, and therefore that decision is alto- gether inapplicable in this case. In this I concur. Since the decision of this court in Livingston v. Story (11 Pet. 351), the law has been settled, that when the declara- ti on or bill contains the necessary averments of citizenship, this court cannot look at the record, to see whether those averments are true, except so far as they are put in issue by a plea to the jurisdiction. In this case, the de- fendant denied by his answer that Mr. Living- ston was a citizen of New York, as he had al- leged in the bill. Both parties went into proofs. The court refused to examine those proofs, with reference to the personal disabi- lity of the plaintiff. This is the settled law of the court, affirmed so lately as Shepherd v. Graves (14 How. 27), and Wickliff v. Owings, (17 How. 51). (See also De Wolf v. Rabaud, 1 Pet. 476.) But I do not understand this to be a rule which the court may depart from at its pleasure. If it be a rule, it is as binding on che court as on the suitors. If it removes from the latter the power to take any objection to the personal disability of a party alleged by the record to be competent, which is not shown by a plea to the jurisdiction, it is because the court are forbidden by law to consider and de- cide on objections so taken. I do not consider it to be within the scope of the judicial power of the majority of the court to pass upon any question respecting the plaintiff's citizenship in Missouri, save that raised by the plea to the jurisdiction ; and I do not hold any opinion of this court, or any court, binding, when expressed on a question not legitimately before it. (Car- roll v. Carroll, 16 How. 275.) The judgment of this court is, that the case is to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, because the plaintiff was not a citizen of Missouri, as he alleged in his declaration. Into that judgment, accord- ing to the settled course of this curt, nothing appearing after a plea to the merits can enter. A great question of constitutional law, deeply affecting the peace and welfare of the country, is not, in my opinion, a fit subject to be thus reached. But as, in my opinion, the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, I am obliged to consider the question whether its judgment on the merits of the case should stand or be reversed. The residence of the plaintiff in the state of Illinois, and the residence of himself and his wife in the territory acquired from France ly- ing north of latitude thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, and north of the state of Missouri, are each relied on by the plaintiff in error. As the residence in the territory affects the plaintiff's wife and children as well as himself, I must inquire what was its effect. The general question may be stated to be, whether the plaintiff's status, as a slave, was so changed by his residence within that terri- tory, that he was not a slave in the state of Missouri, at the time this action was brought. In such cases, two inquiries arise, which may be confounded, but should be kept dis- tinct. The first is, what was the law of the terri- tory into which the master and slave went, re- specting the relation between them ? The second is, whether the state of Missouri recognises and allows the effect of that law of the territory, on the status of the slave, on his return within its. jurisdiction. As to the first of these questions, the will of states and nations, by whose municipal law slavery is not recognised, has been manifested in three different ways. One is, absolutely to dissolve the relation, and terminate the rights of the master exist- ing under the law of the country whence the parties came. This is said by Lord Stowell, in the case of the slave Grace (2 Hag. Ad. R. 94), and by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in the case of Maria Louise v. Marot (9 Louis. R. 473), to be the law of France ; and it has been the law of several states of this Union, in respect to slaves introduced under certain con- ditions. (Wilson v. Isabel, 5 Call's R. 430 ; Hunter ». Ilulcher, 1 Leigh, 172 ; Stewart v. Oaks, 5 Har. and John. 107.) The second is, where, the municipal law of a country not recognising slavery, it is the will of the state to refuse the master all aid to exercise any control over his slave ; and if he attempt to do so, in a manner justifiable only by that relation, to prevent the exercise of that control. But no law exists, designed to operate directly on the relation of master and slave, and put an end to that relation. This is said by Lord Stowell, in the case above mentioned, to be the law of England, and by Mr. Chief Justice Shaw, in the case of the Commonwealth r. Aves (18 Pick. 193), to be the law of Massachusetts. The third is, to make a distinction between 186 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. the case of a master and his slave only tem- porarily in the country animo non manendi, and those who are there to reside for perman- ent or indefinite purposes. This is said by Mr. Wheaton to be the law of Prussia, and was formerly the statute law of several states of our Union. It is necessary in this case to keep in view this distinction between those countries whose laws are designed to act directly on the status of a slave, and make him a freeman, and those where his master can obtain no- aid from the laws to enforce his rights. It is to the last case only that the authori- ties, out of Missouri, relied on by defendant, apply, when the residence in the non-slave- holding territory was permanent. In the Commonwealth v. Aves (18 Pick. 218), Mr. Chief Justice Shaw said : " From the principle above stated, on which a slave brought here becomes free, to wit : that he becomes entitled to the protection of our laws, it would seem to follow, as a necessary conclusion, that if the slave waives the protection of those laws, and returns to the state where he is held as a slave, his condition is not changed." It was upon this ground, as is apparent from his whole reasoning, that Sir William Scott rests his opinion in the case of the slave Grace. To use one of his expressions, the effect of the law of England was to put the liberty of the slave into a parenthesis. If there had been an act of Parliament declaring that a slave coming to England with his master should thereby be deemed no longer to be a slave, it is easy to see that the learned judge could not have arrived at the same conclusion. This distinction is very clearly stated and shown by President Tucker, in his opinion in the case of Betty v. Horton (5 Leigh's Virginia R. 615). (See also Hunter v. Fletcher, 1 Leigh's Va. R. 172 ; Maria Louise v. Marot, 9 Louisi- ana R. ; Smith v. Smith, 13 lb. 441 ; Thomas v. Genevieve, 16 lb. 483 ; Rankin v. Lydia, 2 A.'K. Marshall, 467; Davies v. Tingle, 8 B. Munroe, 539 ; Griffeth v. Fanny, Gilm. V. R. 143 ; Lumford v. Coquillon, 14 Martin's La. R. 405 ; Josephine v. Poultney, 1 Louis. Ann. R. 329.) But if the acts of Congress on this subject are valid, the law of the territory of Wiscon- sin, within whose limits the residence of the plaintiff and his wife, and their marriage and the birth of one or both of their children, took f)lace, falls under the first category, and is a aw operating directly on the status of the slave. By the eighth section of the act of March 6, "1820 (3 Stat, at Large, 548), it was enacted that, within this territory, "slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, for ever prohibited: Provided, al- ways, that any person escaping into the same, from whom Labor or service is lawfully claimed in any state or territory in the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service, as aforesaid." By the act of April 20, 1836 (4 Stat, at Large, 10), passed in the same month and year of the removal of the plaintiff to Fort Snelling, this part of the territory ceded by France, where Fort Snelling is, together with so much of the territory of the United States east of the Mississippi as now constitutes the state of Wisconsin, was brought under a terri- torial government, under the name of the Territory of Wisconsin. By the eighteenth section of this act, it was enacted, " That the inhabitants of this territory shall be entitled to and enjoy all and singular the rights, pri- vileges, and advantages, granted and secured to the people of the territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, by the articles of compact contained in the ordinance for the government of said territory, passed on the 13th day of July, 1787 ; and shall be sub- ject to all the restrictions and prohibitions in said articles of compact imposed upon the people of the said territory." The sixth article of that compact is, " there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. Provided, always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claime d in any one of the original states,- such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service, as aforesaid." By other provisions of this act establishing the territory of Wisconsin, the laws of the United States, and the then exist- ing laws of the state of Michigan, are extended over the territory ; the latter being subject to alteration and repeal by the legislative power of the territory created by the act. Fort Snelling was within the territory of Wisconsin, and these laws were extended over it. The Indian title to that site for a military post had been acquired from the Sioux nation as early as September 23, 1805 (Am. State Papers, Indian Affairs, vol. 1, p. 744), and until the erection of the territorial government, the persons at that post were governed by the rules and articles of war, and such laws of the United States, including the eighth section of the act of March 6, 1820, prohibiting slavery, as were applicable to their condition ; but after the erection of the territory, and the extension of the laws of the United States and the laws of Michigan over the whole of the territory, including this military post, the persons re- siding there were under the dominion of those laws in all particulars to which the rules and articles of war did not apply. It thus appears that, by these acts of Con- gress, not only was a general system of muni- cipal law borrowed from the state of Michigan, which did not tolerate slavery, but it wa* positively enacted that slavery and involun- tary servitude, with only one exception, spe- cifically described, should not exist there. It DRED SCOTT CASE— JUSTICE CURTIS'S OPINION. 137 is not simply that slavery is not recognised and cannot be aided by the municipal law. It is recognised for the purpose of being abso- lutely prohibited, and declared incapable of existing within the territory, save in the in- stance of a fugitive slave. It would not be easy for the legislature to employ more explicit language to signify its will that the status of slavery should not exist within the territory, than the words found in the act of 1820, and in the ordinance of 1787 ; and if any doubt could exist concerning their application to cases of masters coming into the territory with their slaves to reside, that doubt must yield to the inference required by the words of exception. That exception is, of cases of fugitive slaves. An exception from a prohibition marks the extent of the prohibi- tion ; for it would be absurd, as well as use- less, to except from a prohibition a case not contained within it. (9 Wheat. 200.) I must conclude, therefore, that it was the will of Congress that the state of involuntary servi- tude of a slave, coming into the territory with his master, should cease to exist. The Supreme Court of Missouri so held in Rachel v. Walker (4 Misso. R. 350), which was the case of a military officer going into the territory with two slaves. But it is a distinct question whether the law of Missouri recognised and allowed effect to the change wrought in the status of the plaintiff, by force of the laws of the territory of Wisconsin. I say the law of Missouri, because a judicial tribunal, in one state or nation, can recognise personal rights acquired by force of the law of any other state or nation, only so far as it is the law of the former state that those rights should be recognised. But, in the absence of positive law to the contrary, the will of every civilized state must be presumed to be to allow such effect to foreign laws as is in accord- ance with the settled rules of international law. And legal tribunals are bound to act on this presumption. It may be assumed that the motive of the state in allowing such opera- tion to foreign laws is what has been termed comity But, as has justly been said (per Chief Justice Taney, 13 Pet. 589), it is the comity of the state, not of the court. The judges have nothing to do with the motive of the state. Their duty is simply to ascertain and give effect to its will. And when it is found by them that its will to depart from a rule of international law has not been mani- fested by the state, they are bound to assume that its will is to give effect to it. Undoubt- edly, every sovereign state may refuse to recognise a change, wrought by the law of a foreign state, on the status of a person, while within such foreign state, even in cases where the rules of international law require that recognition. Its will to refuse such recogni- tion may be manifested by what we term statute law, or by the customary law of the state. It is within the province of its judicial tribunals to inquire and adjudge whether it appears, from the statute or customary law of the state, to be the will of the state to refuse to recognise such changes of status by force of foreign law, as the rules of the law of nations require to be recognised. But, in my opinion, it is not within the province of any judicial tribunal to refuse such recognition from any political considerations, or any view it may take of the exterior political relations between the state and one or more foreign states, or any impressions it may have that a change of foreign opinion and action on the subject of slavery may afford a reason why tlif state should change its own action. To understand and give just effect to such con- siderations, and to change the action of the state in consequence of them, are functions of diplomatists and legislators, not of judges. The inquiry to be made on this part of the case is, therefore, whether the state of Mis- souri has, by its statute, or its customary law, manifested its will to displace any rule of international law, applicable to a change of the status of a slave, by foreign law. I have not heard it suggested that there was any statute of the state of Missouri bearing on this question. The customary law of Mis- souri is the common law, introduced by statute in 1816. (1 Ter. Laws, 436.) And the com- mon law, as Blackstone says (4 Com. 67), adopts, in its full extent, the law of nations, and holds it to be a part of the law of the land. I know of no sufficient warrant for declaring that any rule of international law, concerning the recognition, in that state, of a change of status, wrought by an extra-territorial law, has been displaced or varied by the will of the state of Missouri. I proceed then to inquire what the rules of international law prescribe concerning the change of status of the plaintiff wrought by the law of the territory of Wisconsin. It is generally agreed by writers upon inter- national law, and the rule has been judicially applied in a great number of cases, that wherever any question may arise concerning the status of a person, it must be determined according to that law which has next pre- viously rightfully operated on and fixed that status. And, further, that the laws of a country do not rightfully operate upon and fix the status of persons who are within its limits in itinere, or who are abiding there for defi- nite temporary purposes, as for health, curi- osity, or occasional business ; that these laws, known to writers on public and private inter- national law as personal statutes, operate only on the inhabitants cf the country. Not that it is or can be denied that each independent nation may, if it thinks fit, apply them to all persons within their limits. But when this is done, not in conformity with the principles of international law, other states are not understood to be willing to recognise or allow effect to such applications of personal statutes. It becomes necessary, therefore, to inquire whether the operation of the laws of the ter- 188 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ritory of Wisconsin upon the status of the plaintiff was or was not such an operation as these principles of international law require other .states to recognise and allow effect to. And this renders it needful to attend to the particular facts and circumstances of this case. It appears that this case came on for trial before the Circuit Court and a jury, upon an issue, in substance, whether the plaintiff, to- gether with his wife and children, were the slaves of the defendant. The court instructed the jury that, " upon the facts in this case, the law is with the de- fendant." This withdrew from the jury the consideration and decision of every matter of fact. The evidence in the case consisted of written admissions, signed by the counsel of the parties. If the case had been submitted to the judgment of the court, upon an agreed statement of facts, entered of record, in place of a special verdict, it would have been neces- sary for the court below, and for this court, to pronounce its judgment solely on those facts, thus agreed, without inferring any other facts therefrom. By the rules of the common law applicable to such a case, and by force of the seventh article of the amendments of the Con- stitution, this court is precluded from finding any fact not agreed to by the parties on the record. No submission to the court on a statement of facts was made. It w r as a trial by iury, in which certain admissions, made by the parties, were the evidence. The jury were not only competent, but were bound to draw from that evidence every inference which, in their judgment, exercised according to the rules of law, it would warrant. The Circuit Court took from the jury the power to draw any inferences from the admissions made by the parties, and decided the case for the de- fendant. This course can be justified here, if at all, only by its appearing that upon the facts agreed, and all such inferences of fact favorable to the plaintiff's case, as the jury might have been warranted in drawing from those admissions, the law was with the defend- ant. Otherwise, the plaintiff would be de- prived of the benefit of his trial by jury, by whom, for aught we can know, those infer- ences favorable to his case would have been drawn. The material facts agreed, bearing on this part of the case, are, that Dr. Emerson, the plaintiff's master, resided about two years at the military post of Fort Suelling, being a surgeon in the army of the United States, his domicil of origin being unknown ; and what, if anything, he had done, to preserve or change his domicil prior to his residence at liock Island, being also unknown. Now, it is true, that under some circum- stances the residence of a military officer at a particular place in the discharge of his official duties, does not amount to the acquisition of a technical domicil. But it cannot be affirmed, with correctness, that it never does. There being actual residence, and this being pre- sumptive evidence of domicil, all the circum- stances of the case must be considered, before a legal conclusion can be reached, that his place of residence is not his domicil. If a military officer stationed at a particular post should entertain an expectation that his resi- dence there would be indefinitely protracted, and in consequence should remove his family to the place where his duties were to be dis- charged, form a permanent domestic establish- ment there, exercise there the civil rights and discharge the civil duties of an inhabitant, while he did no act and manifested no intent to have a domicil elsewhere, I think no one would say that the mere fact that he was him- self liable to be called away by the orders of the government would prevent his acquisition of a technical domicil at the place of the resi- dence of himself and his family. In other words, I do not think a military officer inca- pable of acquiring a domicil. (Bruce v. Bruce, 2 Bos. and Pul. 230 ; Munroe v. Douglass, 5 Mad. Ch. R. 232.) This being so, this case stands thus : there was evidence before the jury that Emerson resided about two years at Fort Snelling, in the territory of Wisconsin. This may or may not have been with such intent as to make it his technical domicil. The presumption is that it was. It is so laid down by this court, in Ennis v. Smith (14 How.), and the authorities in support of the position are there referred to. His intent was a question of fact for the jury. (Fitchburg v. Winchendon, 4 Cush. 190.) The case was taken from the jury. If they had power to find that the presumption of the necessary intent had not been rebutted, we cannot say, on this record, that Emerson had not his technical domicil at Fort Snelling. But, for reasons which I shall now proceed to give, I do not deem it necessary in this case to determine the question of the technical domicil of Dr. Emerson. It must be admitted that the injury whether the law of a particular country has rightfully fixed the status of a person, so that in accord- ance with the principles of international law that status should be recognised in other juris- dictions, ordinarily depends on the question whether the person was domiciled in the country whose laws are asserted to have fixed his status. But, in the United States, ques- tions of this kind may arise, where an attempt to decide solely with reference to technical domicil, tested by the rules which are appli- cable to changes of places of abode from one country to another, would not be consistent with sound principles. And, in my judgment, this is one of those cases. The residence of the plaintiff, who was taken by his master, Dr. Emerson, as a slave, from Missouri to the state of Illinois, and thence to the territory of AVisconsin, must be deemed to have been for the time being, and until he asserted his own separate intention, the same as the residence of his master; and the inquiry, whether the personal statutes of the territory were rightfully extended over the plaintiff, DEED SCOTT CASE— JUSTICE CURTIS'S OPINION. 189 and ought, in accordance with the rules of international law, to be allowed to fix his status, must depend upon the circumstances under which Dr. Emerson went into that ter- ritory, and remained there ; and upon the further question, whether anything was there rightfully done by the plaintiff to cause those personal statutes to operate on him. Dr. Emerson was an officer in the army of the United States. He went into the territory to discharge his duty to the United States. The place was out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. It does not appear where the domicil of origin of Dr. Emerson was, nor whether or not he had lost it, and gained another domicil, nor of what particular state, if any, he was a citizen. On what ground can it be denied that all valid laws of the United States, constitution- ally enacted by Congress for the government of the territory, rightfully extended over an officer of the United States and his servant who went into the territory to remain there for an indefinite length of time, to take part in its civil or military affairs? They were not foreigners, coming from abroad. Dr. Emer- son was a citizen of the country which had exclusive jurisdiction over the territory ; and not only a citizen, but he went there in a public capacity, in the service of the same sovereignty which made the laws. Whatever those laws might be, whether of the kind de- nominated personal statutes, or not, so far as they were intended by the legislative will, constitutionally expressed, to operate on him and his servant, and on the relations between them, they had a rightful operation, and no other state or country can refuse to allow that those laws might rightfully operate on the plaintiff and his servant, because such a refu- *al would be a denial that the United States could, by laws constitutionally enacted, govern their own servants, residing on their own ter- ritory, over which the United States had the exclusive control, and in respect to which they are an independent sovereign power. Whe- ther the laws now in question were constitu- tionally enacted, I repeat once more, is a -••j'.arate question. But, assuming that they were, and that they operated directly on the status of the plaintiff, I consider that no other state or country could question the rightful power of the United States so to legislate, or, consistently with the settled rules of interna- tional law, could refuse to recognise the effects of such legislation upon the status of their officers and servants, as valid everywhere. This alone would, in my apprehension, be sufficient to decide this question. But there are other facts stated on the re- cord which should not be passed over. It is agreed that, in the year 1836, the plaintiff, while residing in the territory, was married, with the consent of Dr. Emerson, to Harriet, named in the declaration as his wife, and that Eliza and Lizzie were the children of that marriage, the first named having been born on the Mississippi river, north of the line of Missouri, and the other having been born after their return to Missouri. And the inquiry is, whether, after the marriage of the plaintiff in the territory, with the consent of Dr. Emerson, any other state or country can, consistently with the settled rules of international law, refuse to recognise and treat bim as a free man, when suing for the liberty of himself, his wife, and the children of that marriage. It is in reference to his status, as viewed in other states and countries, that the contract of mar- riage and the birth of children becomes strictly material. At the same time, it is proper to observe that the female to whom he was mar- ried having been taken to the same military post of Fort Snelling as a slave, and Dr. Em- erson claiming also to be her master at the time of her marriage, her status, and that of the children of the marriage, are also afi'ected by the same considerations. If the laws of Congress governing the ter- ritory of Wisconsin were constitutional and valid laws, there can be no doubt these partie? were capable of contracting a lawful marriage, attended with all the usual civil rights and ob- ligations of that condition. In that territory they were absolutely free persons, having full capacity to enter into the civil contract of mar- riage. It is a principle of international law, settled beyond controversy in England and America, that a marriage, valid by the law of the place where it was contracted, and not in fraud of the law of any other place, is valid every- where ; and that no technical domicil at the place of the contract is necessary to make it so. (See Bishop on Mar. and Div. 125 — 129, where the cases are collected.) If, in Missouri, the plaintiff were held to be a slave, the validity and operation of his con- tract of marriage must be denied. He can have no legal rights ; of course, not those of a husband and father. And the same is true of his wife and children. The denial of his rights is the denial of theirs. So that, though lawfully married in the territory, when they came out of it, into the state of Missouri, they were no longer husband and wife ; and a child of that lawful marriage, though born under the same dominion where its parents con- tracted a lawful marriage, is not the fruit of that marriage, nor the child of its father, but subject to the maxim, partus sequitur ventrcm. It must be borne in mind that in this case there is no ground for the inquiry, whether it be the will of the state of Missouri not to re- cognise the validity of the marriage of a fugi- tive slave, who escapes into a state or country where slavery is not allowed, and there con- tracts a marriage ; or the validity of such a marriage, where the master, being a citizen of the state of Missouri, voluntarily goes with his slave, in itinere, into a state or country which does not permit slavery to exist, and the I slave there contracts marriage without the I consent of his master ; for in this case, it i? i agreed, Dr. Emerson did consent ; and no fur- 100 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ther question can arise concerning his rights, so far as their assertion is inconsistent with the validity of the marriage. Nor do I know of any ground for the assertion that this mar- riage was in fraud of any law of Missouri. It lias been held hy this court, that a bequest of property by a master to his slave, by neces- sary implication entitles the slave to his free- dom ; because, only as a freeman could he take and hold the bequest. (Legrand v. Darnall, 2 Pet. R. 664.) It has also been held, that when a master goes with his slave to reside for an indefinite period in a state where slavery is not tolerated, this operates as an act of manu- mission ; because it is sufficiently expressive of the consent of the master that the slave should be free. (2 Marshall's Ken. R. 470 ; 14 Martin's Louis. R. 401). What, then, shall we say of the consent of the master, that the slave may contract a law- ful marriage, attended with all the civil rights and duties which belong to that relation ; that he may enter into a relation which none but a free man can assume — a relation which in- volves not only the rights and duties of the slave, but those of the other party to the con- tract, and of their descendants to the remotest generation ? In my judgment, there can be no more effectual abandonment of the legal rights of a master over his slave, than by the consent of the master that the slave should enter into a contract of marriage, in a free state, attended by all the civil rights and obli- gations which belong to that condition. And any claim by Dr. Emerson, or any one claiming under him, the effect of which is to deny the validity of this marriage, and the lawful paternity of the children born from it, wherever asserted, is, in my judgment, a claim inconsistent with good faith and sound reason, as well as with the rules of international law. And I go further : in my opinion, a law of the state of Missouri, which should thus annul a marriage, lawfully contracted by these parties while resident in Wisconsin, not in fraud of any law of Missouri, or of any right of Dr. Emerson, who consented thereto, would be a law impairing the obligation of a contract, and within the prohibition of the Constitution of the United States. (See 4 Wheat. 629, 695, 096.) To avoid misapprehension on this important and difficult subject, I will state, distinctly, the conclusions at which I have arrived. They are : — First. The rules of international law res- pecting the emancipation of slaves, by the rightful operation of the laws of another state or country upon the status of the slave, while resident in such foreign state or country, are part of the common law of Missouri, and have not been abrogated by any statute law of that staVj. Second. The laws of the United States, con- stitutionally enacted, which operated directly on and changed the status of a slave coming into the territory of Wisconsin with his mas- ter who went thither to reside for an indefinite length of time, in the performance of his duties as an officer of the United States, had a rightful oporation on the status of the slave, and it is in conformity with the rules of inter- national law that this change of status should be recognised everywhere. Third. The laws of the United States, in operation in the territory of Wisconsin at the time of the plaintiff's residence there, did act directly on the status of the plaintiff, and change his status to that of a free man. Fourth. The plaintiff and his wife were capable of contracting, and, with the consent of Dr. Emerson, did contract a marriage in that territory, valid under its laws; and the validity of this marriage cannot be questioned in Missouri, save by showing that it was in fraud of the laws of that state, or of some right derived from them ; which cannot be shown in this case, because the master con- sented to it. Fifth. That the consent of the master that his slave, residing in a country which does not tolerate slavery, may enter into a lawful contract of marriage, attended with the civil rights and duties which belong to that condi- tion, is an effectual aet of emancipation. And the law does not enable Dr. Emerson, or any one claiming under him, to assert a title to the married persons as slaves, and thus destroy the obligation of the contract of marriage, and bastardize their issue, and reduce them to sla- very. But it is insisted that the Supreme Court of Missouri has settled this case by its decision in Scott v. Emerson (15 Missouri Reports, 576); and that this decision is in conformity with the weight of authority elsewhere, and with sound principles. If the Supreme Court of Missouri had placed its decision on the ground that it appeared Dr. Emerson never became domiciled in the territory, and so its laws could not rightfully operate on him and his slave ; and the facts that he went there to reside indefinitely, as an officer of the United States, and that the plaintiff was lawfully married there, with Dr. Emerson's con^ui. were left out of view, the decision would find support in other cases, and I might not be pre- pared to deny its correctness. But the deci- sion is not rested on this ground. The domic il of Dr. Emerson in that territory is not ques- tioned in that decision ; and it is placed on a broad denial of the operation, iu Missouri, of the law of any foreign state or country upon the status of a slave, going with his master from Missouri into such foreign state or coun- try, even though they went thither to become, and actually became, permanent inhabitants of suchforeign state or country, the laws where- of acted directly on the status of the slave, and changed his status to that of a freeman. To the correctness of such a decision I can- not assent. In my judgment, the opinion of the majority of the court in that case is in conflict with its previous decisions, with a great weight of judicial authority in other slaveholding states, and with fundamental DRED SCOTT CASE— JUSTICE CURTIS'S OriNION. 191 principles of private international law. Mr. Chief Justice Gamble, in his dissenting opin- ion in that case, said : — " I regard the question as conclusively set- tled by repeated adjudications of this court; and if I doubted or denied the propriety of those decisions, I would not feel myself any more at liberty to overturn them, than I would any other series of decisions by which the law upon any other question had been settled. There is with me nothing in the law of slavery which distinguishes it from the law on any other subject, or allows anymore accommoda- tion to the temporary excitements which have gathered around it. ***** * But in the midst of all such excitement, it is pro- per that the judicial mind, calm and self- balanced, should adhere to principles estab- lished when there was no feeling to disturb the view of the legal questions upon which the rights of parties depend." " In this state, it has been recognised from the beginning of the government as a correct position in law, that the master who takes his slave to reside in a state or territory where slavery is prohibited, thereby emancipates his slave." (Winney v. Whitesides, 1 Mo. 473 ; I,e Grange e. Chouteau, 2 Mo. 20 ; Milley v. Smith, lb. 36; llalph v. Duncan, 3 Mo. 194; Julia v. McKinney, lb. 270 ; Nat v. Ruddle, II). 400 ; Rachel v. Walker, 4 Mo. 350 ; Wilson v. Melvin, 592.) Chief Justice Gamble has also examined the decisions of the courts of other states in which slavery is established, and finds them in accordance with these preceding decisions of the Supreme Court of Missouri to which he refers. It would be a useless parade of learning for me to go over the ground which he has so fully and ably occupied. But it is further insisted we are bound to follow this decision. I do not think so. In this case, it is to be determined what laws of the United States were in operation in the territory of Wisconsin, and what was their effect on the status of the plaintiff. Could the plaintiff contract a lawful marriage there ? Does any law of the state of Missouri impair the obligation of that contract of marriage, destroy his rights as a husband, bastardize the issue of the marriage, and reduce them to a state of slavery ? These questions, which arise exclusively under the Constitution and laws of the United States, this court, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, has the rightful authority finally to decide. And if we look bevond these questions, we come to the con- sideration whether the rules of international law, which are part of the laws of Missouri until displaced by some statute not alleged to exist, do or do not require the status of the plaintiff, as fixed by the laws of the territory of Wisconsin, to be recognised in Missouri. Upon such a question, not depending on any statute or local usage, but on principles of universal jurisprudence, this court has re- peatedly asserted it could not hold itself bound by the decisions of state courts, however great respect might be felt for their learning, ability, and impartiality. (See Swift v. Tyson, 10 Peters's R. 1 ; Carpenter v. The Providence Ins. Co., lb. 495 ; Foxcroft v. Mallet, 4 How 353 ; Rowan v. Runnels, 5 How. 134.) Some reliance has been placed on the fact that the decision in the Supreme Court of Missouri was between these parties, and the suit there was abandoned to obtain another trial in the courts of the United States. In Homer v. Brown (16 How. 354), this court made a decision upon the construction of a devise of lands, in direct opposition to the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, between the same parties, respecting the same subject-matter — the claim- ant having become nonsuit in the state court, in order to bring his action in the Circuit Court of the United States. I did not sit in that case, having been of counsel for one of the parties while at the bar ; but, on examin ing the report of the argument of the counsel for the plaintiff in error, I find they made the point, that this court ought to give effect to the construction put upon the will by the state court, to the end that rights respecting lands may be governed by one law, and that the law of the place where the lands are situated ; that they referred to the state decision of the case, reported in 3 Cushing, 390, and to many decisions of this court. But this court does not seem to have considered the point of suffi- cient importance to notice it in their opinions. In Millar v. Austin (13 How. 218), an action was brought by the endorsee of a written promise. The 'question was, whether it was negotiable under a statute of Ohio. The Supreme Court of that state having decided it was not negotiable, the plaintiff became nonsuit, and brought his action in the Circuit Court of the United States. The decision of the Supreme Court of the state, reported in 4 Ves., L. J. 527, was relied on. This court unanimously held the paper to be negotiable. When the decisions of the highest court of a state are directly in conflict with each other, it has been repeatedly held, here, that the last decision is not necessarily to be taken as the rule. (State Bank v. Knoop, 16 How. 369 ; Pease v. Peck, 18 How. 599.) To these considerations I desire to add, that it was not made known to the Supreme Court of Missouri, so far as appears, that the plain- tiff was married in Wisconsin with the con- sent of Dr. Emerson, and it is not made known to us that Dr. Emerson was a citizen of Missouri, a fact to which that court seem to have attached much importance. Sitting here to administer the law between these parties, I do not feel at liberty to sur- render my own convictions of what the law requires, to the authority of the decision in 15 Missouri Reports. I have thus far assumed, merely for the purpose of the argument, that the laws of the United States, respecting slavery in this terri- 192 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tory, were constitutionally enacted by Con- gress. It remains to inquire whether they are constitutional and binding laws. In the argument of this part of the case at bar, it was justly considered by all the coun- sel to be necessary to ascertain the source of the power of Congress over the territory be- longing to the United States. Until this is ascertained, it is not possible to determine the extent of that power. On the one side it was maintained that the Constitution contains no express grant of power to organize and govern what is now known to the laws of the United States as a territory. That whatever power of this kind exists, is derived by implication from the capacity of the United States to hold and acquire territory out of the limits of any state, and the necessity for its having some government. On the other side, it was insisted that the Constitution has not failed to make an ex- press provision for this end, and that it is found in the third section of the fourth arti- cle of the Constitution. To determine which of these is the correct view, it is needful to advert to some facts re- specting this subject, which existed when the Constitution was framed and adopted. It will be found that these facts not only shed much light on the question, whether the framers of the Constitution omitted to make a provision concerning the power of Congress to organize and govern territories, but they will also aid in the construction of any provision which may have been made respecting this subject. Under the Confederation, the unsettled ter- ritory within the limits of the United States had been a subject of deep interest. Some of the states insisted that these lands were within their chartered boundaries, and that they had succeeded to the title of the Crown to the soil. On the other hand, it was argued that the vacant lands had been acquired by the United States, by the war carried on by them under a common government and for the common interest. This dispute was further complicated by unsettled questions of boundary among seve- ral states. It not only delayed the accession of Maryland to the Confederation, but at one time seriously threatened its existence. (5 Jour, of Cong. 208, 442.) Under the pressure of these circumstances, Congress earnestly re- commended to the several states a cession of their claims and rights to the United States. (■"» Juur. of Cong. 442.) And before the Con- stitution was framed, it had been begun. That by New York had been made on the 1st day of March, 1781 ; that of Virginia on the 1st day of March, 1784 ; that of Massachu- setts on the 19th day of April, 1785 ; that of Connecticut on the 14th day of September, 1786 ; that of South Carolina on the 8th day of August, 1787, Avliilo the Convention for framing the Constitution was in session. It is very material to observe, in this con- nexion, that each of these acts cedes, in terms, to the United States, as well the jurisdiction as the soil. It is also equally important to note that, when the Constitution was framed and adopted, this plan of vesting in the United States, for the common good, the great tracts of ungranted lands claimed by the several states, in which so deep an interest was felt, was yet incomplete. It remained for North Carolina and Georgia to cede their extensive and valuable claims. These were made, by North Carolina on the 25th day of Februarv, 1790, and by Georgia on the 24th day of April, 1802. The terms of these last-mentioned ces- sions will hereafter be noticed in another con- nexion ; but I observe here that each of them distinctly shows, upon its face, that they were not only in execution of the general plan pro- posed by the Congress of the Confederation, but of a formed purpose of each of these states, existing when the assent of their re- spective people was given to the Constitution of the United States. It appears, then, that when the Federal Constitution was framed, and presented to the people of the several states for their con- sideration, the unsettled territory was viewed as justly applicable to the common benefit, so far as it then had or might attain thereafter a pecuniary value ; and so far as it might be- come the seat of new states, to bo admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with the original states. And also that the relations of the United States to that unsettled territory were of different kinds. The titles of the states of New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, Con- necticut, and South Carolina, as well of soil as of jurisdiction, had been transferred to the United States. North Carolina and Georgia had not actually made transfers, but a confi- dent expectation, founded on their apprecia- tion of the justice of the general claim, and fully justified by the results, was entertained. that these cessions would be made. The ordi- nance of 1787 had made provision for the temporary government of so much of the ter- ritory actually ceded as lay northwest of the river Ohio. But it must have been apparent, both to the framers of the Constitution and the people of the several states who were to act upon it, that the government thus provided for could not continue, unless the Constitution should con- fer on the United States the necessary powers to continue it. That temporary government, under the ordinance, was to consist of certain officers, to be appointed by and responsible to the Congress of the Confederation ; then- powers had been conferred and defined by the ordinance. So far as it provided for the temporary government of the territory, it was an ordinary act of legislation, deriving its force from the legislative power of Congress, and depending for its vitality upon the conti- nuance of that legislative power. But the officers to be appointed for the Northwestern Territory, after the adoption of the Constitu- DRED SCOTT CASE— JUSTICE CURTIS'S OPINION. 19S tion, must necessarily be officers of the United States, and not of the Congress of the Confe- deration ; appointed and commissioned by the President, and exercising powers derived from the United States under the Constitution. Such was the relation between the United States and the Northwestern Territory, which all reflecting men must have foreseen would exist, when the government created by the Constitution should supersede that of the Con- federation. That if the new government should be without power to govern this territory, it could not appoint and commission officers, and send them into the territory, to exercise there legislative, judicial, and executive power ; and that this territory, which was even then fore- seen to be so important, both politically and financially, to all the existing states, must be left not only without the control of the gene- ral government, in respect to its future politi- cal relations to the rest of the states, but ab- solutely without any government, save what its inhabitants, acting in their primary capacity, might from time to time create for themselves. But this Northwestern Territory was not the only territory, the soil and jurisdiction where- of were then understood to have been ceded to the United States. The cession by South Carolina, made in August, 1787, was of " all the territory included within the river Mis- sissippi, and a line beginning at that part of the said river which is intersected by the southern boundary of North Carolina, and continuing along the said boundary line until it intersects the ridge or chain of mountains which divides the eastern from the western waters ; then to be continued along the top of said ridge of mountains, until it intersects a line to be drawn due west from the head of the southern branch of the Tugaloo river, to the said mountains ; and thence to run a due west course to the river Mississippi." It is true that by subsequent explorations it was ascertained that the source of the Tugaloo river, upon which the title of South Carolina depended, was so far to the northward, that the transfer conveyed only a narrow slip of land, about twelve miles wide, lying on the top of the ridge of mountains, and extending from the northern boundary of Georgia to the southern boundary of North Carolina. But tins was a discovery made long after the ces- sion, and there can be no doubt that the state of South Carolina, in making the cession, and the Congress in accepting it, viewed it as a transfer to the United States of the soil and jurisdiction of an extensive and important part of the unsettled territory ceded by the Crown of Great Britain by the treaty of peace, though its quantity or extent then remained to be ascertained.* It must be remembered also, as has been * Note by Mr. Justice Curtis. This statement that some territory did actually pass by this cession, is taken from the opinion of the court, delivered by Mr. Justice Wayne, in the ease of Howard v. Ingersoll. reported in 13 How. 405. It is a;i obscure matter, and, on some examination of it, I hare been led to doubt whether any territory actually passed by this cession. But as the fact is not important to the argu- already stated, that not only was there a con- fident expectation entertained by the other states, that North Carolina and Georgia woul I complete the plan already so far executed bv New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, Connec- ticut, and South Carolina, but that the opinion was in no small degree prevalent, that the just title to this " back country," as it wa.- termed, had vested in the United States by the treaty of peace, and could not rightfully be claimed by any individual state. There is another consideration applicable to this part of the subject, and entitled, in my judgment, to great weight. The Congress of the Confederation had as- sumed the power not only to dispose of the lands ceded, but to institute governments and make laws for their inhabitants. In other words, they had proceeded to act under the cession, which, as we have seen, was as well of the jurisdiction as of the soil. This ordinance was passed on the 13th of July, 1787. The convention for framing the Constitu- tion was then in session at Philadelphia. The proof is direct and decisive, that it was known to the convention.* It is equally clear that it was admitted and understood not to be within the legitimate powers of the Confederation to pass this ordinance. (Jefferson's Works, vol. 9, pp. 251, 276; Federalist, Nos. 38, 43.) The importance of conferring on the new government regular powers commensurate with the objects to be attained, and thus avoiding the alternative of a failure to execute the trust assumed by the acceptance of the cessions made and expected, or its execution by usurpation, could scarcely fail to be per- ceived. That it was in fact perceived, is clearly shown by the Federalist (No. 38), where this very argument is made use of in commendation of the Constitution. Keeping these facts in view, it may confi- dently be asserted that there is very strong reason to believe, before we examine the Con- stitution itself, that the necessity for a compe- tent grant of power to hold, dispose of, and govern territory, ceded and expected to be ceded, could not have escaped the attention of those who framed or adopted the Constitution ; and that if it did not escape their attention, it could not fail to be adequately provided for. Any other conclusion would involve the assumption that a subject of the gravest na- tional concern, respecting which the small states felt so much jealousy that it had been almost an insurmountable obstacle to the for- mation of the Confederation, and as to which all the states had deep pecuniary and political interests, and which had been so recently and constantly agitated, was nevertheless over- looked ; or that such a subject was not over- looked, but designedly left unprovided for, ment. I have not thought it necessary further to investi- gate it. * It was published in a newspaper at Thiladclphia, ir. May, and a copy of it was sent by R. II. Lee to Gnn. Wash ington. on the 15th of July. (See p. 261, Cor. of Am. Ee7^ vol. 4, and Writings of Washington, vol. 9, p. 174.) 194 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. though it was manifestly a subject of common concern, which belonged to the care of the general government, and adequate provision for which could not fail to be deemed neces- sary and proper. The admission of new states, to be framed out of the ceded territory, early attracted the attention of the convention. Among the reso- lutions introduced by Mr. Randolph, on the 29th of May, was one on this subject (Res. No. 10, 5 Elliot, 128), which having been affirmed in Committee of the Whole, on the 5th of June (5 Elliot, 156), and reported to the convention on the 13th of June (5 Elliot, 190), was referred to the Committee of Detail, to prepare the Constitution, on the 26th of July (5 Elliot, 376). This committee reported an article for the admission of new states "lawfully constituted or established." Noth- ing was said concerning the power of Congress to prepare or form such states. This omission struck Mr. Madison, who, on the 18th of August (5 Elliot, 439), moved for the inser- tion of power to dispose of the unappropriated lands of the United States, and to institute temporary governments for new states arising therein. On the 29th of August (5 Elliot, 492), the report of the committee was taken up, and after debate, which exhibited great diversity of views concerning the proper mode of pro- viding for the subject, arising out of the sup- posed diversity of interests of the large and small states, and between those which had and those which had not unsettled territory, but no difference of opinion respecting the pro- priety and necessity of some adequate provision for the subject, Gouverneur Morris moved the clause as it stands in the Constitution. This met with general approbation, and was at once adopted. The whole section is as follows : — " New states may be admitted by the Con- gress into this Union ; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legisla- tures of the states concerned, as well as of Congress. " The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property be- longing to the United States ; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States or any particular state." That Congress has some power to institute temporary governments over the territory, I believe all agree ; and, if it be admitted that the necessity of some power to govern the territory of the United States could not and did not escape the attention of the convention and the people, and that the necessity is so great, that, in the absence of any express grant, it is strong enough to raise an implica- tion of the existence of that power, it would seem to follow that it is also strong enough to afford material aid in construing an express grant of power respecting that territory ; and that they who maintain the existence of the power, without finding any words at all in which it is conveyed, should be willing to receive a reasonable interpretation of language of the Constitution, manifestly intended to relate to the territory, and to convey to Con- gress some authority concerning it. It would seem, also, that when we find the subject-matter of the growth and formation and admission of new states, and the disposal of the territory for these ends, were under con- sideration, and that some provision therefore was expressly made, it is improbable that it would be, in its terms, a grossly inadequate provision ; and that an indispensably neces- sary power to institute temporary govern- ments, and to legislate for the inhabitants of the territory, was passed silently by, and left to be deduced from the necessity of the case. In the argument at the bar, great attention has been paid to the meaning of the word " territory." Ordinarily, when the territory of a sovereign power is spoken of, it refers to that tract of country which is under the political jurisdic- tion of that sovereign power. Thus Chief Justice Marshall (in United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 386) says: "What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses? We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdic- tion of a state is coextensive with its terri- tory." Examples might easily be multiplied of this use of the word, but they are unneces- sary, because it is familiar. But the word " territory" is not used in this broad and general sense in this clause of the Constitu- tion. At the time of the adoption of the Constitu- tion, the United States held a great tract of country northwest of the Ohio ; another tract, then of unknown extent, ceded by South Carolina; and a confident expectation was then entertained, and afterwards realized, that they then were or would become the owners of other great tracts, claimed by North Carolina and Georgia. These ceded tracts lay within the limits of the United States, and out of the limits of any particular state ; and the cessions embraced the civil and poli- tical jurisdiction, and so much of the soil as had not previously been granted to indivi- duals. These words, "territory belonging to the United States," were not used in the Consti- tution to describe an abstraction, but to iden- tify and apply to these actual subjects matter then existing and belonging to the United States, and other similar subjects which might afterwards be acquired ; and this being so, all the essential qualities and incidents attending such actual subjects are embraced within the words "territory belonging to the United States," as fully as if each of these essential qualities and incidents had been specifically described. I say, the essential qualities and incident?. DRED SCOTT CASE— JUSTICE CURTIS'S OPINION. 195 But in determining what were the essential qualities and incidents of the subject with which they were dealing, we must take into consideration not only all the particular facts which were immediately before them, but the great consideration, ever present to the minds of those who framed and adopted the Consti- tution, that they were making a frame of go- vernment for the people of the United States and their posterity, under which they hoped the United States might be, what they have now become, a great and powerful nation, pos- sessing the power to make war and to conclude treaties, and thus to acquire territory. (See Cerre v. Pitot, G Cr. 336 ; Am. Ins. Co. v. Can- ter, 1 Pet. 542.) With these in view, I turn to examine the clause of the article now in question. It is said this provision has no application to any territory save that then belonging to the United States. I have already shown that, when the Constitution was framed, a con- fident expectation was entertained, which was speedily realized, that North Carolina and Georgia would cede their claims to that great territory which lay west of those states. No doubt has been suggested that the first clause of this same article, which enabled Congress to admit new state's, refers to and includes new states to be formed out of this territory, ex- pected to be thereafter ceded by North Caro- lina and Georgia, as well as new states to be formed out of territory northwest of the Ohio, which then had been ceded by Virginia. It must have been seen, therefore, that the same necessity would exist for an authority to dis- pose of and make all needful regulations re- specting this territory, when ceded, as existed for a like authority respecting territory which nad been ceded. No reason has been suggested why any re- 1 uctauce should have been felt, by the framers of the Constitution, to apply this provision to all the territory which might belong to the United States, or why any distinction should have been made, founded on the accidental circumstance of the dates of the cessions ; a circumstance in no way material as respects the necessity for rules and regulations, or the propriety of conferring on the Congress power to make them. And if we look at the course of the debates in the Convention on this arti- cle, we shall find that the then unceded lands, so far from having been left out of view in adopting this article, constituted, in the minds of members, a subject of even paramount im- portance. Again, in what an extraordinary position would the limitation of this clause to territory then belonging to the United States, place the territory which lay within the chartered limits of North Carolina and Georgia. The title to that territory was then claimed by those states, and by the United States; their respective claims are purj>osely left unsettled by the ex- press words of this clause ; and when cessions were made by those states, they were merely of their claims to this territory, the United States neither admitting nor denying the vali- dity of those claims ; so that it was impof ■'.- ble then, and has ever since remained impos- sible, to know whether this territory did or did not then belong to the United States; and, consequently, to know whether it was within or without the authority conferred by this clause, to dispose of and make rules and regu- lations respecting the territory of the Unite I States. This attributes to the eminent men who acted on this subject a want of abililv and forecast, or a want of attention to the known facts upon which they were acting, in which I cannot concur. There is not, in my judgment, anything in the language, the history, or the subject-matter of this article, which restricts its operation to territory owned by the United States when the Constitution was adopted. But it is also insisted that provisions of the Constitution respecting territory belonging to the United States do not apply to territory ac- quired by treaty from a foreign nation. This objection must rest upon the position that the Constitution "did not authorize the federal go- vernment to acquire foreign territory, and con- sequently has made no provision for its govern- ment when acquired ; or, that though the acquisition of foreign territory was contem- plated by the Constitution, its provisions con- cerning the admission of new states, and the making of all needful rules and regulations respecting territory belonging to the United States, were not designed to be applicable to territory acquired from foreign nations. It is undoubtedly true, that at the date of the treaty of 1803, between the United States and France, for the cession of Louisiana, it was made a question, whether the Constitution had conferred on the executive department of the government of the United States power to acquire foreign territory by a treaty. There is evidence that very grave doubts were then entertained concerning the exist- ence of this power. But that there was then a settled opinion in the executive and legisla- tive branches of the government, that this power did not exist, cannot be admitted, with- out at the same time imputing to those who negotiated and ratified the treaty, and passed the laws necessary to carry it into execution, a deliberate and known violation of their oaths to support the Constitution ; and what- ever doubts may then have existed, the ques- tion must now be taken to have been settled. Four distinct acquisitions of foreign territory have been made by as many different treaties, under as many different administrations. Six states, formed on such territory, are now in the Union. Every branch of this government, during a period of more than fifty years, has participated in these transactions. To ques- tion their validity now, is vain. As was said by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in the Ameri- can Insurance Company v. Canter (1 Peters, 542), " the Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union the powers of making war and of making treaties; conse- y 190 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. quently, that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or treaty." (See Cerre v. Pitot, 6 Cr. 336.) And I add, it also possesses the power of govern- ing it, when acquired, not by resorting to sup- posititious powers, nowhere found described in the Constitution, but expressly granted in the authority to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory of the United States. There was to be established by the Consti- tution a frame of government, under which the people of the United States and their pos- terity were to continue indefinitely. To take one of its provisions, the language of which is broad enough to extend throughout the exist- ence of the government, and embrace all ter- ritory belonging to the United States through- out all time, and the purposes and objects of which apply to all territory of the United States, and narrow it down to territory be- longing to the United States when the Consti- tution was framed, while at the same time it is admitted that the Constitution contem- plated and authorized the acquisition, from time to time, of other and foreign territory, seems to me to be an interpretation as incon- sistent with the nature and purposes of the instrument, as it is with its language, and I can have no hesitation in rejecting it. I construe this clause, therefore, as if it had read, Congress shall have power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting those tracts of country, out of the limits of the seve- ral states, which the United States have ac- quired, or may hereafter acquire, by cessions, as well of the jurisdiction as of the soil, so far as the soil may be the property of the party making the cession, at the time of making it. It has been urged that the words "rules and regulations" are not appropriate terms in which to convey authority to make laws for the government of the territory. But it must be remembered that this is a grant of power to the Congress — that it is therefore necessarily a grant of power to legis- late — and, certainly, rules and regulations re- specting a particular subject, made by the legislative power of a country, can be nothing but laws. Nor do the particular terms em- ployed, in my judgment, tend in any degree to, restrict this legislative power. Power granted to a legislature to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory, is a power to pass all needful laws respect- ing it. The word regulate, or regulation, is several times used in the Constitution. It is used in the fourth section of the first article to de- scribe those laws of the states which prescribe the times, places, and manner, of choosing Se- nators and Representatives ; in the second section of the fourth article, to designate the legislative action of a state on the subject of fugitives from service, having a very close re- lation to the matter of our present inquiry ; in the second section of the third article, to em- | power Congress to fix the extent of the appel- late jurisdiction of this court ; and, finally, in the eighth section of the first article are the words, " Congress shall have power to regu- late commerce." It is unnecessary to describe the body of legislation which has been enacted under this grant of power ; its variety and extent are well known. But it may be mentioned, in passing, that under this power to regulate commerce, Congress has enacted a great sys- tem of municipal laws, and extended it over the vessels and crews of the United States on the high seas and in foreign ports, and even over citizens of the United States resident in China ; and has established judicatures, with power to inflict even capital punishment within that country. If, then, this clause does contain a power to legislate respecting the territory, what are the limits of that power ? To this I answer, that, in common with all the other legislative powers of Congress, it finds limits in the express prohibitions on Congress not to do certain things ; that, in the exercise of the legislative power, Congress cannot pass an ex post facto law or bill of attainder ; and so in respect to each of the other prohibitions contained in the Constitu- tion. Besides this, the rules and regulations must be needful. But undoubtedly the question whether a particular rule or regulation be needful, must be finally determined by Con- gress itself. Whether a law be needful, is a legislative or political, not a judicial, ques- tion. Whatever Congress deems needful is so, under the grant of power. Nor am I aware that it has ever been ques- tioned that laws providing for the temporary government of the settlers on the public lands are needful, not only to prepare them for ad- mission to the Union as states, but even to en- able the United States to dispose of the lands. Without government and social order, there can be no property; for without law, its owner- ship, its use, and the power of disposing of it, cease to exist, in the sense in which those words are used and understood in all civilized states. Since, then, this power was manifestly con- ferred to enable the United States to dispose of its public lands to settlers, and to admit them into the Union as states, when in the judg- ment of Congress they should be fitted there- for, since these were the needs provided for, since it is confessed that government is indis- pensable to provide for those needs, and the power is, to make all needful rules and regula- tions respecting the territory, I cannot doubt that this is a power to govern the inhabitants of the territory, by such laws as Congress deems needful until they obtain admission as states. Whether they should be thus governed solely by laws enacted by Congress, or partly by laws enacted by legislative power cmferrod DRED SCOTT CASE— JUSTICE CURTIS'S OPINION. 197 by Congress, is one of those questions which depend on the judgment of Congress — a ques- tion which of these is needful. But it is insisted, that whatever other powers Congress may have respecting the territory of the United States, the subject of negro slavery forms an exception. The Constitution declares that Congress shall have power to make " all needful rules and regulations" respecting the territory be- longing to the United States. The assertion is, though the Constitution says all, it does not mean all — though it says all, without qualification, it means all except such as allow or prohibit slavery. It cannot be doubted that it is incumbent on those who would thus introduce an exception not found in the language of the instrument, to exhibit some solid and satisfactory reason, drawn from the subject-matter or the purposes and objects of the clause, the context, or from other pro- visions of the Constitution, showing that the words employed in this clause are not to be understood according to their clear, plain, and natural signification. The subject-matter is the territory of the United States out of the limits of every state, and consequently under the exclusive power of the people of the United States. Their will respecting it, manifested in the Constitution, can be subject to no restriction. The pur- poses and objects of the clause were the en- actment of laws concerning the disposal of the public lands, and the temporary government of the settlers thereon until new states should be formed. It will not be questioned that, when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted, the allowance and the prohibition of negro slavery were recognised subjects of municipal legislation ; every state had in some measure acted thereon ; and the only legislative act concerning the territory — the ordinance of 1787, which had then so re- cently been passed — contained a prohibition of slavery. The purpose and object of the clause being to enable Congress to provide a body of municipal law for the government of the settlers, the allowance or the prohibition of slavery comes within the known and recog- nised scope of that purpose and object. There is nothing in the context which quali- fies the grant of power. The regulations must be " respecting the territory." An enactment that slavery may or may not exist there, is a regulation respecting the territory. Regula- tions must be needful; but it is necessarily left to the legislative discretion to determine whether a law be needful. No other clause of the Constitution has been referred to at the bar, or has been seen by me, which imposes any restriction or makes any exception con- cerning the power of Congress to allow or pro- hibit slavery in the territory belonging to the United States. A practical construction, nearly contempo- raneous with the adoption of the Constitution, and continued by repeated instances through e, long series of years, may always influence, and in doubtful cases should determine, the judicial mind, on a question of the interpre- tation of the Constitution. (Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 269 ; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304 ; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 ; Prigg r. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 621; Cooley v. Port Wardens, 12 How. 315.) In this view, I proceed briefly to examine the practical construction placed on the clause now in question, so far as it respects the in- clusion therein of power to permit or prohibit slavery in the territories. It has already been stated, that after the gov- ernment of the United States was organized under the Constitution, the temporary govern- ment of the territory northwestof the river Ohio could no longer exist, save under the powers conferred on Congress by the Constitution. Whatever legislative, judicial, or executive au- thority should be exercised therein could be de- rived only from the people of the United States under the Constitution. And, accordingly, an act was passed on the 7th day of August, 1789 (1 Stat. at Large, 50), which recites: "Whereas, in order that the ordinance of the United States in Congress assembled, for the government of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, may continue to liave full effect, it is required that certain provisions should be made, so as to adapt the same to the present Constitution of the United States." It then provides for the appointment by the President of all officers, who, by force of the ordinance, were to have been appointed by the Congress of the Con- federation, and their commission in the man- ner required by the Constitution: and em- powers the secretary of the territory to exercise the powers of the governor in case of the death or necessary absence of the latter. Here is an explicit declaration of the will of the first Congress, of which fourteen mem- bers, including Mr. Madison, had been mem- bers of the Convention which framed the Constitution, that the ordinance, one article of which prohibited slavery, " should continue to have full effect." General Washington, who signed this bill, as President, was the pre- sident of that Convention. It does not appear to me to be important, in this connexion, that that clause in the ordi- nance which prohibited slavery was one of a series of articles of what is therein termed a compact. The Congress of the Confederation had no power to make such a compact, nor to act at all on the subject ; and after what had been so recently said by Mr. Madison on this subject, in the thirty-eighth number of the Federalist, I cannot suppose that he, or any others who voted for this bill, attributed any intrinsic effect to what was denominated in the ordinance a compact between " the original states and the people and states in the new territory ;" there being no new states then in existence in the territory, with whom a com- pact could be made, and the few scattered inhabitants, unorganized into a political body, not being capable of becoming a party to a treaty, even if" the Congress of the Confedera 198 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tion had had power to make one touching the government of that territory. I consider the passage of this law to have been an assertion by the first Congress of the power of the United States to prohibit slavery within this part of the territory of the United States ; for it clearly shows that slavery was thereafter to be prohibited there, and it could be prohibited only by an exertion of the power of the United States, under the Constitution ; no other power being capable of operating within that territory after the Constitution took effect. On the 2d of April, 1790 (1 Stat, at Large, 106), the first Congress passed an act accept- ing a deed of cession by North Carolina of that territory afterwards erected into the state of Tennessee. The fourth express con- dition contained in this deed of cession, after providing that the inhabitants of the territory shall be temporarily governed in the same manner as those beyond the Ohio, is followed by these words : " Provided, always, that no regulations made or to be made by Congress shall tend to emancipate slaves." This provision shows that it was then under- stood Congress might make a regulation pro- hibiting slavery, and that Congress might also allow it to continue to exist in the territory ; and accordingly, when, a few days later, Con- gress passed the act of May 20th, 1790 (1 Stat, at Large, 123), for the government of the ter- ritory south of the river Ohio, it provided, " and the government of the territory south of the Ohio shall be similar to that now exer- cised in the territory northwest of the Ohio, except so far as is otherwise provided in the conditions expressed in an act of Congress of the present session, entitled, ' An act to accept a cession of the claims of the state of North Carolina to a certain district of Western ter- ritory.' " Under the government thus estab- lished, slavery existed until the territory be- came the state of Tennessee. On the 7th of April, 1798 (1 Stat, at Large, 649), an act was passed to establish a govern- ment in the Mississippi territory in all respects like that exercised in the territory northwest of the Ohio, " excepting and excluding the last article of the ordinance made for the gov- ernment thereof by the late Congress, on the 13th day of July, 1787." When the limits of this territory had been amicably settled with Georgia, and the latter ceded all its claim tiiereto, it was one stipulation in the compact of cession, that the ordinance of July 13th, 1787, " shall in all its parts extend to the ter- ritory contained in the present act of cession, that article only excepted which forbids sla- very." The government of this territory was subsequently established and organized under the act of May 10th, 1800 ; but so much of the ordinance as prohibited slavery was not put in operation there. Without going minutely into the details of each case, I will now give reference to two classes of acts, in one of which Congress lias extended the ordinance of 1787, including the article prohibiting slavery, over different ter- ritories, and thus exerted its power to prohibit it ; in the other, Congress has erected govern- ments over territories acquired from France and Spain, in which slavery already existed, but refused to apply to them that part of the government under the ordinance which ex- cluded slavery. Of the first class are the act of May 7th, 1800 (2 Stat, at Large, 58), for the govern- ment of the Indiana territory ; the act of January 11th, 1805 (2 Stat, at Large, 309), for the government of Michigan territory ; the act of May 3d, 1809 (2 Stat, at Large, 514), for the government of the Illinois territory ; the act of April 20th, 1836 (5 Stat, at Large, 10), for the government of the territory of Wisconsin ; the act of June 12th, 1838, for the government of the territory of Iowa ; the act of August 14th, 1848, for the government of the territory of Oregon. To these instances should be added the act of March 6th, 1820 (3 Stat, at Large, 548), prohibiting slavery in the territory acquired from France, being northwest of Missouri, and north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude. Of the second class, in which Congress re- fused to interfere with slavery already exist- ing under the municipal law of France or Spain, and established governments by which slavery was recognised and allowed, are: the act of March 26th, 1804 (2 Stat, at Large, 283), for the government of Louisiana; the act of March 2d, 1805 (2 Stat ; at Large, 322), for the government of the territory of Orleans ; the act of June 4th, 1812 (2 Stat, at Large, 743), for the government of the Missouri ter- ritory ; the act of March 30th, 1822 (3 Stat. at Large, 654), for the government of the ter- ritory of Florida. Here are eight distinct instances, beginning with the first Congress, and coming down to the year 1848, in which Congress has excluded slavery from the terri- tory of the United States; and six distinct instances in which Congress organized govern- ments of territories by which slavery was recognised and continued, beginning also with the first Congress, and coming down to the year 1822. These acts were severally signed by seven Presidents of the United States, be- ginning with General Washington, and coming regularly down as far as Mr. John Quincy Adams, thus including all who were in public life when the Constitution was adopted. If the practical construction of the Consti- tution contemporaneously with its going into effect, by men intimately acquainted with its history from their personal participation in framing and adopting it, and continued by them through a long series of acts of the gravest importance, be entitled to weight in the judicial mind on a question of construc- tion, it would seem to be difficult to resist the force of the acts above adverted to. It appears, however, from what has taken place at the bar, that notwithstanding the language of the Constitution, and the long line of legislative and executive urecedents DRED SCOTT CASE— JUSTICE CURTIS'S OPINION. 15)9 under it, three different and opposite views are taken of the power of Congress respecting slavery in the territories. One is, that though Congress can make a regulation prohibiting slavery in a territory, they cannot make a regulation allowing it; another is that it can neither be established nor prohibited by Congress, but that the people of a territory, when organized "by Con- gress, can establish or prohibit slavery ; while the third is, that the Constitution itself secures to every citizen who holds slaves, under the laws of any state, the indefeasible right to carry them into any territory, and there hold them as- property. No particular clause of the Constitution has been referred to at the bar in support of either of these views. The first seems to be rested upon general considerations concerning the 6ocial and moral evils of slavery, its relations to republican governments, its inconsistency with the Declaration of Independence and with natural right. The second is drawn from considerations equally general, concerning the right of self- government, and the nature of the political institutions which have been established by the people of the United States. While the third is said to rest upon the equal right of all citizens to go with their property upon the public domain, and the inequality of a regulation which would admit the property of some and exclude the property of other citizens ; and, inasmuch as slaves are chiefly held by citizens of those particular states where slavery is established, it is in- sisted that a regulation excluding slavery from a territory operates, practically, to make an unjust discrimination between citizens of different states, in respect to their use and enjoyment of the territory of the United States. With the weight of either of these consid- erations, when presented to Congress to influ- ence its action, this court has no concern. One or the other may be justly entitled to guide or control the legislative judgment upon what is a needful regulation. The question here is, whether they are sufficient to au- thorize this court to insert into this clause of the Constitution an exception of the exclu- sion or allowance of slavery, not found therein, nor in any other part of that instrument. To engraft on any instrument a substantive ex- ception not found in it, must be admitted to be a matter attended with great difficulty. And the difficulty increases with the impor- tance of the instrument, and the magnitude and complexity of the interests involved in its construction. To allow this to be done with the Constitution, upon reasons purely political, renders its judicial interpretation impossible — because judicial tribunals, as such, cannot decide upon political considera- tions. Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford rules of juridical interpre- tation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, i* abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution ; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean. When such a method of interpretation of the Constitution obtains, in place of a republican government, with limited and defined powers, we have a government which is merely an exponent of the will of Congress ; or what, in my opinion, would not be preferable, an exponent of the individual political opinions of the members of this court. If it can be shown, by anything in the Con- stitution itself, that when it confers on Con- gress the power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States, the exclusion or the al- lowance of slavery was excepted ; or if any- thing in the history of this provision tends to show that such an exception was intended by those who framed and adopted the Constitu- tion to be introduced into it, I hold it to be my duty carefully to consider, and to allow just weight to such considerations in interpreting the positive text of the Constitution. But where the Constitution has said all needful rules and regulations, I must find something more than theoretical reasoning to induce me to say it did not mean all. There have been eminent instances in this court closely analogous to this one, in which such an attempt to introduce an exception, not found in the Constitution itself, has failed of success. By the eighth section of the first article, Con- gress has the power of exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever within this District. In the case of Loughborough v. Blake (5 Whea. 324), the question arose, whether Con- gress has power to impose direct taxes on per- sons and property in this District. It was in- sisted, that though the grant of power was in its terms broad enough to include direct taxa- tion, it must be limited by the principle, that taxation and representation are inseparable. It would not be easy to fix on any political truth, better established or more fully admit- ted in our country, than that taxation and rep- resentation must exist together. We went into the war of the Revolution to assert it, and it is incorporated as fundamental into all Ameii- can governments. But however true and im- portant this maxim may be, it is not necessa- rily of universal application. It was for the people of the United States, who ordained the Constitution, to decide whether it should or should not be permitted to operate within this District. Their decision was embodied in the words of the Constitution ; and as that con- tained no such exception as would permit the maxim to operate in this District, this court, interpreting that language, held that ihe ex- i ception did not exist. 200 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Again, the Constitution confers on Congress power to regulate commerce with foreign na- I tions. Under this, Congress passed an act on the 22d of December, 1807, unlimited in dura- tion, laying an embargo on all ships and ves- sels in the ports or within the limits and juris- diction of the United States. No law of the United States ever pressed so severely upon particular states. Though the constitutionality of the law was contested with an earnestness and zeal proportioned to the ruinous effects which were felt from it, and though, as Mr. Chief Justice Marshall has said (9 Wheat. 192), " a want of acuteness in discovering ob- jections to a measure to which they felt the most deep-rooted hostility will not be imputed to those who were arrayed in opposition to this," I am not aware that the fact that it pro- hibited the use of a particular species of pro- perty, belonging almost exclusively to citizens of a few states, and this indefinitely, was ever supposed to show that it was unconstitutional. Something much more stringent, as a ground of legal judgment, was relied on — that the power to regulate commerce did not include the power to annihilate commerce. But the decision was, that under the power to regulate commerce, the power of Congress over the subject was restricted only by those exceptions and limitations contained in the Constitution ; and as neither the clause in question, which was a general grant of power to regulate commerce, nor any other clause of the Constitution, imposed any restrictions as to the duration of an embargo, an unlimited prohibition of the use of the shipping of the country was within the power of Congress. On this subject, Mr. Justice Daniel, speaking for the court in the case of United States v. Marigold (9 How. 560), says : " Congress are, by the Constitution, vested with the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations ; and however, at periods of high excitement, an application of the terms ' to regulate com- merce/ such as would embrace absolute pro- hibition, may have been questioned, yet, since the passage of the embargo and non-inter- course laws, and the repeated judicial sanctions these statutes have received, it can scarcely at this day be open to doubt, that every subject falling legitimately within the sphere of com- mercial regulation may be partially or wholly excluded, when either measure shall be de- manded by the safety or the important inte- rests of the entire nation. The power once conceded, it may operate on any and every subject of commerce to which the legislative discretion may apply it." If power to regulate commerce extends to an indefinite prohibition of the use of all vessels belonging to citizens of the several states, and may operate, without exception, upon every subject of commerce to which the legislative discretion may apply it, upon what grounds can I say that power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory of the United States is subject to an exception of the allowance or prohibition of slavery therein ? While the regulation is one " respecting the territory," while it is, in the judgment of Con- gress, " a needful regulation," and is thus completely within the words of the grant, while no other clause of the Constitution can be shown, which requires the insertion of an exception respecting slavery, and while the practical construction for a period of upwards of fifty years forbids such an exception, it would, in my opinion, violate every sound rule of interpretation to force that exception into the Constitution upon the strength of abstract political reasoning, which we are bound to believe the people of the United States thought insufficient to induce them to limit the power of Congress, because what they have said contains no such limitation. Before I proceed further to notice some other grounds of supposed objection to this power of Congress, I desire to say, that if it were not for my anxiety to insist upon what I deem a correct exposition of the Constitution, if I looked only to the purposes of the argu- ment, the source of the power of Congress asserted in the opinion of the majority of the court would answer those purposes equally well. For they admit that Congress has power to organize and govern the territories until they arrive at a suitable condition for admission to the Union ; they admit, also, that the kind of government which shall thus exist should be regulated by the condition and wants of each territory, and that it is neces- sarily committed to the discretion of Congress to enact such laws for that purpose as that discretion may dictate ; and no limit to that discretion has been shown, or even suggested, save those positive prohibitions to legislate, which are found in the Constitution. I confess myself unable to perceive any difference whatever between my own opinion of the general extent of the power of Congress and the opinion of the majority of the court, save that I consider it derivable from the express language of the Constitution, while they hold it to be silently implied from the power to acquire territory. Looking at the power of Congress over the territories as of the extent just described, what positive pro- hibition exists in the Constitution, which re- strained Congress from enacting a law in 1820 to prohibit slavery north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude? The only one suggested is that clause in the fifth article of the amendments of the Consti- tution which declares that no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, with- out due process of law. I will now proceed to examine the question, whether this clause is entitled to the effect thus attributed to it It is necessary, first, to have a clear view of the nature and incidents of that particulai species of property which is now in question. Slavery, being contrary to natural right, i» ! created only by municipal law. This is nf' DRED SCOTT CASE— JUSTICE CURTIS'S OriNION. 201 only plain in itself, and agreed by all writers on the subject, but is inferable from the Con- stitution, and has been explicitly declared by this court. The Constitution refers to slaves as " persons held to service in one state, under the laws thereof." Nothing can more clearly describe a status created by municipal law. In Prigg v. Pennsylvania (10 Pet. 611), this court said : " The state of slavery is deemed to be a mere municipal regulation, founded on and limited to the range of territorial laws." In Rankin v. Lydia (2 Marsh. 12, 470), the Supreme Court of Appeals of Kentucky said : " Slavery is sanctioned by the laws of this state, and the right to hold them under our municipal regulations is unquestionable. But we view this as a right existing by positive law of a municipal character, without found- ation in the law of nature or the unwritten C umnon law." I am not acquainted with any case or writer questioning the correctness of this doctrine. (See also 1 Burge, Col. and For. Laws, 738, 741, where the authorities are collected.) The status of slavery is not necessarily always attended with the same powers on the part of the master. The master is subject to the supreme power of the state, whose will controls his action towards his slave, and this control must be defined and regulated by the municipal law. In one state, as at one period of the Roman law, it may put the life of the slave into the hand of the master ; others, as those of the United States, which tolerate slavery, may treat the slave as a person, when the master takes his life ; while in others, the law may recognise a right of the slave to be protected from cruel treatment. In other words, the status of slavery embraces every condition, from that in which the slave is known to the law simply as a chattel, with no civil rights, to that in which he is recognised as a person for all purposes, save the compul- sory power of directing and receiving the fruits of his labor. Which of these conditions shall attend the status of slavery, must depend on the municipal law which creates and upholds it. And not only must the status of slavery be created and measured by municipal law, but the rights, powers, and obligations, which grow out of that status, must be defined, pro- tected, and enforced, by such laws. The li- ability of the master for the torts and crimes of his slave, and of third persons for assault- ing or injuring or harboring or kidnapping him, the forms and modes of emancipation and sale, their subjection to the debts of the master, succession by death of the master, suits for freedom, the capacity of the slave to be party to a suit, or to be a witness, with such police regulations as have existed in all civilized states where slavery has been tole- rated, are among the subjects upon which municipal legislation becomes necessary when slavery is introduced. Is it conceivable that the Constitution has •ymferrpd. the right on every citizen to become a resident on the territory of the United States with his slaves, and there to hold them as such, but has neither made nor provided for anv municipal regulations which are essential to the existence of slavery? Is it nut more rational to conclude that they who framed and adopted the Constitution were aware that persons held to service under the laws of a state are property only to the extent and under the conditions fixed by those laws ; that they must cease to be available as pro- perty, when their owners voluntarily place them permanently within another jurisdic- tion, where no municipal laws on the subject of slavery exist; and that, being aware of these principles, and having said nothing to interfere with or displace them, or to compel Congress to legislate in any particular man- ner on the subject, and having empowered Congress to make all needful rules and regula- tions respecting the territory of the United States, it was their intention to leave to the discretion of Congress what regulations, if any, should be made concerning slavery there- in"? Moreover, if the right exists, what are its limits, and what are its conditions? If citizens of the United States have the right to take their slaves to a territory, and hold them there as slaves, without regard to the laws of the territory, I suppose this right is not to be restricted to the citizens of slaveholding states. A citizen of a state which does not tolerate slavery can hardly be denied the power of do- ing the same thing. And what law of slavery does either take with him to the territory ? If it be said to be those laws respecting slavery which existed in the particular state from which each slave last came, what an anomaly is this ? Where else can we find, under the law of any civilized country, the power to intro- duce and permanently continue diverse sys- tems of foreign municipal law, for holding persons in slavery ? I say, not merely to in- troduce, but permanently to continue, these anomalies. For the offspring of the female must be governed by the foreign municipal laws to which the mother was subject ; and when any slave is sold, or passes by succes- sion on the death of the owner, there must pass with him, by a species of subrogation, and as a kind of unknown jus in re, the foreign municipal laws which constituted, regulated, and preserved, the status of the slave before his exportation. Whatever theoretical impor- tance may be now supposed to belong to the maintenance of such a right, I feel a perfect conviction that it would, if ever tried, prove to be as impracticable in fact, as it is, in my judgment, monstrous in theory. I consider the assumption which lies at the basis of this theory to be unsound ; not in its just sense, and when properly understood, but in the sense which has been attached to it. That assumption is, that the territory ceded by France was acquired for the equal benefit of all the citizens of the United States. I agree to the position. But it was acquired for their benefit in their collective, not their 202 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. individual capacities. It was acquired for their benefit as an organized political society, subsisting as " the people of the United States," under the Constitution of the United States ; to be administered justly and impar- tially, and as nearly as possible for the equal benefit of every individual citizen, according to the best judgment and discretion of the Con- gress ; to whose power, as the Legislature of the nation which acquired it, the people of the United States have committed its administra- tion. Whatever individual claims may be founded on local circumstances, or sectional differences of condition, cannot, in my opinion, be recognised in this court, without arrogating to the judicial branch of the government pow- ers not committed to it ; and which, with all the unaffected respect I feel for it, when act- ing in its proper sphere, I do not think it fitted to wield. Nor, in my judgment, will the position, that a prohibition to bring slaves into a territory deprives any one of his property without due process of law, bear examination. It must be remembered that this restriction on the legislative power is not peculiar to the Constitution of the United States ; it was bor- rowed from Magna Charta; was brought to America by our ancestors, as part of their in- herited liberties, and has existed in all the states, usually in the very words of the great charter. It existed in every political com- munity in America in 1787, when the ordi- nance prohibiting slavery north and west of the Ohio was passed. And if a prohibition of slavery in a territory in 1820 violated this principle of Magna Charta, the ordinance of 1787 also violated it ; and what power had, I do not say the Con- gress of the Confederation alone, but the legis- lature of Virginia, or the legislature of any or all the states of the Confederacy, to consent to such a violation ? The people of the states had conferred no such power. I think I may at least say, if the Congress did then violate Magna Charta by the ordinance, no one dis- covered that violation. Besides, if the pro- hibition upon all persons, citizens as well as others, to bring slaves into a territory, and a declaration that if brought they shall be free, deprives citizens of their property without due process of law, what shall we say of the legislation of many of the slaveholding states which have enacted the same prohibition ? As early as October, 1778, a law was passed in Virginia, that thereafter no slave should be imported into that commonwealth by sea or by land, and that every slave who should be imported should become free. A citizen of Virginia purchased in Maryland a slave who belonged to another citizen of Virginia, and removed with the slave to Virginia. The slave sued for her freedom, and recovered it ; as may be seen in Wilson v. Isabel (5 Call's R. 425). See also Hunter v. Hulsher (1 Leigh, 172), and a similar law has been recognised as valid in Maryland, in Stewart v. Oaks (5 liar. and John. 107). I am not aware that such laws, though they exist in many states, were ever supposed to be in conflict with the principle of Magna Charta incorporated into the state constitutions. It was certainly understood by the convention which framed the Constitution, and has been so understood ever since, that, under the power to regulate commerce, Con- gress could prohibit the importation of slaves ; and the exercise of the power was restrained till 1808. A citizen of the United States owns slaves in Cuba, and brings them to the United States, where they are set free by the legisla- tion of Congress. Does this legislation de- prive him of his property without due process of law ? If so, what becomes of the laws pro- hibiting the slave trade ? If not, how can a similar regulation respecting a territory vio- late the fifth amendment of the Constitution ? Some reliance was placed by the defendant's counsel upon the fact that the prohibition Qf slavery in this territory was in the words, " that slavery, &c, shall be and is hereby forever prohibited." But the insertion of the word forever can have no legal effect. Every enactment not expressly limited in its dura- tion continues in force until repealed or abro- gated by some competent power, and the use of the word " forever" can give to the law no more durable operation. The argument is, that Congress cannot so legislate as to bind the future states formed out of the territory, and that in this instance it has attempted to do so. Of the political reasons which may have induced the Congress to use these words, and which caused them to expect that subse- quent legislatures would conform their action to the then general opinion of the country that it ought to be permanent, this court can take no cognisance. However fit such considerations are to con- trol the action of Congress, and however re- luctant a statesman may be to disturb what has been settled, every law made by Congress may be repealed, and saving private rights, and public rights gained by states, its repeal is subject to the absolute will of the same power which enacted it. If Congress had en- acted that the crime of murder, committed in this Indian territory, north of thirty-six de- grees thirty minutes, by or on any white man, should forever be punishable with death, it would seem to me an insufficient objection to an indictment, found while it was a territory, that at some future day states might exist there, and so the law was invalid, because, by its terms, it was to continue in force for ever. Such an objection rests upon a misap- prehension of the province and power of courts respecting the constitutionality of laws en- acted by the legislature. If the Constitution prescribe one rule, and the law another and different rule, it is the duty of court3 to declare that the Constitution, and not the law, governs the case before them for judgment. If the law include no case save those for which the Constitution has fur- nished a different rule, or no case which the legislature has the power to govern, then the DRED SCOTT CASE— JUSTICE CURTIS'S OPINION. 20; law can have no operation. If it includes oases which the legislature has power_ to go- vern, and concerning which the Constitution does not prescribe a different rule, the law governs those cases, though it may, in its terms, attempt to include others, on which it cannot operate. In other words, this court cannot declare void an act of Congress which constitutionally embraces some cases, though other cases, within its terms, are beyond the control of Congress, or beyond the reach of that particular law. If. therefore, Congress had power to make a law excluding slavery from this territory while under the exclusive power of the United States, the use of the word " forever" does not invalidate the law, so long as Congress has the exclusive legisla- tive power in the territory. .But it is further insisted that the treaty of 1803, between the United States and France, by which this territory was acquired, has so restrained the constitutional powers of Con- gress, that it cannot, by law, prohibit the in- troduction of slavery into that part of this territory north and west of Missouri, and north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude. By a treaty with a foreign nation, the United States may rightfully stipulate that the Congress will or will not exercise its legis- lative power in some particular manner, on some particular subject. Such promises, when made, should be voluntarily kept, with the most scrupulous good faith. But that a treaty with a foreign nation can deprive the Con- gress of any part of the legislative power conferred by the people, so that it no longer can legislate as it was empowered by the Con- stitution to do, I more than doubt. The powers of the government do and must remain unimpaired. The responsibility of the government to a foreign nation, for the exer- cise of those powers, is quite another matter. That responsibility is to be met, and justified to the foreign nation, according to the require- ments of the rules of public 'law; but never upon the assumption that the United States had parted with or restricted any power of acting according to its own free will, governed solely by its own appreciation of its duty. The second section of the fourth article is, " This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." This has made treaties part of our municipal law ; but it has not assigned to them any par- ticular degree of authority, nor declared that laws so enacted shall be irrepealable. No supremacy is assigned to treaties over acts of Congress. That they are not perpetual, and must be in some way repealable, all will agree. If the President and the Senate alone pos- sess the power to repeal or modify a law found in a treaty, inasmuch as they can change or abrogate one treaty only by making another inconsistent with the first, the government of the United States could not act at all, to that effect, without the consent of some foreign government. I do not consider, 1 am not aware it has ever been considered, that the Constitution has placed our country in this helpless condition. The action of Congress in repealing the treaties with France by the act of July 7th, 1798 (1 Stat, at Large, 578), was in conformity with these views. In the case of Taylor et al. v. Morton (2 Curtis's Cir. Ct E. 454), I had occasion to consider this sub- ject, and I adhere to the views there ex- pressed. If, therefore, it were admitted that the treaty between the United States and France did contain an express stipulation that the United States would not exclude slavery from so much of the ceded territory as is now in question, this court could not declare that an act of Congress excluding it was void by force of the treaty. Whether or no a case existed sufficient to justify a refusal to execute such a stipulation, would not be a judicial, but a political and legislative question, wholly be- yond the authority of this court to try and determine. It would belong to diplomacy and legislation, and not to the administration of existing laws. Such a stipulation in a treaty, to legislate or not to legislate in a par- ticular way, has been repeatedly held in this court to address itself to the political or the legislative power, by whose action thereon this court is bound. (Foster v. Nicholson, 2 Peters, 314; Garcia v. Lee, 12 Peters, 519.) But, in my judgment, this treaty contains no stipulation in any manner affecting the action of the United States respecting the ter- ritory in question. Before examining the lan- guage of the treaty, it is material to bear in mind that the part of the ceded territory lying north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, and west and north of the present state of Mis- souri, was then a wilderness, uninhabited save by savages, whose possessory title had not then been extinguished. It is impossible for me to conceive on what ground France could have advanced a claim, or could have desired to advance a claim, to restrain the United States from making any rules and regulations respecting this territory, which the United States might think fit to make; and still less can I conceive of any reason which would have induced the United States to yield to such a claim. It was to be expected that France would desire to make the change of sovereignty and jurisdiction's little burdensome as possible to the then in- habitants of Louisiana, and might well exhibit even an anxious solicitude to protect their property and persons, and secure to them and their posterity their religious and politi- cal rights ; and the United States, as a just government, might readily accede to all proper stipulations respecting those who were about to have their allegiance transferred. But what interest France could have in uninhabited terri- tory, which, in the language of the treaty, was 204 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. to be transferred " forever, and in full sove- reignty," to the United States, or how the (Jnited States could consent to allow a foreign nation to interfere in its purely internal affairs, in which that foreign nation had no concern whatever, is difficult for me to conjec- ture. In my judgment, this treaty contains nothing of the kind. The third article is supposed to have a bear- ing on the question. It is as follows : " The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be in- corporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities, of citizens of the United States ; and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion they profess." There are two views of this article, each of which, I think, decisively shows that it was not intended to restrain the Congress from ex- cluding slavery from that part of the ceded territory then uninhabited. The first is, that, manifestly, its sole object was to protect indi- vidual rights of the then inhabitants of the territory. They are to be " maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liber- ty, property, and the religion they profess." But this article does not secure to them the right to go upon the public domain ceded by the treaty, either with or without their slaves. The right or power of doing this did not exist before or at the time the treaty was made. The French and Spanish governments while they held the country, as well as the United States when they acquired it, always exercised the undoubted right of excluding inhabitants from the Indian country, and of determining when and on what conditions it should be opened to settlers. And a stipulation, that the then inhabitants of Louisiana should be protected in their property, can have no refe- rence to their use of that property, where they had no right, under the treaty, to go with it, save at the will of the United States. If one who was an inhabitant oi Louisiana at the time of the treaty had afterwards taken pro- perty then owned by him, consisting of fire- arms, ammunition, and spirits, and had gone into the Indian country north of thirty-six de- grees thirty minutes, to sell them to the In- dians, all must agree the third article of the treaty would not have protected him from in- dictment under the act of Congress of March 30, 1802 (2 Stat, at Large, 139), adopted and extended to this territory by the act of March 26. 1804 (2 Stat, at Large, 283). Besides, whatever rights were secured were individual rights. If Congress should pass any law which violated such rights of any in- dividual, and those rights were of such a cha- racter as not to be within the lawful control of Congress under the Constitution, that indi- vidual could complain, and the act of Congress, as to such rights of his, would be inoperative; but it would be valid and operative as to all other persons, whose individual rights did net come under the protection of the treaty. And inasmuch as it does not appear that any inha- bitant of Louisiana, whose rights were secured by treaty, had been injured, it would be wholly inadmissible for this court to assume, first, that one or more such cases may have existed ; and, second, that if any did exist, the entire law was void — not only as to those cases, if any, in which it could not rightfully operate, but as to all others, wholly unconnected with the treaty, in which such law could rightfully operate. But it is quite unnecessary, in my opinion, to pursue this inquiry further, because it clearly appears from the language of the ar- ticle, and it has been decided by this court, that the stipulation was temporary, and ceased to have any effect when the then inhabitants of the territory of Louisiana, in whose behalf the stipulation was made, were incorporated into the Union. In the cases of New Orleans v. De Armas et al. (9 Peters, 223), the question was, whe- ther a title to property, which existed at the date of the treaty, continued to be protected by the treaty after the state of Louisiana was admitted to the Union. The third article of the treaty was relied on. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall said : " This article obviously con- templates two objects. One, that Louisiana shall be admitted into the Union as soon as possible, on an equal footing with the other states ; and the other, that, till such admis- sion, the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion. Had any one of these rights been violated while these stipulations continued in force, the individual supposing himself to be injured might have brought his case into this court, under the twenty-fifth section of the judicial act." But this stipulation ceased to operate when Lou- isiana became a member of the Union, and its inhabitants were "admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States." The cases of Chouteau v. Marguerita (12 Peters, 507), and Pcrmoli v. New Orleans (3 How. 589), are in conformity with this view of the treaty. To convert this temporary stipulation of the treaty, in behalf of French subjects who then inhabited a small portion of Louisiana, into a permanent restriction upon the power of Con- gress to regulate territory then uninhabited, and to assert that it not only restrains Con- gress from affecting the rights of property of the then inhabitants, but enabled them and all other citizens of the United States to go into any part of the ceded territory with their slaves, and hold them there, is a construction of this treaty so opposed to its natural mean- ing, and so far beyond its subject-matter and the evident design of the parties, that I can- not assent to it. In my opinion, this treaty baa no bearing on the prerent question. For these reasons, I am of opinion that so DRED SCOTT CASE 205 much of the several acts of Congress as pro- hibited slavery and involuntary servitude with- in that part of the territory of Wisconsin ly- ing north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, and west of the river Missis- sippi, were constitutional and valid laws. I have expressed my opinion, and the reasons therefor, at far greater length than I could have wished, upon the different questions on which 1 have found it necessary to pass, to arrive at a judgment on the case at bar. These ques- tions are numerous, and the grave importance of some of them required me to exhibit fully the grounds of my opinion. I have touched no question which, in the view I have taken, it was not absolutely necessary for me to pass upon, to ascertain whether the judgment of the Circuit Court should stand or be reversed. I have avoided no question on which the validity of that judgment depends. To have done either more or less, would have been inconsist- ent with my views of my duty. In my opinion, the judgment of the Circuit Court should be reversed, and the cause re- manded for a new trial. In the Senate, on the 3d of March, 1858, Mr. Seward thus spoke of this decision : — At this juncture, the new Federal Adminis- tration came in, under a President who had ob- tained success by the intervention at the polls of a third party—an ephemeral organization, huilt upon a foreign and frivolous issue, which had just strength enough and life enough to give to a pro-slavery party the aid required to produce that untoward result. The new Pre- sident, under a show of moderation, masked a more effectual intervention than that of his predecessor, in favor of slave labor and a slave state. Before coming into office, he approached or was approached by the Supreme Court of the United States. On their docket was, through some chance or design, an action which an obscure negro man in Missouri had brought for his freedom against his reputed master. The court had arrived at the conclu- sion, on solemn argument, that insomuch as this unfortunate negro had, through some ignorance or chicane in special pleading, ad- mitted what could not have been proved, that he had descended from some African who had once been held in bondage, that therefore he was not, in view of the Constitution, a citizen of the United States, and therefore could not implead the reputed master in the Federal courts ; and on this ground the Supreme Court were prepared to dismiss the action, for Avant of jurisdiction over the suitor's person. This decision, certainly as repugnant to the Decla- ration of Independence and to I he spirit of the Constitution, as to the instincts of humanity, nevertheless would be one which would ex- haust all the power of the tribunal, and ex- clude consideration of all other questions that had been raised upon the record. The counsel who had appeared for the negro had volun- teered from motives of charity, and, ignorant of course of the disposition which was to b* made of the cause, had argued that his client had been freed from slavery by operation of the Missouri prohibition of 18*20. The oppos- ing counsel, paid by the defending slaveholder, had insisted, in reply, that that famous statute was unconstitutional. The mock debate had been heard in the ehamber of the court in the basement of the capitol, in the presence of the curious visitors at the seat of government, whom the dullness of a judicial investigation could not disgust. The court did not hesitate to please the incoming President, by seizing this extraneous and idle forensic discussion, and converting it into an occasion for pro- nouncing an opinion that the Missouri prohi- bition was void, and that, by force of the Constitution, slavery existed, with all the ele- ments of property in man over man, in all the territories of the United States, paramount to any popular sovereignty within the territories, and even to the authority of Congress itself. In this ill-omened act, the Supreme Court forgot its own dignity, which had always been maintained with just judicial jealousy. They forgot that the province of a court is simply "jus dicere," and not at all "jus dare." They forgot, also, that one "foul sentence does more harm than many foul examples ; for the last do but corrupt the stream, while the former corrupteth the fountain." And they and the President alike forgot that judicial usurpation is more odious and intolerable than any other among the manifold practices of tyranny. The day of inauguration came — the first one among all the celebrations of that great na- tional pageant that was to be desecrated by a coalition between the executive and judicial departments, to undermine the national legis- lature and the liberties of the people. The President, attended by the usual lengthened procession, arrived and took his seat on the portico. The Supreme Court attended him there, in robes which yet exacted public rever- ence. The people, unaware of the import of the whisperings carried on between the Presi- dent and the Chief Justice, and imbued with veneration for both, filled the avenues and gardens far away as the eye could reach. The President addressed them in words as bland as those which the worst of all the Ro- man Emperors pronounced when he assumed the purple. He announced (vaguely, indeed, but with self-satisfaction) the forthcoming ex- tra-judicial exposition of the Constitution, and pledged his submission to it as authoritative and final. The Chief Justice and his asso- ciates remained silent. The Senate, too, were there — constitutional witnesses of the transfer of administration. They too were silent, al- though the promised usurpation was to sub- vert the authority over more than half of the empire which Congress had assumed contem- poraneously with the birth of the nation, and had exercised without interruption for near i seventy years. It cost the President, under ! the circumstances, little exercise of magna | uimity now to nromise to the people of Kansad, 206 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. on whose neck he had, with the aid of the Su- preme Court, hung the millstone of slavery, a fair trial iu their attempt to cast it off. and hurl it to the earth, when they should come to organize a State government. Alas ! that even this cheap promise, uttered under such great solemnities, was only made to be broken ! The pageant ended. On the 5th of March, the judges, without even exchanging their silken robes for courtiers' gowns, paid their salutations to the President, in the executive palace. Doubtlessly the President received them as graciously as Charles the First did the judges who had at his instance subverted the -statutes of English liberty. On the 6th of March, the Supreme Court dismissed the negro suitor, Dred Scott, to return to his bond- age ; and having thus disposed of that private action for an alleged private wrong, on the ground of want of jurisdiction in the case, they proceeded with amusing solemnity to pronounce the opinion, that if they had had such jurisdiction, still the unfortunate negro would have had to remain iu bondage, unre- lieved, because the Missouri prohibition vio- lates rights of general property involved in slavery, paramount to the authority of Con- gress. A few days later, copies of this opinion were multiplied by the Senate's press, and scattered in the name of the Senate broadcast over the land, and their publication has not yet been disowned by the Senate. Simultane- ously, Dred Scott, who had played the hand of dummy in this interesting political game, un- wittingly, yet to the complete satisfaction of his adversary, was voluntarily emancipated ; and thus received from his master, as a re- ward, the freedom which the court had denied him as a right. In the Senate, on the 3d of March, 1858, Mr. Benjamin thus replied to Mr. Seward : Now, Mr. President, I come to another point in my argument, which 1 approach with extreme pain, with unfeigned regret. From my earliest childhood I have been taught to revere the judges of the highest court in the land, as men selected to render justice be- tween litigants, not more by reason of their eminent legal acquirements than because of a spotless purity of character, an undimmed lustre of reputation, which removed them far, far beyond even a doubt of their integrity. The long line of eminent judicial worthies, which seemed to have culminated in a Mar- shall, has been continued in the person of one upon whom the highest eulogium that can be pronounced is to say that he was eminently worthy of being the successor of that illus- trious judge. I know not, Mr. President, whether you, as I, have had the good fortune to see that magistrate in the administration of justice in his own circuit, or in the court sitting below us, of which he is the honored chief. I know not, sir, whether it has been your good fortune, as it has been mine, to hear the expressions of affectionate reverence with -which he is spoken of by the people amongst whom he has passed his pure, his simple, and his spotless life. I know not, sir. whether you have listened, as I have, with interest to the expressions of respect and admiration that come from the members of his bar in their familiar intercourse with each other — spontaneous tributes, worth a thou- sand labored eulogies, to his eminent sagacity, to his vast legal learning, to the mild and serene dignity of his judicial deportment — above all, sir, above all, to the conscientious, earnest, almost painful sense of responsibility with which he holds the scale of justice in even and impartial hand between the litigants whose rights depend upon his judgment. Mr. President, he is old, very old. The infirmities of age have bowed his venerable form. Earth has no further object of ambi- tion for him ; and when he shall sink into his grave, after a long career of high office in our country, I trust that I do not rudely or im- properly invade the sanctity of private life in saying that he will leave behind him, in the scanty heritage that shall be left for his fam- ily, the noblest evidence that he died as he had lived, a being honorable to the earth from which he sprang, and worthy of the heaven to which he aspired. This man, sir, thus beloved, thus revered, thus esteemed, has been compared upon this floor to the infamous Jeffreys, by the Senator from Maine, [Mr. Hamlin. J This man has been charged by the Senator from New York [Mr. Seward] with a corrupt coalition with the Chief Magistrate of the Union. He charges, in fact — not always in direct lan- guage, but partly by bold assertion and partly by insidious suggestions — that the supreme executive magistrate of the land, and the judges of our highest court, and the parties to the Dred Scott case, got up a mock trial — that they were all in common collusion to cheat the country. He represents the venerable chief magistrate of our country, whose repu- tation hitherto has been beyond reproach — he represents the venerable Chief Justice — as enacting a solemn farce, in the face of the American ■ people, on the eastern portico of this capitol ; and he tells us, that on the day when that great sea of upturned faces was here presented, all looking on the solemn pageant that was passing before them, the Chief Justice of the nation was whispering into the ear of the President the terms of this nefarious bargain — and that too at the very moment when the former was administering and the latter taking the oath of office, by which the high majesty of Heaven was invok- ed as witness to the purity of his intentions in the administration of the government of his country ! Mr. President, accursed, thrice accursed, is that fell spirit of party which desecrates the noblest sentiments of the human heart ; and which, in the accomplishment of its unholy purposes, hesitates at no reckless violence of assault on all that is held sacred by the wise and good. It was difficult, extremely difficult, for us all to sit here and hear what was said, and observe the manner iu which it was said DEED SCOTT CASE. 207 and repress the utterance of the indignation that boiled up within us. All this is charged by the Senator without the proof of a solitary fact, without the assertion even of a fact, on which to base the foul charge. Luckily, sir, luckily for us, these eminent men are too highly placed in the reverence, the estimation, and the regard of the American people, to have their bright escutcheon injured by such attacks as these. Mr. President, in olden times, a viper gnawed a file. Although it may not be possible to make direct answers to all these insinuations, be- cause no fact is even suggested on which they rest, there are some of them in relation to which I have the authentic evidence upon my desk in proof of their falsity. Was this case got up ? What are the facts ? Men should be a little careful in making such accusations as these; unless, indeed, they care not whether they be true or false, being intended to answer the same purpose, whether the one or the other. This case was got up, was it ? By accident, or design ? In the exquisitely decorous and appropriate language of the Senator from New York, the Chief Justice of the United States and the Chief Magistrate of the Union were gambling at cards for the case, and Dred Scott was dummy in the imaginary game ! What truth is there in these insinuations of design ? Why, sir, Dred Scott had sought his freedom by the assertion of his rights in the State courts of Missouri years before the Kansas-Nebraska act was ever suggested, and years before the President of the United States was even a candidate for office ; years before he was even Minister to England. This case was determined in the Supreme Court of the state of Missouri, in 1852, ad- versely to Dred Scott, and was remanded to the lower court for further trial. Mr. Bu- chanan had, I believe, not then gone to Eng- land. The Kansas bill had not been heard of, and was not in the imagination of any man. When the case got back into the lower court, the counsel for Dred Scott,'finding that the opinion of the Supreme Court of the State was adverse to his rights, withdrew his case from the state court, and endeavored to better his client's chances by going into another jurisdiction. That is the way the case got into the Federal court ; and when was this ? The case was carried into the Federal court in the city of St. Louis, in November, 1853, before even the meeting of the Congress which passed the Kansas-Nebraska act ; of course, months before Mr. Dixon, the Senator from Kentucky, first sprang upon the country, by his amendment, the question in relation to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Here is the record : "Be it remembered that heretofore, to wit: on the second day of November, in the year of our Lord 1853, came the Bbove-nained plaintiff, Dred Scott, by his attorney, and filed in the clerk's office of the Circuit Court of the United Slates for the Missouri district, the following declaration against the defendant, Join i\ A. Sandford." Was that a case gotten up by design, be- tween the President and the court here? D was never carried there until they had lost all chance in the state court ; it was carried there as the last desperate resource of defeated counsel, eager to maintain what he conceived to be the rights of his client. Who was the counsel? The Senators from Missouri can tell us who R. M. Field, of St. Louis, is, and probably they will verify the assertion which I make here upon hearsay — I give it only upon hearsay — that he is one of the most de- termined Free-Soilers in the state of Mis- souri ; has always declined to vote at elections until he was able to cast his vote for a Free- Soil candidate, and until he aided in the election of the Free-Soil Representative from the St. Louis district who now sits in the other chamber. This case, thus instituted in November, 1853, was determined in the court below, and a writ of error was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, before the Kansas bill was passed, and whilst Mr. Buchanan was in England ! When it reached the Supreme Court of the United States, what became of it ? What does the Senator from New York say became of it ? '• The counsel who had appeared for the negro had volun- teered from motives of charity, and, ignorant of course of the disposition which was to be made of the cause'' — which the Senator had previously insinua- ted was gotten up by design — — " had argued that his client had been freed from slavery by operation of the Missouri prohibition of 1S20. The opposing counsel, paid by the defending slaveholder'' I happen to know, however, whatever may be the fact with the other, that one of the opposing counsel was not paid by any slave- holder at all ; that one of the opposing coun- sel volunteered as amicus curice by virtue of his position as head of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, by virtue of his position as ex-Attorney General of the United States, by virtue of his position as a compeer of the honorable Senator, and his former col- league on this floor from the state of Mary- land, Mr. Reverdy Johnson. That gentleman volunteered in the case as amicus curice, be- cause the whole section of the country to whose interests he had been devoted from his birth had an interest in this great question to be decided, and which, at the time of his volunteering in the case, he did not yet know to be represented by counsel. The honorable Mr. Geyer, of Missouri, afterwards entered his name of record, and appeared for the defendant. Says the Senator from New York: " The opposing counsel, paid by the defending slaveholder, had insisted, in reply, that that famous statute was uncon- stitutional. The mock debate had been heard in the cham- ber of the court in the basement of the capitol, in the presence of the curious visitors at the seat of government, whom the dulness of a judicial investigation could not dis- gust. The court did not hesitate to please the incoming President" Where are we, sir, that such language as this is used? Is this the Senate of the United States, and are we here the ambassadors of co-equal sovereignties, to be insulted by language like this? Is not this an insult to every one of us, direct and personal ? 203 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. "Tho court did not hesitate to please the, incoming Presi- dent by seizing this extraneous and idle forensic discussion, and converting it iuto an occasion for pronouncing an opinion that the Missouri prohibition was a void, and that, by force of the Constitution, slavery existed, with all the elements of property in man over man, iu all the territories of the Uuited States, paramount to any popular sovereignty within the territories, and even to the authority of Congress itself. «-.***** ****** '• The day of inauguration came — the first one among all the celebrations of that great national pageant that was to be desecrated by a coalition between the executive aud judi- cial departments, to undermine the National Legislature aud the liberties of the people." Is there a solitary word of truth in this ? Not one. Is a solitary fact alleged? Not one ; but a broad and naked charge is made, which is intended to stamp infamy upon cha- racters hitherto beyond the breath of reproach. Shame, shame upon the Senator that makes such charges as these, and has no proof to support them ! "The President, attended by the usual lengthened pro- cession, arrived and took his seat on the portico. The Su- preme Court attended him there, in robes which yet exacted public reverence. The people, unaware of the import of the whisperings carried on between the President and the chief justice, and imbued with veneration for both, filled the avenues and gardens far away as the eye could reach. The President addressed them in words as bland as those which the worst of all the Roman Emperors pronounced when he assumed the purple. He announced (vaguely, indeed, but with self satisfaction) the forthcoming extra-judicial exposi- tion of the Constitution, and pledged his submission to it as authoritative and final." Does anybody find that in the President's inaugural? Does anybody find in the Presi- dent's inaugural anything on this point, except that he learns the question is to be de- cided by the highest tribunal of the land, and that he, as every other good citizen is, is wil- ling to render obedience to that tribunal ? " A few days later, copies of this opinion were multiplied by the Senate's press, and scattered, in the name of the Senate, broadcast over the land, and their publication has not yet been disowned by the Senate." As if we were going to disown publishing the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States. " Simultaneously. Dred Scott, who had played the hand of dummy in this interesting political game, unwittingly, yet to the complete satisfaction of his adversary, was voluntarily emancipated : and thus received from his master, as a reward, the freedom which the court had denied him as a right." Now, does not the Senator from New York kuow, was it not published in every newspa- per in the country, that the slave's master had died ? Was it not known that the man who emancipated the slave was a Black Re- publican compeer, in the other House, of the Senator from New York, [Mr. Chaffee, of Massachusetts,] who was forced to give this •'mancipation after having long hesitated, by the indignant denunciations of the fellow- Llepublicana around him? Everybody knows that, and yet here we are told by the Senator that this gift of freedom to the slave was the reward granted by his master, the defendant, for playing the hand of dummy in a game of cards — a political game — with the venerable Chief Justice and Chief Magistrate of the Union. Shame, shame once mure, upon the Senator who makes charges like these, with- out the shadow of ground for their support; ! Dunn, George Grundy, of Indiana. Celebrated Amendment of. In the House of Representatives, July 29, 1856, the bill of the House, No. 75, reported by Mr. Grow, from the Committee on Territo- ries, entitled, " A bill to annul certain acts of the Legislative Assembly of the territory of Kansas, and to secure to the citizens of said territory their rights and privileges," being before the body, Mr. Dunn of Indiana moved an amendment in the nature of a sub- stitute for the same, the 24th section of which substitute is as follows : — Sec. 24. And be it further enacted, That so much of the fourteenth section, and also so much of the thirty-second , section of the act passed at, the first session of the thirty- third Congress, commonly known as the Kansas-Nebraska act, as reads as follows, to wit: " Except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-inter- vention by Congress with slavery in the states and terri- tories, as recognised by the legislation of eighteen hundred and fifty, commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put iu force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of sixth March, eighteen hundred and twenty, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abol- ishing slavery" — be and the same is hereby repealed; and the said eighth section of said act of sixth March, eighteen hundred and twenty, is hereby revived and declared to be in full force and effect within the said territories of Kansas and Nebraska : Provided, however, That any person lawfully held to service in either of said territories shall not be dis- charged from such service by reason of such repeal and revival of said eighth section, if such person shall be perma- nently removed from such territory or territories prior to the first day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-eight ; and any child or children born in either of said territories, of any female lawfully held to service, if in like manner re- moved without said territories before the expiration of that date, shall not be, by reason of any thing in this act, eman- cipated from any service it might have owed had this act never been passed: And provided further. That any person lawfully held to service in any other state or territory of the United States, and escaping into either the territory of Kansas or Nebraska, may be reclaimed and removed to the person or place where such service is due, under any law of thu United States which shall be in force upon the subject. The amendment of Mr. Dunn was carried by yeas 89, nays 77, as follows : — Those who voted in the affirmative are: — Messrs. Albright, Allison, Ball, Barbour. Renson, Bishop, Bliss, Bradshaw, Brenton, Bufftngton, J. II. Campbell, L. n. Campbell, Chaffee, Clawson, Colfax. Comins. Covodc. Cu:n- back, Damrell, Dean, Dick. Dodd, Di'NN. Durfce. I'.iiie, Ed- wards, Emrie, Flagler, Giddings, Gilbert, Grangcer, Grow, Hall, Harlan, Harrison, Haven, Holloway, T. R. Horton. V. B. Horton, Hughston, Kelsey, King. Knapp, Knight. Knowl- ton, Knox, Kunkel, Matteson, McCarty, Miller. MOORR, Morgan, Morrill. Nichols, Norton, Oliver. Parker, 1'elton, Perry, Pettit, Pike, Pringle, Purviance, Ritchie, Sabin, Sasre, Sapp, Sherman, Simmons, Spinner, Stanton. Stranahan, Tappan, Thurston, Todd. Trafton, Wade, Wakeman, Wai- bridge, Waldron. C. C. Washburne, E. B. Washburne, 1. Washburne, Jr., Watson, Welch, Weds, Jr., Wood, Woodruff, Woodworth. Those who voted in the negative are ■ — Messrs. Aiken, Barksdale, Bell. Bennett. Bowie, Broom. Burnett, Campbell, Carlile, Ctohxthers, < hsl if., If- Coltb, W. R. W. Cobb, Cox, Craige. Crawford, Cui.len. Davidson, Davis, Day, Denver, Dowdell, Edmundson, English, Faulkner, Foster., Fuller, Goode, Greenwood, J. M. Harris, 8. W. Harris, T. L. Harris, Hoffman, Houston, Jewett, Jones. Kennett. Kidwell. Lake, Leiter, Lumpldn, II. Marshall, S. S. Marshall, Max- well, Miller. Mitlson, Packer, Peck, Phelps, Powell, Pcrteab, Quitman. Reade. Readt, Rioaud, Rivers, liuffin, Savage, Shmier, S. A. Smith. W. Smith, Snfed. Stephens, Stewart, SWOPB, Taylor, Tiwpe, Underwood, Valk, Walker, Warner, DUNN, GEORGE GRUNDY.— ELLIOTT, THOMAS D. 209 Within*. Whitney, Winslow, D. Z'JLLICOFFEK. B. Wright, J. V. Wright, Democrats in iialics, Fillmore Americans in small caps, Republicans in roman. So the amendment was agreed to. The vote in the affirmative on the passage of the bill as amended was the same as on the amendment, with the exception that Mr. Pike, of N. H., (Republican,) was not present, which made it 88, or one less. The vote in the negative on the passage of the bill as amended, was the same as on the amendment, with the exception that Messrs. Jones of Pa., and Branch of N. C, Democrats, who had not voted on the previous vote, voted in the negative, and Messrs. Bennett of N. Y., and Day of 0., Republicans, and Messrs. Ful- ler of Pa., Hoffman of Md., and Whitney of N. Y., National Americans, who voted on the previous vote in the negative, did not vote at all on its passage, which made the vote in the negative 74, or three less. Elections. Returns of that for President in 1848, 1852, and 1856. 1 F. S. V. Buren 1818. 5,005 15,804 8,100 1,126 12,178 3S.058 10.389 7,560 849', 120,497 35.347 11,177 730 13,837 10,418 FREE STATES. California . Connecticut Illinois . . Indiana Iowa . . Maine . . Massachusetts Michigan . New Hampshire New Jersey New York . Ohio . . . Pennsylvania Rhode Island Vermont . , Wisconsin . , Rep. Fremont. 20.339 42,715 96.189 94.375 43.954 67,379 108,190 71,762 38.345 28,338 276.907 187,497 147,510 11,467 39,561 66.090 1856. Amer. Dem. Fillmore. Buchanan. 35.113 2,615 37.444 22.386 9.180 3,325 19,626 1,660 422 24,115 124,604 28,126 82,175 1,675 545 579 51,925 34.995 105,348 118,670 36.170 39,0S0 39,240 52,136 32,789 46,943 195,878 170,874 230,710 6,580 10.569 52,843 TOTAL VOTK. 107.377 80,325 23S.9S1 235,431 89.304 109,784 167,056 125.558 71,556 99,396 597,389 386,497 460,395 19,722 50,675 119.512 Whig. Scott. 34.971 30,359 64,934 80.901 15,855 32.543 56,063 33,860 16,147 38,556 234,882 152.526 179,122 7,626 22,173 22.240 1852. Dem. Pierce. 39,665 33.249- 80,597 95.299 17,762 41,609 46,880 41,842 29,997 44,305 262.083 169,220 19S.568 8,735 13,044 33,658 F. S. Hale. 100 3,160 9.966 6,934 1.606 8.030 29,993 7,337 6,695 350 25,329 31,682 8,524 644 8,621 8,814 Total 1,340,618 393.590 1,224,750 2,958.958 Fremont over Buchanan, 115,S68 ; Pierce over Scott, 133,756 SLAVE STATES. Fremont. Fillmore. Buchanan. Total. 1848. Whig. Dem. Taylor. Cass. Admittted siuce 30.314 53.215 69,907 11,178 35,276 61.070 23.940 14,781 40,015 218,583 138.359 185,730 6.779 23.122 13,747 27,046 56.629 74,745 12,125 40,206 35.281 30,687 27,763 36,901 114,319 154.773 172,186 3.646 10,948 15,001 Alabama . . Arkansas . . Delaware . . Florida . . . Oaorgja. . . Kentucky . . Louisiana . . Maryland . . Mississippi Missouri . . North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee , . Texas . . . Virginia . . 308 314 281 291 28,552 10.7 S7 6,175 4,833 42.228 67,416 20.709 47.460 24.195 48,524 36,886 66,178 15,244 60,278 46,739 21.910 8,004 6,358 56,578 74,642 22,164 39,115 35,446 58,164 48,246 75.291 32.697 14.4S7 11.191 98.806 142,372 42,873 86,856 59.641 106,688 85.132 No popular vote. 73,638 139.816 28,757 44,001 89,826 150,395 1,022,757 1,156,513 157,685 ; Taylor over Cass, 113,760. Scott. Pierce. Hale. 15.038 7,404 6,293 2,875 16,660 57,068 17.255 35,077 17,584 29,984 39.058 926,016 812,256 291,075 Pierce. 26.881 12.173 6.318 4,318 34.705 53,806 18.647 40.022 26.876 38,353 39.744 Electors chosen by Legi 5S,898 57,018 4.995 13.552 57,132 72,413 265 54 69 Taylor. 30.4S2 7.588 6,422 4,359 47.544 67,141 18,217 37.702 25.922 32.671 43.519 slature. 64.705 4.509 45,265 Cass. 31,363 9.300 5,910 3,238 44,802 49,720 15,370 34,528 26,537 40,077 34,869 58,419 10,668 46.738 V. Buren, 80 Total 1,194 479,465 609,587 1,090,246 365,321 444,826 440 436,226 411,539 Buchanan over Fillmore, 130,122 ; over both, 128,928 ; Pierce over Scott, 79,505 ; Taylor over Cass, 24,687. Free States .Slave States Fremont. Fillmore, RECAPITULATION. Buchanan. Total. Scott. 1,340,618 393,590 1,224,750 2,958.958 1,194 479,465 609,587 1,090,246 Pierce. 1,022,757 1,156,513 365,321 444,826 Hale. , 157,685 440 Taylor. 926,016 436,226 Cass. 812,256 411,539 1 125 86 3 9 303 V. Buren 291,075 303 Total 1,341,812 873,055 1,834,337 4,049,204 1,388,078 1,601,339 158,1251 1,362,242 1,223,795 291,378 Buchanan over Fremont, 492,525 ; Pierce over Scott, 213,261 ; Taylor over Cass, 138.447. Fremont received 30 per cent, of the popular vote and 39 per cent, of electors ; Fillmore 25 per cent, of votes, and only 2 per cent, of electors; Buchanan 45 per cent, of votes and 59 per cent of electors. Elliott, Thos. D., of Mass. Proposition of, to repeal Fugitive Slave Law. On the 28th of July, 1854, in the House of Representatives, Mr. Thomas D. Elliot of Mass., asked bill :— leave to introduce the following " Be it enacted. &c, That an act entitled An act to amend, and supplementary to an act entitled An act respecting fugi- tives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters, approved September 18, 1850, be, and the game is hereby repealed." 14 Mr. Bridges of Pa. objected to leave being granted. Mr. Elliott moved to suspend the rules, which was lost by yeas and nays, as fol- lows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Ball of O., Bennett of N. Y., Benson of Me., Campbell of 0., Carpenter of N. Y., Corwin of O., Crocker of Mass., Thos. Davis of R. I., De Witt of Mass., Dick of Pa., Dickinson of Mass., Eastman of Wis., Edmunds of Mass., Thos. D. Elliott of Mass., Everhart of Pa., Gnv dinos of 0., Goodrich of Mass., Aaron Harlan of 0., Howe of Pa., Daniel T. Jones of N. Y., Knox of 111., Matteson of N. Y., Mai/aU of Me., Morgan of N. Y., Norton of 111., Parker of Ind., Pennington of N. J., Pringle of N. Y., David RitchU - 210 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of Pa., Russell of Pa., Sabin of Vt., Sage of N. Y., Sapp of 0., Simmons of N. Y., Gerrit Smith of N. Y., Andrew Stu- art of O.. Thurston of R. I., Trout of Pa., Upham of Mass., Wade of 0.. Walley of Mass., Elihu B. Washburne of 111., Israel Wasbburne of 111., Wells of Wis., Tappan Wentworth of Mass. — i5. Nats.— Messrs. Aiken of S. C, James C. Allen of 111., W. Allen of 111., Ashe of N. C, Bailey of Ga., Barry of Miss., Benton of Mo., Bocrick of Va., Boyce of S. C., Breckinridge of Ky., Bridges of Pa.. Brooks of S. C, Caruthers of Mo., Chamber- lain of Ind., Chastain of Ga., Chrisman of Ky., Churchwell of Term., Clark of Mich., Clingman of N. C, Cobb of Ala., Cook of la., Cox of Ky., Craige of N. C, Curtis of Pa., Dai-is of Ind., Dawson of Pa., Disney of 0., Dowdett of Ala., Drum of Pa., Dunbar of La., .B/tfy of Ind., Edgerton of 0., i3tf- mundson of Va., Elliott of Ky., Ellison of 0., English of Ind., Farley of Me., Faulkner of Va., Florence of Pa., Fuller of Me., Gnode of A'a.. Greenwood of Ark., Grow of Pa., Harris of Ala., Harris of Miss., Harrison of O., Haven of N. Y., Hendricks of Ind., J/erare of la., Hibbard. of N H., Hill of Ky., Houston of Ala., Hunt of La., Johnson of 0., Jones of Tenn., Jones of La., A'etH of S. C, Kerr of N. C., Kidiuell of Va., Kittredge of N. H., Kurtz of Pa., Lamb of Mo., Latham of Ca.l., Letcher of Va., Lindley of Mo., McMullin of Va., McNair of Pa., t!/c- Queen of S. C-, Macey of Wis., Maurice of N. Y„ Maxwell of Pl.t., Miller of Mo., Miller of Ind., Millson of Va., Morrison of N. H., Murray of N. Y., Nichols of 0., iVoote of Mich., 0&& of 0., Otti>e>- of N. Y., Orr of S. C, Peckham of N. Y., Phelps of Mo., P/iillips of Ala., Pratt of Conn., Preston of Ky., Puryear of N. C., Reese of Ga., Piddle of Del., i?o6- 6t'»(5 of Pa., Rogers of N. C, Puffin of N. C, Seward of Ga., Shannon of 0., &/«rehension of such fugitive from service or abor, or by seizing and arresting such fugi- tive, where the same can be done without pro- cess, and by taking, or causing such person to be taken, forthwith before such court, judge, or commissioner, whose duty it shall be to hear and determine the case of such claimant in a summary manner ; and upon satisfactory proof being made, by deposition or affidavit, in writing, to be taken and certified by such oourt, judge, or commissioner, or by other satisfactory testimony, duly taken and cer- tified by some court, magistrate, justice of the peace, or other legal officer authorized to ad- minister an oath and take depositions under the laws of the state or territory from which such person owing service or labor may have escaped, with a certificate of such magistracy or other authority, as aforesaid, with the seal of the proper court or officer thereto attached, which seal shall be sufficient to establish the compe- tency of the proof, and with proof, also by affidavit, of the identity of the person whose service or labor is claimed to be due, as afore- said, that the person so arrested does in fact owe service or labor to the person or persons claiming him or her, in the state or territory from which such fugitive may have escaped as aforesaid, and that said person escaped, to make out and deliver to such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, a certificate setting forth the substantial facts as to the service or labor due from such fugitive to the claimant, and of his or her escape from the state or ter- ritory in which such service or labor was clue, to the state or territory in which he or she was arrested, with authority to such claim- ant, or his or her agent or attorney, to use such reasonable force and restraint as may be necessary, under the circumstances of the case, to take and remove such fugitive person back to the state or territory whence he or she may have escaped as aforesaid. In no trial or hearing, under this act, shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evi- dence ; and the certificates in this and the first section mentioned shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted, to remove such fugitive to the state or territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person or persons, by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever. Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, Thnt any person who shall knowingly and willingly ob- struct, hinder, or prevent such claimant, his agent or attorney, or any person or persons lawfully assisting him, her, or them, from arresting such a fugitive from service or labor, either with or without process as aforesaid ; or shall rescue or attempt to rescue such fugi- tive from service or labor from the custody of such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or other person or persons lawfully assisting as aforesaid, when so arrested, pursuant to the authority herein given and declared ; or shall aid, abet, or assist such person, so owing service or labor as aforesaid, directly or indi- rectly, to escape from such claimant, his agent or attorney, or other person or persons legally authorized as aforesaid ; or shall harbor or conceal such fugitive, so as to prevent the dis- covery and arrest of such person, after notice or knowledge of the fact that such person was a fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid, shall, for either of said offences, be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding six months, by indictment and conviction before the District Court of the United States for the district in which such offence may have been committed, or before the proper court of criminal juris- diction, if committed within any one of the organized territories of the United States ; and shall moreover forfeit and pay, by way of civil damages to the party injured by such illegal conduct, the sum of one thousand dol- lars for each fugitive so lost as aforesaid, to be recovered by action of debt, in any of the dis- trict or territorial courts aforesaid, within whose jurisdiction the said offence may have been committed. Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the marshals, their deputies, and the clerks of the said district and territorial courts, shall be paid for their services the like fees as may be allowed to them for similar services in other cases ; and where such services are rendered exclusively in the arrest, custody, and delivery of the fugitive to the claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or where such supposed fugitive may be discharged out of custody for the want of sufficient proof as aforesaid, then such fees are to be paid in the whole by such claimant, his agent or attorney ; and in all cases where the proceedings are before a com- missioner, he shall be entitled to a fee of ten dollars in full for his services in each case, upon the delivery of the said certificate to the claimant, his or her agent or attorney ; or a fee of five dollars in cases where the proof shall not, in the opinion of such commissioner, warrant such certificate and delivery, inclusive of all services incident to such arrest and examination, to be paid in either case by the claimant, his or her agent or attorney. The person or persons authorized to execute the process to be issued by such commissioners, for the arrest and detention of fugitives from service or labor as aforesaid, shall also be entitled to a fee of five dollars each for each FUGITIVE SLAVES. Odg person he or they may arrest and take before any such commissioner as aforesaid, at the instance and request of such claimant ; with such other fees as may be deemed reasonable by such commissioner for such other additional services as may be necessarily performed by him or them ; such as attending at the exam- ination, keeping the fugitive in custody, and providing him with food and lodging during nis detention, and until the final determin- ation of such commissioner ; and in general for performing such other duties as may be required by such claimant, his or her attorney or agent, or commissioner in the premises, such fees to be made up in conformity with the fees usually charged by the officers of the courts of justice within the proper district or county, as near as may be practicable, and paid by such claimants, their agents or attor- neys, whether such supposed fugitives from service or labor be ordered to be delivered to such claimants by the final determination of such commissioner or not. Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That upon affidavit made by the claimant of such fugi- tive, his agent or attorney, after such certifi- cate has been issued, that he has reason to ap- prehend that such fugitive will be rescued by force from his or their possession before he can be taken beyond the limits of the state in which the arrest is made, it shall be the duty of the officer making the arrest to retain such fugitive in his custody, and to remove him to the state whence he fled, and there to deliver him to said claimant, his agent or attorney. And to this end, the officer aforesaid is hereby authorized and required to employ so many persons as he may deem necessary to overcome such force, and to retain them in his service so long as circumstances may require. The said officer and his assistants, while so em- ployed, to receive the same compensation, and to be allowed the same expenses, as are now allowed by law for transportation of criminals, to be certified by the judge of the district within which the arrest is made, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That when any person held to service or labor in any state or territory, or in the District of Co- lumbia, shall escape therefrom, the party to whom such service or labor shall be due, his, her, or their agent or attorney, may apply to any court of record therein, or judge thereof in vacation, and make satisfactory proof to such court, or judge in vacation, of the escape aforesaid, and that the person escaping owed service or labor to such party. Whereupon, the court shall cause a record to be made of the matters so proved, and also a general de- scription of the person so escaping, with such convenient certainty as may be ; and a trans- cript of such record, authenticated by the at- testation of the clerk and of the seal of the said court, being produced in any other state, territory, or district, in which the person so escaping may be found, and being exhibited to any iudge, commissioner, or other officer authorized by the law of the United States to cause persons escaping from service or labor to be delivered up, shall be held and taken to be full and conclusive evidence of the fact of escape, and that the service or labor of the person escaping is due to the party in such record mentioned. And upon the production by the said party of other and further evidence, if necessary, either oral or by affidavit, in ad- dition to what is contained in the said reco.-d, of the identity of the person escaping, he or she shall be delivered up to the claimant. And the said court, commissioner, judge, or other person authorized by this act to grant certifi- cates to claimants of' fugitives, shall, upon the production of the record and other evidences aforesaid, grant to such claimant a certificate of his right to take any such person identified and proved to be owing service or labor as aforesaid, which certificate shall authorize such claimant to seize or arrest and transport such person to the state or territory from which he escaped : Provided, That nothing herein con- tained shall be construed as requiring the pro- duction of a transcript of such record as evi- dence as aforesaid. But in its absence, the claim shall be heard and determined upon other satisfactory proofs, competent in law. Howell Cobb, Speaker of the House of Representatives. William ft. King, President of the Senate pro tempore. Approved, September 18, 1850. Millard Fillmore. Opinion of the Attorney General, obtained by Mr. Fillmore previous to signing the pre- ceding act : — Attorney General's Office, 18th Sep. 1850. Sir : I have had the honor to receive your note of this date, informing me that the bill commonly called the Fugitive Slave bill, having passed both Houses of Congress, had been submitted to you for your consideration, approval, and signature, and requesting my opinion whether the sixth section of that act, and especially the last clause of that section, conflicts with the provision of the Constitution which declares that " the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, un- less when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it ?" It is my clear conviction that there is no- thing in the last clause, nor in any part of the sixth section, nor indeed in any part of the provisions of the act, which suspends, or was intenied to suspend, the privilege of the vrit of habeas corpus, or is in any manner in j;n- flict with the Constitution. The Constitution, in the second section of the fourth article, declares, that " no person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation there- in', be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the 244 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. party to whom such service or labor may be due." It is well known and admitted, historically and judicially, that this clause of the- Consti- tution was made for the purpose of securing to the citizens of slaveholding states the com- plete ownership in their slaves, as property, in any and every state or territory of the Union into which they might escape. (Prigg v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539.) It devolved on the general government, as a solemn duty, to make that security effec- tual. Their power was not only clear and full, but, according to the opinion of the court in the above cited case, it was exclusive ; the states, severally, being under no obliga- tion, and having no power to make laws or regulations in respect to the delivery of fugi- tives. Thus the whole power, and with it the whole duty, of carrying into effect this im- portant provision of the Constitution was with Congress. And, accordingly, soon after the adoption of the Constitution, the act of the 12th February, 1793, was passed, and that proving unsatisfactory and inefficient, by rea- son (among other causes) of some minor errors in its details, Congress are now at- tempting by this bill to discharge a constitu- tional obligation, by securing more effectually the delivery of fugitive slaves to their owners. The sixth and most material section in sub- stance declares, that the claimant of the fugi- tive slave may arrest and carry him before any one of the officers named and described in the bill, and provides that these officers and each of them shall have judicial power and jurisdiction to hear, examine, and decide the case in a summary manner ; that, if upon such hearing, the claimant, by the requi- site proof, shall establish his claim to the satisfaction of the tribunal thus constituted, the said tribunal shall give him a certificate, stating therein the substantial facts of the case, and authorizing him, with such reason- able force as may be necessary, to take and carry said fugitive back to the state or terri- tory whence he or she may have escaped, and then in conclusion proceeds as follows : " The certificates in this and the first section mentioned shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons, in whose favor granted, to remove such fugitive to the state or territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person or per- sons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever/' There is nothing in all this that does not seem to me to be consistent with the Constitution, and necessary, indeed, to redeem the pledge which it contains — that such fugitives " shall be delivered up on claim" of their owners. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the owner, independent of any aid from state or national legislation, may, in virtue of the Constitution and his own right of property, seize and recapture his fu- gitive slave, in whatsoever state he may find Eim, and carry him back to the state or terri- tory from which he escaped. (Prigg v. Com- monwealth of Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539.) This bill, therefore, confers no right on the owner of the fugitive slave ; it only gives him an appointed and peaceable remedy, in place of the more exposed and insecure, but not less lawful mode of self-redress. And as to the fugitive slave, he has no cause to complain of this bill ; it adds no coercion to that which his owner himself might, at his own will, rightfully exercise ; and all the proceedings which it institutes are but so much of orderly judicial authority, interposed between him and his owner, and «onsequently of protection to him, and mitigation of the exercise directly by the owner himself of his personal autho- rity. This is the constitutional and legal view of the subject, as sanctioned by the deci- sions of the Supreme Court ; and to that I limit myself. The act of the 12th February, 1793, before alluded to, so far as it respects any constitu- tional question that can arise out of this bill, is identical with it. It authorizes the like arrest of the fugitive slave, the like trial, the like judgment, the like certificate, with the like authority to the owner, by virtue of that certificate as his warrant, to remove him to the state or territory from which he escaped. And the constitutionality of that act, in all those particulars, has been affirmed by the adjudications of state tribunals, and by the courts of the United States, without a single dissent, so far as I know. — (Baldwin's C. C. R. 577, 579.) I conclude, therefore, that so far as the act of the 12th February, 1793, has been held to be constitutional, this bill must also be so re- garded, and that the custody, restraint, and removal, to which the fugitive slave may be subjected, under the provisions of this bill, are all lawful, and that the certificate to be granted to the owner is to be regarded as the act and judgment of a judicial tribunal having competent jurisdiction. With these remarks as to the constitution- ality of the general provisions of the bill, and the consequent legality of the custody and confinement to which the fugitive slave may be subjected under it, I proceed to a brief consideration of the more particular question you have propounded in reference to the writ of habeas corpus, and of the last clause of the sixth section, above quoted, which gives rise to that question. My opinion, as before expressed, is, that there is nothing in that clause or section which conflicts with, or suspends, or was in- tended to suspend, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. I think so, because the bill says hot one word about that writ ; because, by the Constitution, Congress is expressly for- bidden to suspend the privilege of this writ, " unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it ;" and there- fore the suspension by this act (there being neither rebellion nor invasion) would be a plain and palpable violation of the Constitu- FUGITIVE SLAVES.— FULLER, HENRY M. 245 tion ; and no intention to commit such a vio- lation of the Constitution, of their duty, and their oaths, ought to be imputed to them upon mere constructions and implications; and thirdly, because there is no incompati- bility between these provisions of the bill and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, in its utmost constitutional latitude. Congress, in the case of fugitive slaves, as in all other cases within the scope of its con- stitutional authority, has the unquestionable right to ordain and prescribe, for what causes, to what extent, and in what manner, persons may be taken into custody, detained, or im- prisoned. Without this power they could not fulfil their constitutional trust, nor perforin the ordinary and necessary duties of govern- ment. It was never heard that the exercise of the legislative power was any encroachment uponor suspension of the privilege of the habeas corpus. It is only by some confusion of ideas that such a conflict can be supposed to exist. It is not within the province or privilege of this great writ to loose those whom the law has bound. That would be to put a writ granted by the law, in opposition to the law — to make one part of the law destructive of another. This writ follows the law, and obeys the law. It is issued upon proper complaint, to make inquiry into the causes of commitment or im- prisonment, and its sole remedial power and purpose is to deliver the party from " all manner of illegal confinement." (3 Black. Com. 131.) If, upon application to the court or judge for this writ, or if, upon its return, it shall appear that the confinement com- plained of was lawful, the writ in the first in- stance would be refused, and in the last the party would be remanded to his former lawful custody. The condition of one in custody as a fugitive slave, under this law, so far as respects the writ of habeas corpus, is precisely the same as that of all other prisoners under the laws of the United States. The privilege of that writ remains alike to all of them, but to be judged of — granted or refused — discharged or enforced — by the proper tribunal, according to the circumstances of each case, and as the commitment and detention may appear to be legal or illegal. The whole effect of the law may be thus briefly stated. Congress has constituted a tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction, to deter- mine summarily, and without appeal, who are fugitives from service or labor under the second section of the fourth article of the Constitu- tion, and to whom such service or labor is due. The judgment of every tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction, where no appeal lies, is of neces- sity conclusive upon every other tribunal, and therefore the judgment of the tribunal created by this act is conclusive upon all tribunals. Wherever this judgment is made to appear, it is conclusive of the right of the owner to re- tain in his custody the fugitive from his ser- vice, and to remove him back to the place or state from which he escaped. If it is shown upon the application of the fugitive for a writ Of habeas corpus, it prevents the issuing of the writ — if upon the return, it discharges the writ- and restores or maintains the custody. The view of the law of this case is fully sus- tained by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Tobias Watkins, where the court refused to discharge upon the ground that he was in custody under the sentence of a court of competent jurisdic- tion, and that judgment was conclusive upon them. (3 Pet, 202.) The expressions used of the last clause of the sixth section, that the certificate therein alluded to " shall prevent all molestation" of the persons to whom granted, " by any pro- cess issued," &c, probably mean, only what the act of 1793 meant, by declaring a certifi- cate under that act a sufficient wan-ant for the removal of a fugitive., and certainly do not mean a suspension of the habeas corpus. I conclude by repeating my conviction, that there is nothing in the bill in question which conflicts with the Constitution, or suspends, or was intended to suspend, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant, J. J. Crittenden. To the President. Fuller, Henry 31., of Pa. Answer of, to Interrogatories in Hofse of Representatives, January 12, 1856. Mr. Clerk, I voted for the resolution offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Zolli- coffer] yesterday, because I cordially approve of the principle embodied in that resolution. Early in the session I felt it a duty, in justice to myself and to those with whom I had been acting, to declare the opinions I entertained' and the course of action I should pursue upon certain questions of public policy. I desire to say now, sir, what I believe is known to the majority — if not to all — of those who have honored me with their confidence, that I have been ready at any and all times to withdraw my name from this protracted canvass. I have felt unwilling to stand, or to appear to stand, in the way of any fair organization of this body. In answer to the specific interrogatories here presented, I say that I do not regard the Kansas and Nebraska bill as promotive of the formation of free states ; and I will further say, sir, that I do not believe that it is pnn motive of the formation of slave states. The second interrogatory relates to the constitu- tionality of the Wilmot proviso. I was not a member of the Congress of 1850, and have never been called upon to affirm or deny the constitutionality of the Wilmot proviso. I have never assumed the position, that " if territorial bills (silent upon the subject of slavery, and leaving the Mexican laws to operate) were defeated, he [I] would vote for a bill with the Wilmot proviso in it." That 246 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. question relates to the legislative action of the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Richardson.] My political existence com- menced since that flood. I was not a member of that Congress, and having never taken any public position upon that subject heretofore, I am willing, in all frankness and candor, to do so now ; and I do so with great deference and respect for those distinguished men who, in times past, have entertained and expressed different opinions. Public history informs us that slavery existed before the Constitution, and, in my judgment, now exists independent of the Constitution. When the people of the confederated states met by their representa- tives in convention, to form that Constitution, slavery existed in all but one of the states of the Confederacy. The people, through their representatives, having an existing and ac- knowledged right to • hold slaves, conceded this — the right to prohibit importation — after the year 1808. They made no cession, so far as regarded the existence of domestic slavery. They claimed — and it was granted — the right of reclamation in case of escape. They claimed — and it was granted — the right of represent- ation as an element of political power. And I hold, in the absence of express authority, that Congress has no constitutional right to legislate upon the subject of slavery. I hold that the territories are the common property of all the states, and that the people of all the states have a common right to enter upon and occupy those territories, and they are protected in that occupation by the flag of our common country ; that Congress has no constitutional power either to legislate slavery into, or ex- clude it from, a territory. Neither has the territorial legislature, in my judgment, any right to legislate upon that subject, except so far as it may be necessary to protect the citi- zens of the territory in the enjoyment of then- property, and that in pursuance of its organic law, as established by Congressional legisla- tion. When the citizens of the territory shall apply for admission into the Union, they may determine for themselves the character of their institutions (by their state constitution) ; and it is their right then to declare whether they will tolerate slavery or not, and, thus, fairly deciding for themselves, should be admitted into the Union as states without reference to the subject of slavery. The Constitution was formed by the people of the states for pur- poses of mutual advantage and protection. The states are sovereignties, limited only so far as they have surrendered their powers to the general government. The general government, thus created and limited, acts with certain positive, defined, and clearly ascertained powers. Its legislation and ad- ministration should be controlled by the Con- stitution ; and it cannot justly employ its powers thus delegated to impair or destroy any existing or vested rights belonging to the people of any of the states. In addition to the above he made the fol- lowing answer to Mr. Barksdale's interroga- tories : — Mr. Clerk, I shall answer the questions specifically and directly, reserving to myself the privilege of more full explanation here- after. " Are you in favor of restoring the Missouri restriction, or f do you go for the entire prohibition of slavery in all tlm territories of the United States?" I am opposed to any legislation upon those subjects, for reasons already given. " Are you in favor of abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia and the United States forts, dock-yards, &C.2" \ I am not, sir. "Do you believe in the equality of the- white and black races in the United States, and do you wish to promote that equality by legislation r" I do not, sir. I acknowledge a decided preference for white people. " Are j'ou in favor of the entire exclusion of adopted citizens and Roman Catholics from office?" Mr. Clerk, I think with General Washing- ton — and he is a very high authority — that it does not comport with the policy of this country to appoint foreigners to office to the exclusion of native-born citizens. But I wish to say that I proscribe no man because of his religion ; I denounce no man because of his politics. I accord to all the largest liberty of opinion and of expression, of conscience and of worship. I care not, sir, what creed a man may profess ; I care not to what denomination he may belong ; be he Mohammedan, Jew, or Gentile, I concede to him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own judgment. I invade no man's altar, and would not dis- turb any man's vested rights. Whatever we have been, whatever we are, and whatever we may be, rests between us and Heaven. I allow no mortal to be my mediator ; and, judging no man, will by no man be judged. With regard to those of foreign birth, I do not desire to* exclude them. I say to them : " Come, enter upon the public lands ; occupy the public territory ; build up for yourselves homes, acquire property, and teach your chil- dren to love the Constitution and laws which protect them ;" but I do say that in all mat- ters of legislation, and in all matters of admin- istration, Americans shoved govern America. " Do you favor the same modification of the tariff now that you did at the last session of Congress?" I was not a member of the last Congress ; and all that I would now ask upon the subject of the tariff is, " to be let alone." Georgia and Alabama, Laws of, in reference to State Conven- tions UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. Law of Georgia. 1. Whereas, in pursuance of an act of the Legislature, approved February the 8th, 1850, in response to a proclamation of the Governor of the State, a convention assembled in the capitol, at Milldlgeville, on the 16th of December, 1850; and whereas, the said con- vention, in view of tureatened aggressions GEORGIA AND ALABAMA.— GHENT, TREATY OF.— GOTT, DANIEL. 241 upon the constitutional rights of the slave- holding states, adopted, among others, tlie following resolution: "That the state of Georgia, iu the judgment of this convention, will and ought to resist (even as a last re- sort), to the disruption of every tie which binds her to the Union, any act of Congress upon the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia, or in places subject to the jurisdic- tion of Congress, incompatible with the safety, domestic tranquillity, the rights and honor of the slaveholdiug states, or any act suppress- ing the slave trade between the slaveholdiug states, or any refusal to admit as a slave state any territory hereafter applying because of the existence of slavery therein, or any act prohibiting the introduction of slaves into the territories of Utah and New Mexico, or any act repealing or materially modifying the laws in force for the recovery of fugitive slaves; and whereas there is reason to apprehend the happening of some of these contingencies, and the state of Georgia is unalterably determined to adhere to the position solemnly announced in the said resolution : Therefore, 2. Section 7 I. Be it enacted, &c, That with- in sixty days after the happening of any of the contingencies specified in the foregoing recited resolution, it is hereby made the duty of the Governor to issue his proclamation or- dering an election to be held in each and every county for delegates, to a convention of the people of this state, to convene at the seat of government, within twenty days after said election, to consider and determine upon the time and mode of resistance contemplated by the aforesaid recited resolution. 3. Sec. II. And be it further enacted, That each county in this state shall elect as many delegates to said convention as will be equal to the number of its senator and representative or representatives in the General Assembly, and the elections for such delegates shall be conducted in the same manner as elections for members of the legislature are how held, and that all returns of elections shall be forwarded to the Governor, who shall furnish each dele- gate elected with a certificate of his election. 4. Sec. III. And be it j'urther enacted, That the sum of twenty thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropri- ated, to defray the expenses of said conven- tion, and that the members of said convention shall be entitled to such per diem and mileage as that body shall determine. 5. Sec. IV. And be it further enacted, That the said convention shall have power to elect all such officers as may be necessary for its organization. Approved March 4th, 1856. Law of Alabama. While this General Assembly will not as- sume, in advance, to dictate the course to be taken by the state of Alabama in the event Kansas should be refused admission into the Union, they nevertheless feel constrained by a high sense of duty, in the firm conviction that she will redeem her pledges, and take no steps backward, to provide the means by which her people, in convention assembled, may de- termine their course of action : Therefore, Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, in General Assembly convened, That in the event Kansas should apply at the present or any future session of Congress, for admission into the Union as a state with and under the constitution heretofore framed and adopted by her, and commonly known as the Lecompton Constitution, and shall be by Con- gress refused admission, the Governor of this state is respectfully instructed, by proclama- tion, to assemble the qualified voters of this state, at the usual places of voting in their respective counties, to elect delegates to a state convention on a day to be by him appointed, within ninety. days from the time when h« shall receive satisfactory evidence of such ac- tion by Congress. Ghent, Treaty of. This treaty was negotiated by the Right Honorable James Lord Gambier, Henry Goul- burn, Esq., and William Adams, Esq., on the part of Great Britain, and John Quincj Adams, James A. Bayard, Henry Clay, Jona- than Russell, and Albert Gallatin, on behalf of the United States. The treaty can be found on p. 218, vol. 8, of Little & Brown's Statutes at Large. The first article provided for the restoration of all archives, records, or property taken by either party from the other during the war. This article expressly provides for the resto- ration of " slaves or other private property." The second article provided for the cessation of hostilities and limitation of time of capture. The third article provided for the restora- tion of prisoners of war. The fourth article defined the boundary es- tablished by the treaty of 1783, and provided for commissioners to mark the same. The fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth articles established rules to govern the proceedings of the commissioners. The ninth article bound the United State* and His Britannic Majesty to end all hostili- ties with Indian tribes, with whom they wer* then respectively at war. The tenth article reads as follows: — " Whereas the traffic in slaves is irrecon- cilable with the principles of humanity and justice ; and whereas both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavors to ac- complish so desirable an object." The eleventh and last article provides for the binding effect of the treaty, upon the ex- change of ratifications. Gott, Daniel, of N. Y. Celebrated Resolution of. In the House of Representatives, on the 21st of Dec, 1848, Mr. Gott introduced the follow- ing resolution : — 248 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Whereas:, the traffic now prosecuted in this metropolis of the republic in human beings, as chattels, is contrary to natural justice and the fundamental principles of our politi- cal system, and is notoriously a reproach to our country throughout Christendom, and a serious hindrance to the progress of republican liberty among the nations of the earth : Therefore Resolved, That the committee for the Dis- trict of Columbia be instructed to report a bill as soon as practicable, prohibiting the slave trade in said District. The resolution was adopted by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Abbott of Mass., Ashmun of Mass., Belcher of Me., Bingham of Mich., Blackman of N, Y., Blanchard of Pa., Butler of Pa., Canby of 0., Cathcart of Ind., Collamer of Vt., Conger of N. Y., Cranston of K. I., Crowell of 0., Cummins of 0., Darling of Wis., Dickey of Pa., Dickinson of 0., Dixon of Conn., Daniel Duncan of 0., Edwards of 0., Em- bree of Ind., Evans of 0., Farau of 0., Farrelly of Pa., Fisher of 0., Freedly of Pa., Fries of 0., Giddings of 0., Gott of N. Y., Greeley of N. Y., Gregory of N. J., Grinnell of Mass., Hale of Mass., Hall of N. Y., Hampton of N. J., Moses Hampton of Pa., Henley of Ind., Henry of Vt., Holmes of N. Y., Hubbard of Conn., Hudson of Mass., Hunt of N. Y., Joseph R. Inger- soll of Pa., Irvin of Pa., James H. Johnson of N. H., Kellogg of N. Y., King of Mass., Lahmof 0., William T. Lawrence of N. Y., Sidney Lawrence of N. Y., LefTer of la, Lord of N. Y., Lynde of Wis., McClelland of Mich., Mcllvaine of Pa., Mann if Pa., Mann of Mass., Marsh of Vt., Marvin of N. Y., Morris of 0., Mullin of N. Y., Newell of N. J., Nicoil of N. Y., Palfrey of Mass., Peaslee of N. H., Peck of Vt., Pettit of Ind., Pollock of Pa., Putnam of N. Y., Reynolds of N. Y., Richey of 0., Ro- binson of Ind., Rockhill of Ind., Rockwell of Mass., Rockwell of Conn., Rose of N. Y., Root of 0., Rumsey of N. Y., St. John of N. Y., Sherrill of N. Y., Silvester of N. Y., Slingerland of N. Y., Smith of 111., Starkweather of 0., Stuart of Mich., Strohm of Pa., Tallmadge of N. Y., James Thompsou of Pa., Thompson of la., Thurston of R. I., Tuck of N. H., Turner of 111., Van Dyke of N. J., Vinton of 0., Warren of N. Y., Went- worth of 111., White of N. Y., Wilson of N. H.— 98. Nays. — Messrs. Adams of Ky., Barringer of N. C, Beale of Va., Bedinger of Va., Bocock of Va., Botts of Va., Bowlin of Mo., Boyd of Ky., Boydon of N. C. Bridges of Pa., Brown of Va., Brown of Pa.. Brown of Miss., Buckner of Ky., Burt of S. C, Chapman of Md., Chase of Tenn., Clark of Me., Clark of Ky., Cobb of Geo., Cobb of Ala., Cocke of Tenn., Crisfield of Md., Crozier of Tenn., Daniel of N. C, Donnell of N. C, Dunn of Ind., Evans of Md., Featherston of Miss., Ficklin of HI., Flouruoy of Va., French of Ky., Fulton of Va., Gaines of Ky., Gentry of Tenn., Goggin of Va., Green of Mo., Hall of Mo., Hammons of Me., Haralson of Geo., Harmanson of La., Harris of Ala., Hill of Tenn., Houston of Ala., Houston of Del., Inge of Ala., Charles J. Ingersoll of Pa., Iverson of Geo., Jameson of Mo., Johnson of Tenn., Jones of Tenn., Jones of Geo., Kennon of 0., King of Geo., La Sere of La., Ligon of Md., Lincoln of 111., Lumpkin of Geo., McClernand of 111., McDowell of Va., McLane of Md., Meade of Va., Miller of 0., Morehead of Ky., Morse of La., Outlaw of N. C, Pendle- ton of Va., Peyton of Ky.. Pitsbury of Texas. Preston of Va., Sawyer of 0., Shepherd of N. C, Simpson of S. C, Smart of Me., Stanton of Tenn., Stephens of Geo., Strong of Pa., Thibo- deaux of La.. Thomas of Tenn., Thompson of Ind., Tomkins of Miss., Toombs of Geo., Venable of N. C. Wallace of S. C, Wiley of Me., Williams of Me., Woodward of S. C— 88. Hartford Convention. Platform of. Resolved, That it be and hereby is recom- mended to the legislatures of the several states represented in this convention, to adopt all such measures that may be necessary effectually to protect the citizens of said states from the ope- ration and effects of all acts which have been or may be passed by the Congress of the Uni- ted States, which shall contain provisions sub- jecting the militia or other citizens to forcible drafts, conscriptions, or impressments not au- thorized by the Constitution of the United States. Resolved, That it be and is here recom- mended to the said legislatures, to authorize an immediate and earnest application to be made to the government of the United States, requesting their consent to some arrangement whereby the said states may, separately or in concert, be empowered to assume upon them- selves the defence of their territory against the enemy ; and a reasonable portion of the taxea collected within said states, may be paid into the respective treasuries thereof and appro- priated to the payment of the balance due said states and to the future defence of the same. The amount so paid into the said treasuries to be credited, and the disbursements made aa aforesaid to be charged to the United States. Resolved, That it be and hereby is recom- mended to the legislatures of the aforesaid states, to pass laws (where it has not already been done) authorizing the governors or com- manders-in-chief of their militia to make de- tachments from the same, or to form voluntary corps, as shall be most convenient and con- formable to their constitutions, and to cause the same to be well armed, equipped, disci- plined, and held in readiness for service ; and upon the request of the governor of either the other states, to employ the whole of such de- tachment or corps, as well as the regular forces of the states, or such part thereof as may be required and can be spared consistently with the safety of the state, in assisting the state making such request to repel any invasion thereof, which shall be made or attempted by the public enemy. Resolved, That the following amendments of the Constitution of the United States be recommended to the- states represented as aforesaid, to be proposed by them for adoption by the state legislatures, and in such cases as may be deemed expedient by a convention chosen by the people of the states. And it is further recommended, that the states shall persevere in their efforts to obtain such amendments until the same shall be effected. First. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers of free persons, including those bound to serve for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed and all other persons. Second. No new state shall be admitted into the Union by Congress, in virtue of the power granted by the Constitution, without the con- currence of two-thirds of both Houses. Third. Congre'ss shall not have power to lay an embargo on the ships or vessels of the citi- zens of the United States, in the ports or har- bors thereof, for more than sixty days. Fourth. Congress shall not have power with- out the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses, to interdict the commercial inter- course between the United States and any foreign nation, or the dependencies thereof. Fifth. Congress shall not make nor declare war, or authorize acts of hostility against any foreign nation without the concurrence of two- thirds of both Houses, except such acts of hos- tility be in defence of the territories of the United States when actually invaded. Sixth. No person who shall hereafter be naturalized, shall be eligible as a member of HARTFORD CONVENTION.— ILLINOIS. 249 th t Senate or House of Representatives of the United States, nor capable of holding any civil office under the authority of the United States. Seventh. The same person shall not be elected President of the United States a sec- ond time ; nor shall the President be elected from the same state two terms in succession. Resolved, That if the application of these states to the government of the United States, recommended in a foregoing resolution, should be unsuccessful, and peace should not be con- cluded, and the defence of these states should be neglected, as it has been since the com- mencement of the war, it will, in the opinion of this convention, be expedient for the legis- latures of the several states to appoint dele- gates to another convention to meet at Boston, in the state of Massachusetts, on the third Thursday of June next, with such powers and instructions as the exigency of a crisis so mo- mentous may require. Resolved, That the Hon. George Cabot, the Hon. Chauncey Goodrich, and the Hon. Daniel Lyson, or any two of them, be authorized to call another meeting of this convention, to be held in Boston, at any time before new dele- gates shall be chosen as recommended in the above resolution, if in their judgment the sit- uation of the country shall urgently require it. Hartford, Jan. 4th, 1814. George Cabot, Nathan Dane, William Prescott, Harrison G. Otis, Timothy Bigelow, Joshua Thomas, Samuel S. Wilde, Joseph Lyman, Stephen Longfellow, jr Daniel Waldo, Hodijah Baylies, George Bliss, Chauncey Goodrich, James Hillhouse, John Treadwell, Zephania Swift, Nathaniel Smith, Calvin Goddard, Roger M. Sherman, Daniel Lyman, Samuel Ward, ,, Edward Manton, Benjamin Razard, Benjamin West, Mills Olcott, William Hall, jr. Illinois. On the 18th of January, 1809, a bill report- ed by a committee of the House in pursuance of the prayer of the grand jury of the county of St. Clair, in Indiana territory, to divide said territory, and constitute the western por- tion of the same Illinois territory, passed that body by a vote of yeas 69, nays 37. It passed the Senate on the 31st of January, and became a law by the approval of the President on the 3d of February, 1809. On the 4th of April, 1818, a bill passed the House in pursuance of the prayer of the ter- ritorial legislature of Illinois, authorizing the people thereof to form a state constitution, and providing for the admission of such state into Union. The bill passed the Senate on the 14th of April, 1818, with sundry amendments report- ed, by the committee of public lands, which were agreed to by the House, and it became a law on the 18th of April, 1818, by the approval of the Pn> sident. On the 23d of November, 1818, the consti- tution of the new state of Illinois having been submitted to Congress, a joint resolution de- claratory of the admission thereof was before the house, when Mr. Tallmadge of N. Y. oppos- ed the passage of the resolution, for the reason that there was no evidence uf the size of the population of said territory reaching the stand- ard prescribed by the law in the last session, and because slavery was not sufficiently pro- hibited therein. The resolution passed the House by a vote of yeas 117, nays 34, and the Senate on the 1st of December without a division, and was approved by the President on the 3d of De- cember, 1818. Negro Law of. In 1853, the legislature of Illinois enacted the following law : — " If any negro or mulatto, bond or free, shall hereafter come into this state and remain ten days, with the intention of residing in the same, every such negro or mulatto shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and for the first offence shall be fined the sum of fifty dollars, to be recovered before any justice of the peace in the county where said negro or mulatto may be found. * * * If the said negro or mulatto shall be found guilty, and the fine assessed be not paid forthwith, it shall be the duty of said justice to commit said negro or mulatto to the custody of the sheriff of said county, or otherwise keep him, her, or them in custody ; * * * the said justice shall, at public auction, proceed to sell said negro or mulatto to any person who wilt pay said fine and costs for the shortest time ; and the said purchaser shall have a right to com- pel said negro or mulatto to work for and serve out said time," &c. In pursuance of this statute, the following advertisement recently appeared in an Illinois paper : State of Illinois, > St. Clair county. I" 8- LEGAL NOTICE.— Whereas, Jackson Redman, a mulatto, was, on the 7th day of April, A. D. 1S57, complained against, arrested, and brought before me, the uudersigned, a justice of the peace for said county, and was. tried by a jury of twelve men, who found him guilty of high misde- meanor, and, as a first offence, fined him in the sum of $50 —agreeably to the provisions of the act of February 12, 1853, to prevent the immigration of negroes or mulattoes; and judgment having been rendered against the said John Kedman". for the amount of said fine and costs of suit, which has not been paid, whereupon he was placed in the custody of the sheriff of said county for safe keeping, until he is further dealt kith as is required by law: This, therefore, is to give notice that, at 1 o'clock, p. M., on the'lSth day of April, l s ^>7. at my office, in Bellevillfi, in said county. Twill proceed to sell, at public auction, the services of the said Jackson Redman to any person or per- sons who will pay sail! fine ami costs, for the shortest time — nccordins; to the propisjons of the act aforesaid. Posted this 8th day of Anvil, a. ii. 1857. c isper Thilll, Jusiice of the Teace. Resolutions of American Party of Illi- nois, adopted June 11, 1855. " That the time litis arrived when the Amer- ican party of the United States are called upon to take open, fearless, and unreserved ground upon the great question of slavery, that is now 250 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. agitating the people of every section of this Union ; and that the intense excitement and agitation which at the present time are dis- tracting our country upon the subject of sla- very have been caused by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise ; and that that repeal ■was uncalled for, a gross violation and dis- regard of a sacred compact, entered into be- tween the two great sections of this confe- deracy, and in the highest degree destructive to the peace and welfare of this Union. _ That a restoration of the Missouri Compromise, as it will restore the territory for which it was originally made to the same situation in which it was before that line was unnecessarily des- troyed, so it will restore peace and harmony to the country, without injury or injustice to any portion of the Union, that while it will only give to freedom that which with due solemnity and in good faith was long since conveyed to her under the contract, it will equally preserve the full and undisputed rights acquired under it by the South, and that therefore the Missouri Compromise should be restored, and that in all political national con- tests the American party in the state of Illi- nois will demand of its candidates for office, among other qualifications, their open and un- disguised opinions upon this subject. " The essential modification of the natur- alization laws by extending the time of resi- dence required of those of foreign birth to entitle them to citizenship. A total repeal of all state laws allowing any but citizens of the United States the right of suffrage. But a careful avoidance of all interference with rights of citizenship already acquired under existing laws. "^Resistance to the corrupting influences and aggressive policy of the Romish Church, unswerving opposition to all foreign influence, or interference of foreign emissaries, whether civil or ecclesiastical." Immigration. Synopsis of the Treatise of Louis Schadb of Washington, D. C. If in 1789, when the Constitution went into operation, the policy had been adopted of a total exclusion of all foreigners, how would it up to this time have worked ? In 1790, the population of the United States, including whites and free colored persons, was 3,231,930. If all increase from immigration had been cut off, the surplus of births over deaths would have constituted the only growth in our population. A very interesting problem then presents itself. Upon that policy, if adopted in 1790, what would be the present population of the United States? By the census returns for 1850, we find the number of births to be 548,835, and.the deaths 271,890,— coufiningourselves to the white and free colored population. The difference, being 276,945, was the increase of population for 1850 from excess of births over deaths. The whole population in 1850, of whites and free colored persons, was 19,987,573. The increase, there- fore, from the excess of births over deaths, was one and thirty-eight hundredths per cent. We take 1850 as an example to ascertain the percentage of increase from this single source of growth. To show that the percentage of increase evidenced by the census of 1850 is reliable, I furnish a table carefully made out of the increase in other countries from statis- tical returns. It is as follows : — Table No. 1.— Showing the increase of population by the surplus of births over deaths. Year. 1850 1850 1851 1835 1849 1850 1850 1849 1852 Name of the country. United States England and Wales France Russia Prussia Holland Belgium Portugal Saxony Number of inha- bitants. 19,987,573* 17.927,609 35,783,170 59,000,000 16,331,187 3,056,591 4,426,202 3,473,758 1,987,832 Number of births in the respec- tive year. 548,835* 593,422 943,061 2,173,055 691,562 105.338 120,107 114,331 80,322 Number of deaths in the respec- tive year. 271,890* 368,986 784.43.3 .,731,834 498,862 67.588 92,820 88.992 58,739 Per cent, of in- crease of the to- tal population. 1.38* 1.25 0.44 0.74 1.17 1.23 0.61 0.72 1.08 As would be expected, it is seen that the excess of births over deaths in the United States is larger than in any other country ; and hence I have no hesitation in adopting the percentage of annual increase of one and thirty-eight hundredths as reliable. This furnishes us a rule to solve the problem before stated. The population in 1790 was 3,231,930. Excluding all immigration, the increase of population each year would be at the rate of 1.38 per cent. This increase added each year to the aggregate of the preceding year, down to 1850, will give us the population of the United States in 1850 as it would have been upon the policy of excluding all immigration. In the following table will be also shown what our population in 1850 would have amounted to if immigration had been stopped in 1800, 1810, 1820, 1830, or 1840, taking the actual population of those years as a starting point. The calculation is a long and tedious one, but the result is mathematically certain. It is this: The population in 1790 being 3,231,930, * The United States census of 1850 gives tlie births and deaths of the white and free colored population in one co- lumn, without any separation; therefore, it has become necessary to include the free colored population in all other tables hereafter given. As to the slave population, the writer sees, for his purpose, no necessity to mention any- thing of it at all, as it has no connexion whatever with tha immigration. IMMIGRATION. 251 and being increased alone by the surplus of births over deaths, would in 1850 amount to 7,555,423 whites and free colored persons, in- cluding 200,000 for Louisiana, Florida, Cali- fornia, and those territories which were ac- quired since 1790. But upon turning to the actual returns of the census of 1850, Ave find the number of whites and free colored persons to be 19,987,573. It appears, then, that if the policy of excluding immigration had been adopted in 1790, our present population would be 7,555,423, instead of its actual number of 19,987,573— a difference in pop. of 12,432,150. Table No. 2. — Showing the increase of the white and free colored population of the United States, if without, immigra- tion since the respective years 1790 to 1840, after the ratio of increase in 1850 : 8 a a. ~ ° o en g a —■-•3 o t s-e 't- a 3 " "8 "S * S ■2 Year. tnc whit olore on if miigr nao. o — 2 ^ t. . as oZ~s 01 -— 8 -S ® & Z 2 3 a •3 « « 3 3 o - ; — ~ z ,. a - ; — — z ■ a < < < s 1790 3,231.960 1791 3.276,530 44.000 1792 3,321,746 45,216 1793 3,367,586 45,840 1794 3.414.058 46.472 1795 3,461,172 47,114 1796 3,508.93b 47.764 1797 3.557.359 48.423 1798 3,606,450 49.091 1799 3,656,219 49,769 1800 3,706,674 50,455 4.412.8S4 1801 3.757.826 51.152 4.473,7S1 60,897 1802 3,809,684 51,858 4,535,519 61.738 1803 3,862,257 52,573 4,598,109 62,590 1804 3.915.556 53.299 4.661.562 63,453 1805 3.969.590 54.034 4.725,991 64.329 1806 4,024,358 54.768 4.791.209 65.216 1807 4,079,895 55,537 4,857,327 66,118 1808 4,136,197 56,302 4,924.358 67,031 1809 4.193,276 57,079 4,992,314 67,958 1810 4,251,143 57,867 5.061,207 68,893 1811 4,309.808 58.665 5,131,051 69.844 1812 4,369,283 59,475 5,201, S59 70.808 1813 4,429,579 60,296 5,273.644 71,785 1814 4,490,707 61,128 5,346.409 72,765 1815 4,552.678 61.971 5.420,189 73.780 1816 4.615,504 62.826 5.494.990 74.801 1817 4,679,197 63.693 5.570.820 75.S30 1818 4.743,769 64.572 5.647.697 76,877 1819 4.809,233 65,464 5,724.733 77.036 1820 4.875,600 66,367 5.80.3.734 79,001 1821 4.942,883 67,283 5,883.S25 80,091 1822 5,011,094 68,211 5,965.021 81,196 1823 5,080,247 69.153 6.047.338 82,317 1824 5,150,354 70,107 6,130.791 83,453 1825 5,221.428 71,074 6.215,295 84,504 1826 5,293,473 72,055 6,301.066 85,771 1827 5,366,522 73.049 6,388,020 86.954 1828 5.440 5S0 74,058 6,476.174 88.154 1829 5.515,659 75,079 6,565.545 89,371 1830 5,591.775 76,116 6,656,149 90.604 1831 5.668,941 77.166 6.748,003 91,854 1832 5.747.172 78,231 6.841.125 93.122 1833 5,826,482 79,310 6.935,532 94.407 1S34 5.906,887 80,405 7.031,242 95,710 1835 5,988,402 81.515 7,128,273 97,031 1836 6,071.041 82.639 7.226,643 98.370 1837 6.154,821 83.780 7,326,470 99,727 1838 6.239.757 84.936 7,427.576 101.106 1839 6,325.865 86.108 7.530,076 102.500 1840 6.413,161 87.296 7,633.991 103.915 1841 6.501.662 88.501 7,739.340 105.349 1S42 6.591.384 89,722 7,846.142 106.802 1843 6.682.345 90.961 7,954.418 108.276 1844 6.774.561 92.216 8.064.1S8 109.770 1845 6,868.049 93.488 8,175.473 111,285 1846 6.962,828 94,779 8.288,294 112,821 1847 7.059,115 96,287 8.402.672 114.378 1848 7,156.530 97.415 8.518,628 115.956 1849 7,255,300 98.770 8,636.185 117,557 1850 7,355,423 100,123 8,755,364 119,179 Table No. 2— Continued. S'goig *4 o S'HoaSg S3---3 ■ 3 3 Z — s — b *£ r — .£f 2 &™ =■=-•- N o«i3 Year. * "2 c = ™ ■ u "siiis - u S -3 3 -j 3 3 4* — " ° = 3 3 ^ t~^ 3 .2 3 3 a •- i = 3 .2 g O C — » O 00 3 cct-aoa < •< < 1S10 6.048,450 1811 6,131,918 83.468 1812 6.216,538 84,620 1813 6.302,326 85,788 1814 6.389,298 86.972 1815 6.477.470 88,172 1816 6.566.859 89.3S9 1817 6.657.4S1 90.622 1S18 6.749.354 91.873 1819 6.842.495 93,141 1S20 6,936.921 94.426 8,100,093 1821 7,032.650 95.729 8.211,874 1822 7,129,700 97,050 8.325,197 1823 7,228,089 98,389 8,440.184 1824 7,327,836 99,747 8,556,658 1825 7.428.960 101,124 8.674,739 1826 7,531.479 102,519 8,794.449 1S27 7,635.413 103.934 8.915,802 1828 7.740.781 105.368 9,038.840 1829 7,847,603 106,822 9,163,575 1830 7,955.899 108.296 9,290.032 1831 8,065.691 109,792 9.418,234 1832 8,176.997 111,306 9.54S.205 1833 8,404.238 114.399 9.678.970 1S34 8.520.216 115,978 9.812.539 1835 8,637.794 117.578 9,947,952 1S36 8,756.995 119.201 10,085.233 1837 8,877.841 120.846 10.224.4i 19 1838 9.000.355 122.514 10.365,505 1839 9.124.559 124.204 10,508,548 1840 9.250.477 125.918 10,653.565 1841 9.378,133 127.656 10,800,584 1842 9.507.551 129,418 10,949,632 1S43 9.63S.755 131.204 11,100,727 1844 9.771.769 133.014 11,253,917 1845 9.906,619 134.850 11,409,221 1846 10.043.330 136,711 11,566,668 1847 10.182.927 138.597 11.726,288 1848 10,323.451 140.524 11,888,110 1849 10,465,914 142,463 12,052.105 1S50 10,610,343 144.429 12,218,4S4 Year. 1830 1831 1832 1833 1S34 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1S40 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1S46 1S47 1848 1849 1850 Table No. 2 — Continued. 1"° i A a 2 -, »§~ a 5 l s* ® 3 — a u 3 2 „ a* £ 2 3 -a 3 3 '3 Q, o ta 10,856.977 11,006.803 11,158.696 11.312,686 11.468,801 11.627,070 11.787,523 11.950,190 12.115,102 12.282.290 12.451,785 12.623,619 12.797.824 12.974,333 13.153.378 13,334,874 13.518.895 13.705.455 13,894.590 14,086.335 14,280,726 149.826 151.893 153.990 156.115 158.269 160.453 162.667 164,912 167,188 169,495 171.S34 174.205 176.509 179.045 181.496 184.021 186.560 189,135 191.745 194,391 * u i ^ u 8 g 2-5.2 S-S| : -.SS 2 £! ?* 3 3 2 3 o i3 — : ' 14,581,998 14.783,229 14,985,237 15,192.033 15,401,683 15,614,226 15.829.702 16.04S.151 16,269,615 16.494,135 16,721,674 111,781 113.323 114,987 116,474 118.081 119.711 121.353 123.03S 124,735 126,457 128.202 129,971 130.765 133,569 135,413 137.2S1 139.176 141.096 143.043 145,017 147.019 149,048 151,104 153.190 155,304 157.447 159.620 161,822 164,055 166,319 201.231 202.008 206,796 209,650 212.543 216.476 21S.449 221.464 224,520 227,539 To these are are to be added the results for Louisiana (1803); Florida (1821); California, New Mexico, Texas, and Oregon. Louisiana had in 1803, 77,000 inhabitants, of which 252 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK 53,000 were slaves. Florida, in 1821, had about 10,000. California and New Mexico, at the time of their acquisition, had about 60,000. Texas and Oregon only brought back into the Union citizens who had emigrated thither but a short time before. If we put them down in 1850, after the above scale, with 200,000 white and free colored persons, the writer thinks he has done them more than ample justice. Table No. 3.— Recapitulation. The United States would have in 1850— If without immigration since 1790 - For Louisiana, Florida, &c. - - - If without immigration since 1800 - For Louisiana, Florida, &c. - - ■ If without immigration since 1810 For Florida, &c. 7,555.423 200.000 8.755.364 200,000 10,610.343 100.000 Total white and free col- ored popula- tion. 7,555,423 8,955.364 10,710,343 12,318,484 14,330,726 If without immigration since 1820 - 12.218.484 For Florida, &c. 100,000 If without immigration since 1S30 - 14,2S0.726 For New Mexico and California - 50.000 If without immigration since 1840 - 16,721.674 For New Mexico and California - 50.000 16.771,674 They had actually, however 19,987,573 This will be to many an astonishing result: but I am well assured of the correctness of this statement. As I have shown above that the mean (1.38 per cent.) by which I have made up these tables corresponds well with that of other countries, I will also compare the result. It will be found that no European country has actually increased in the same period so much as the United States would have, if, instead of a population of 19,987,573, they had in 1850 only 7,555,423. The figures in the following table are taken from official returns. Table No. 4. — Increase of various European rations since the last decennium of the 18 .493 i 3.316.535* 456,990 547.948 3,231,930 do. - - = 1.8 >p:un - Do. Sweden - - - - - Do. Sardinia (Island) - - Do. do. - - - United States*- - - Without immigration since 1790 - - - - in 1849 in 1790 in 1S48 in 1790 do. do. - = 1.33 - = 1.54 } do. - - = 1.19 do. = 2.33 in 1850 7,555,423' This table clearly proves the above estimate of the population of the United States, without immigration since 1790, to be not only a cor- rect one, but even exhibiting a higher increase than any other country. England, the highest among them, is still, with one year more in- crease, twenty-seven on the hundred behind the United States. Some persons may think doubtful that the actual increase of England and Wales is so clo'se to that of the United States, as there has been every year a large emigration. But it must be remembered that * White and free colored. England has had in return a considerable im- migration from Ireland, Scotland, and even from the continent of Europe, invited by the enormous rise of her manufactures and com- merce. England is not only a very healthy country, but also inhabited by a healthy peo- ple. Besides, it is a known fact that the population of manufacturing districts increases more than that where agriculture is the prin- cipal branch of occupation. But there is another point of great import- ance. The people of the United States, left without immigration, would not have increased 1.38 per cent, every year. Proof hereof is found in Massachusetts. This state had, in 1850, 830,066 native and 164,448 foreign born inhabitants, or one foreigner to Jive natives. The marriages were, during the years 1849 to 1851, Americans 18,286, or 220 in 10,000 of their own race ; foreigners 7440, or 450 in 10,000. This is 104.5 per cent, of foreign over native ratio. The births were in Massa- chusetts in the three years 1849, '50, and '51, of American parents 47,982, or 578 in 10,000 of their own race; foreign 24,5*23, or 1491 in 10,000 of their own race. In Boston there were, American 7278, or 966 in 10,000; foreign 13,032, or 2053 in 10,000 of their own race. Of the 32,000 born in Massachusetts in 1854, 16,470 were of American parentage, while some 14,000 were of parents one or both foreigners ; and the increase from foreign parents was more than twice what it was from native parents. At the same rate shortly we shall have more children born in Massachusetts from foreigners than from natives ; for in five years the American births have not increased 1000, while the foreign have increased more than 5000. In Suffolk county already the births in foreign families are more than twice as numerous as in American, being 3735 in the former, and 1737 in the latter. Of the parents of Boston children, in 1854, the largest number was from Ireland, 2824 fathers and 2957 mothers, while there were but 410 fathers and 524 mothers natives of the city, and 533 fathers and 475 mothers natives of Massa- chusetts, out of Boston, or of other states. Cambridge had born of foreign parents 422 children to 208 Americans ; Fall River, 223 to 88 ; Lawrence, 322 to 146 ; Lowell, 596 to 427 ; lloxbury, 383 to 168 ; Salem, 344 to 120 ; Taunton, 221 to 142 ; and Worcester, 421 foreign to 320 American. The foreigners in Massachusetts are chiefly of Celtic origin. In twenty years from the present time, one- half of the young men and women in the state will be of direct Celtic descendency. As the traces of a negro descendency disappear already in the third or fourth generation, I should think that in Massachusetts the Pil- grim and revolutionary blood, if it is not al- ready so, must, in very short time, become at least very thin. The cause of the large increase births is simply that, whilst of the native population in 1850 there were only 49.07 per cent, over the 15th year of age, the average of foreign IMMIGRATION. ;253 amount of foreigners, of the same age, who arrived in 1854 and 1855, was 77.03 per cent. Number of white inhabitants of the United States in 1850 under 15 years Do. over 15 years . Number of immigrants in 1854 under 15 years . Do. over 15 years .... Number of immigrants in 1855 under 15 years .... Do. over 15 years .... 8,002,715 11.550.353 40.93 pr. ct. 59.07 " 19,553,00S 100.00 100.013 360.461 21.72 78.28 460,474 100.00 53,045 177.431 23.02 76.98 230,476 100.00 Suppose that there are now five millions of foreigners in this country, they will, from this cause, produce just as much, and increase in the same degree, as 6,610,169 natives. Before the mortality tables of the United States were published, statisticians and political writers usually believed that the foreign born died in a greater proportion than the natives. But I always doubted it from the reason that over one-half of the deaths occurs under the age of twenty. Of the foreigners living in this country, however, only one-fourth is below that age, and especially the children are want- ing, amongst which the mortality is always proportionally the greatest. The census has shown that I was not in error. According to a statement therein contained, the per-centage of native deaths, excluding slaves, was 1.491, whilst that of the foreign was only 1.469. 1 take only the aggregate ratio of the total number of deaths in the United States, with- out going into details, as I do not believe in its correctness, being convinced that the ratio is too high in favor of the natives and against the foreigners. According to this mortality report, there died in New York, one out of 32 foreigners; in Massachusetts, one of every 60 ; in New Jersey, one of every 110 ; and in Maryland, one of every 116. These discrep- ancies are too great to bear any similarity to truth. But it matters nothing for my pur- pose, as it yet shows that, contrary to former supposition, the foreigners have at most the same and not a greater ratio of deaths than the native population. According to the above calculation, the immigrants and their descendants number in 1850 :— Since 1790 ... - 12,432,150 « 1800 ... - 11,032,109 « 1810 .-- - 9,277,230 « 1820 ... - 8,669,089 << 1830 .... 5,656,847 1840 3,215,899 almost in- immigration essay on immigration, puts down at 50 per cent of the total number. Should their natu- ral increase resemble that of the foreign popu- lation in Massachusetts, as stated above, none will find my hypothetical statement out of reach of probability. These astounding results enable us to dis- cuss intelligibly the effects of immigration upon our national progress in the great ele- ments of strength and greatness, and wealth and prosperity. If immigration had been cut off in 1790, our population in 1850 would have been about what it actually was in 1820. Immigration, then, has put us thirty years forward in this important element of national prosperity. Our increase in all the depart- ments of national progress has been in the exact ratio of our increase in population. Whilst the latter has increased^ sixfold, our commercial' exports have increased, in the same period, eightfold, and our imports three- fold. Value of Value of Commercial Year. imports. exports. fleet. Tons. 1789-91 $52,200,000 $19,012,041 502.146 $4,399,473 1S00 91.252,768 70,971.780 972,492 10.624.997 1810 85,400,000 66,757,974 1.424.783 9.299.737 1820 74.450,000 69,691.699 1,2S0,106 16,779,331 1830 70,876,920 73.819.508 1.191.776 24,280,888 1840 131.571,950 104,805.891 2.180.764 16.993,858 1850 178,136,318 151,898.720 3,535,454 43.375.798 1855 261,468,520 275,156,846 5,212,001 65,203,930 At the first glance it will seem credible that the excess from ii should alone amount in the single decade of 1840 to 1850 to 3,215,899. But it must be remembered that the immigration within these years, as given by the custom-house reports, amounted to not less than 1,677,330, without those of which the custom-houses give no returns, and which Dr. Chickering, in his None can fail to see in these figures the great benefit this country has derived from the increased immigration. Enormous is the increase of shipping, revenues and commerce, from 1840 to 1845. Our imports increased 200 per cent., our exports 300 per cent., our commercial fleet 100 per cent,, and our reve- nues more than 300 per cent, _ Since 1840, immigration has been chiefly directed to this country. Compare, again, 1850 with 1855, and the blindest man will perceive that the sudden rise of wealth and power this country owes chiefly to immigration. But for the influence of immigration, the wonderful works of improvement, which have added so much to our national wealth and prosperity, could not have been accomplished. To this we are indebted, in an eminent degree, for the thou- sands of miles of railroad and canal commu- nication which now cover our vast domain like a net-work, and furnish ready and pro- fitable facilities for realizing the benefits of the productive energies and enterprise of every industrial pursuit, To this we are indebted for the reduction of the vast wilderness of the. west and northwest to the dominion of civili- zation and industry, swelling the amount of our annual revenues, increasing to an almost limitless extent our commercial wealth, and placing us in the front rank of nations as an agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial people. To immigration we are indebted in no small degree for the rapid addition of state after state to the confederacy, until we have 254 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. spanned the continent with more than double our original number. But it cannot be neces- sary to dwell upon results so astounding to foreign nations, and so flattering to our own national pride. To appreciate them, we have but to imagine twelve millions of our popula- tion withdrawn, and reflect upon the amazing contrast that would now be presented with a population little more than one-third of its present number! This contrast will be better appreciated, if we imagine the follow- ing eighteen of the bright stars which now illustrate the galaxy of states expunged from our national banner : Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, Virginia, and New York. These states have a free white population of twelve millions, the amount of increase resulting from immigra- tion. Instead of setting up a just claim to being the most happy, and prosperous, and powerful nation on the earth, able to com- mand respect all over the world, to maintain our rights on sea and land against any foreign combination, and by the moral power of our republican example to shake the hoary thrones of monarchs in the Old World, we should be a fourth rate national power, subject to con- stant dangers of foreign invasion, and poorly able to defy the aggressions of a foreign enemy. These results prove the wisdom of the fathers of the republic in resisting the attempts of the British king to prevent immi- gration into the colonies, and illustrate the soundness of the policy which has enacted liberal naturalization laws and given encour- agement to foreign immigration. Men do not come here merely for the pur- pose of improving their physical condition. This is especially shown by the sudden de- crease of immigration since the political ascendancy of the American party. Exactly one hundred per cent, less have arrived in 1855 than in the preceding year 1854. In 1854, landed .... 460,474 In 1855 »« ..... '. 230,476 Decrease 229,998 In order to have an idea of the loss this country has sustained hereby, it will not be amiss to state that the population of Delaware and Florida together is yet far below the number of persons this policy has kept away in 1855. Rhode Island had in 1850 only 147,545, and may have now about 180,000. Only imagine that one year of this policy has cost us already more than the present popula- tion of two states like Delaware and Florida ! How much will it cost us if this sway should be extended to four years more ? This is the real and true standard with which to measure the prudence of the principles of the Ameri- can Order. It is more than probable that the immigration of 1856 will be even far behind that of 1855, if one may judge after the com- paratively small number who have arrived in the first quarter of this year. After that rate the whole immigration will hardly exceed 50,000. This shows sufficiently that the im- migrants come to this country just as much for political freedom as material well-being. It is true, the people of the United States, as a power, can use means to prevent immigra- tion, and prohibit it if they will. But, in doing so, an original and distinguished prin- ciple of the government must be abrogated ; and, having done this, we descend to a level with the arbitrary and proscriptive thrones of Europe. But the loss of the laborious immigrant will soon be felt. As already stated, the most of the immigrants wended their way to the prairies of the Far West, buy- ing from the government with their own money the public lands, in order to wrest a livelihood from the bosom of mother earth. Their labors have enriched not only the culti- vator, but the country and the native-born citizen. Others again remained in the great Atlantic cities, where their herculean energies have been employed in the erection of public works. Men of genius, artists, scholars, came with this tide of immigration ; and, while they have been able to find employment ft* themselves, they have also vastly contributed to the intellectual stores of this country. A remarkable instance of the public spirit and generosity of foreign born citizens may be seen in the fact that the three leading scien- tific or educational institutions in the United States were founded by men born in other lands. I allude to the great Astor Library, of New York, endowed by the German, John Jacob Astor ; the Girard College, in Phila- delphia, endowed by the Frenchman, Stephen Girard ; and the Smithsonian Institution, at Washington, endowed by the Englishman, John Smithson. It is not a high estimate if we put down the immigration in five years, from 1850 to 1855, at about two and a half millions. Suppose this number brought with them in value only 30 dollars per head, which is the very lowest estimate ; and they have enriched the country in the very short space of five years, by an amount equal to $75,000,000. It is also a very safe calculation to say that these immi- grants have paid $150,000,000 into the trea- sury of the United States for public lands. The revolutions of 1848 gave emigration a vast impulse, and drove masses of men of excellent quality to our shores. Whether we consider the amount of money, principally specie, brought with them, or the amount paid into the treasury for public lands, or the ad- vantages conferred upon the native popula- tion by their industry and their skill, we may well hesitate in alarm and surprise, that any movement looking to the arrest or curtailment of the tide of immigration should for one mo- ment have been encouraged by any portion of the American people. The principles of the American order, if carried out, would degrade the emigrant to the low position of an East Indian pariah, or a Russian serf, excepting IMMIGRATION.— INDEPENDENT DEMOCRATS. 255 only that he could not be sold. They would doom him to a fate far worse than the hardest despotism of the Old World. There, at least, he would have the consciousness of not suffer- ing alone, as the whole population, and not a part of it, would have no more rights than himself. Here he would he marked out as an inferior, useful only to dig canals and huild railroads, to fight like the Helots of old, to act as hewer of wood and drawer of water to those who falsely call themselves superior beings. And not this only. While this is sought to be made the lot of the white adopted citizens — while the laboring classes are ap- pealed to deny equal privileges to the foreign born fellow-being of their own race — behold their efforts making in the free states to ele- vate the negro to the political rights and pri- vileges of the whites ! " Americans must rule America !" — that is the constant war-cry of the opponents of im- migration. There are at present in the United States twenty-seven millions of inhabitants, of which five millions are foreigners. The Senate contains G2 and the House 234 mem- bers. Should the five millions be equally re- presented in their specific qualification as foreigners, of the Senators 14 and of the House 53 should be foreign-born citizens. But there is not a single foreign-born member in Congress. Are the Democratic members for whom foreign-born citizens have cast their votes, not as good, intelligent, and wise as those who have been elected by a mere native vote? The American party speak constantly of their revolutionary inheritance, their " glo- rious sires of '76." Will they inform me how many of them can trace back their lineage to the time of the Revolution ? Are not at least two-thirds of their number descendants of those who arrived in the country since 1790 ? Was not, in New York, even their candidate for governor a son of a foreigner ? Are not, with the only exception of two. all the 148 or 149 of them elected to the New York state legislature sons of foreign parents ? The an- swer to these questions will put to shame the warfare which is waging upon the policy of the founders of this republic. It is not simply a warfare upon the foreign-born citizens dif- fused throughout the Union, identified in inte- rest with our institutions ; connected by the closest ties with native born citizens ; engaged in industrial pursuits, which add to the na- tional wealth and prosperity ; levelling moun- tains and filling up valleys for our great internal improvements ; felling the forests, and spreading the area of productive agricul- ture in the far West ; shouldering their mus- kets when the tocsin of war pounds; and fighting and dying bravely on the battle-field by the side of native Americans. A warfare upon such a body of men is bad enough in all conscience ; but the warfare is against the principles on which our Revolution was started and was consummated — against the policy en- grafted upon our Constitution, and carried out by liberal naturalization laws in Con- gress ; and against the prosperity of the na- tion, which has received one of its chief impulses from this policy. Independent Democrats. Appeal of, to the People of the United States. Washington, Jan. 19, 1854. Fellow-Citizens : As Senators and Repre- sentatives in the Congress of the United States, it is our duty to warn our constituents whenever imminent danger menaces the free- dom of our institutions or the permanency of our Union. Such danger, as we firmly believe, now im- pends, and we earnestly solicit your prompt attention to it. At the last session of Congress, a bill for the organization of the territory of Nebraska passed the House of Representatives with an overwhelming majority. That bill was based on the principle of excluding slavery from the new territory. It was not taken up for con- sideration in the Senate, and consequently failed to become a law. At the present session a new Nebraska bill has been reported by the Senate Committee on Territories, which, should it unhappily receive the sanction of Congress, will open ail the unorganized territory of the Union to the ingress of slavery. We arraign this bill as a gross violation of a sacred pledge ; as a criminal betrayal of precious rights ; as part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a vast unoccu- pied region immigrants from the Old World, and free laborers from our own states, and convert it into a dreary region of despotism, inhabited by masters and slaves. Take your maps, fellow-eitizens, we entreat you, and see what country it is which this bill, gratuitously and recklessly, proposes to open to slavery. From the southwestern corner of Missouri pursue the parallel of 36 deg. 30 min. north latitude, westerly across the Arkansas, across the north fork of Canadian to the nortli- eastern angle of Texas ; then following the northern boundary of Texas to the western limit of New Mexico ; then proceed along that western line to its northern termination ; then again turn westwardly and follow the northern line of New Mexico to the crest of the Rocky Mountains ; then ascend northwardly along the crest of that mountain range to the line which separates the United States from the British possessions in North America, on the 49th parallel of north latitude ; then pursue your course eastwardly along that line to the White Earth River, which falls into the Mis- souri from the north ; descend that river to its confluence with the Missouri ; descend the Missouri, along the western border of Minne- sota, of Iowa, of Missouri, to the point where it ceases to be a boundary line, and enters the state to which it gives its name ; then continue your southward course along the western limit 256 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of that state to the point from which you set mite. You have now made the circuit of the proposed territory of Nebraska. You have traversed the vast distance of more than three thousand miles. You have traced the outline of an area of four hundred and eighty-five thousand square miles ; more than twelve times as great as that of Ohio. This immense region, occupying the very heart of the North American continent, and larger, by thirty-three thousand square miles, than all the existing free states, excluding California — this immense region, well watered and fertile, through which the_ middle and northern routes from the Atlantic to the Pa- cific must pass — this immense region, embrac- ing all the unorganized territory of the nation, except the comparatively insignificant district of Indian Territory north of Red River, and between Arkansas and Texas, and now for more than thirty years regarded by the com- mon consent of the American people as con- secrated to freedom, by statute and by compact — this immense region, the bill now before the Senate, without reason and without ex- cuse, but in flagrant disregard of sound policy and sacred faith, proposes to open to slavery. We beg your attention, fellow-citizens, to a few historical facts. The original settled policy of the United States, clearly indicated by the Jefferson pro- viso of 1784, and by the ordinance of 1787, was non-extension of slavery. In 1803, Louisiana was acquired by pur- chase from France. At that time there were some twenty-five or thirty thousand slaves in this territory, most of them within what is now the state of Louisiana ; a few, only, fur- ther north, on the west bank of the Missis- sippi. Congress, instead of providing for the abolition of slavery in this new territory, per- mitted its continuance. In 1812 the state of Louisiana was organized and admitted into the Union with slavery. In 1818, six years later, the inhabitants of the territory of Missouri applied to Congress for authority to form a state constitution, and for admission into the Union. There were, at that time, in the whole territory acquired from France, outside of the state of Louisiana, not three thousand slaves. There was no apology in the circumstances of the country for the continuance of slavery. The original national policy was against it, 'and not less the plain language of the treaty under which the territory had been acquired from France. It was proposed, therefore, to incorporate in the bill authorizing the formation of a state government, a provision requiring that the constitution of the new state should contain an article providing for the abolition of exist- ing slavery, and prohibiting the further intro- duction of slaves. This provision was vehemently and perti- naciously opposed ; but finally prevailed in the House of Representatives by a decided vote. In the Senate it was rejected, and, in conse- quence of the disagreement between the twr Houses, the bill was lost. At the next session of Congress the contro- versy was renewed with increased violence. It was terminated, at length, by a compro- mise. Missouri was allowed to come into the Union with slavery, but a section was in- serted in the act authorizing her admission, excluding slavery, for ever, from all the terri- tory acquired from France, not included in the new state, lying north of thirty-six de- grees thirty minutes. We quote the prohibitory section : * "Sec. 8. Be it further enacted. That in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes of north latitude, not included within the limits of the state contemplated by this act, slavery and involun- tary servitude, otherwise than as the punishment of crimes, shall be and is hereby for ever prohibited." The question of the constitutionality of this prohibition was submitted by President Mon- roe to his cabinet. John Quincy Adams was then Secretary of State ; John C. Calhoun was Secretary of War ; William II. Crawford was Secretary of the Treasury ; and William Wirt was Attorney General. Each of these emi nent men, three of them being from slave states, gave a written opinion, affirming its constitutionality, and thereupon the act re- ceived the sanction of the President, himself also from a slave state. Nothing is more certain in history than the fact, that Missouri could not have been ad- mitted as a slave state, had not certain mem- bers from the free states been reconciled to the measure by the incorporation of this pro- hibition into the act of admission. Nothing is more certain than that this prohibition has been regarded and accepted by the whole country as a solemn compact against the ex- tension of slavery into any part of the terri- tory acquired from France, lying north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, and not in- cluded in the new state of Missouri. The same act — let it be ever remembered — which authorized the formation of a constitution for the state, without a clause forbidding slavery, consecrated, beyond question and beyond honest recall, the whole remainder of the territory to freedom and free institutions for ever. For more than thirty years — during more than half the period of our national existence under our present Constitution — this compact has been universally regarded and acted upon as inviolable American law. In conformity with it, Iowa was admitted as a free state, and Minnesota has been organized as a free territory. It is a strange and ominous fact, well cal- culated to awaken the worst apprehensions, and the mo# fearful forebodings of future calamities, that it is now deliberately pur- posed to repeal this prohibition, by implica- tion or directly — the latter, certainly, the manlier way — and thus to subvert this com- pact, and allow slavery in all the yet unor- ganized territory. * Act March G, 1820—3 U. S. Statutes at Large, 644. INDEPENDENT DEMOCKATS. 257 We cannot, in this address, review the vari- ous pretences under which it is attempted to cloak this monstrous wrong ; but we must not alogether omit to notice one. It is said that the territory of Nebraska sustains the same relations to slavery as did the territory acquired from Mexico prior to 1850, and that the pro-slavery clauses of the bill are necessary to carry into effect the com- promises of that year. No assertion could be more groundless. Three acquisitions of territory have been made by treaty. The first was from France. Out of this territory have been created the three slave states of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri, and the single free state of Iowa. The controversy which arose in relation to the then unorganized portion of this territory was closed in 1820, by the Missouri act, con- taining the slavery prohibition, as has been already stated. This controversy related only to territory acquired from France. The act, by which it was terminated, was confined, by its own express terms, to the same territory, and had no relation to any other. The second acquisition was from Spain. Florida, the territory thus acquired, was yielded to slavery without a struggle, and almost without a murmur. The third was from Mexico. The contro- versy which arose from this acquisition is fresh in the remembrance of the American people. Out of it sprung the acts of Con- gress, commonly known as the compromise :i!.'iisures of 1850, by one of which California was admitted as a free state ; while two others, organizing the territories of New Mexico and Utah, exposed all the residue of the recently acquired territory to the invasion of slavery. These acts were never supposed to abrogate or touch the existing exclusion of slavery from what is now called Nebraska. They applied to the territory acquired from Mexico, and to that only. They were intended as a settle- ment of the controversy growing out of that acquisition, and of that controversy only. They must stand or fall by their own merits. The statesmen whose powerful support car- ried the Utah and New Mexico acts, never dreamed that their provisions would ever be applied to Nebraska. Even at the last session of Congress, Mr. Atchison, of Missouri, in a speech in favor of taking up the former Ne- braska bill, on the morning of the 4th of March, 1853, said : " It is evident that the Missouri Compromise cannot be repealed. So far as that question is concerned, we might as well agree to the admission of this territory now, as next year, or five or ten years hence/' These words could not have fallen from this watchful guardian of slavery, had he sup- posed that this territory was embraced by the pro-slavery provisions of the compromise acts. This pretension had not then been set up. It is a palpable after-thought. The compromise acts themselves refute this pretension. In the third article of the second sectiou of the joint resolution for annexing 17 Texas to the United States, ft is expressly de- clared that " in such state or states as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Mis- souri Compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude, except for crime, shall be prohi- bited ;"* and in the act for organizing New Mexico and settling the boundary of Texas, a proviso was incorporated, on the motion of Mr. Mason of Virginia, which distinctly pre- serves this prohibition, and flouts the bare- faced pretension that all the territory of the United States, whether south or north of the Missouri Compromise line, is to be open to slavery. It is as follows : — " Provided. That nothing herein contained shall b« con- strued to impair or qualify anything contained in the third article of the second section of the joint resolution for an- nexing Texas to the United States, approved March 1, 1845. either as regards the number of states that may hereafter be formed out of the state of Texas, or otherwise.''! Here is proof, beyond controversy, that the principle of the Missouri act prohibiting sla- very north of 36 deg. 30 min., far from being abrogated by the compromise acts, is express- ly affirmed; and that the proposed repeal of this prohibition, instead of being an affirma- tion of the compromise acts, is a repeal of a very prominent provision of the most impor- tant act of the series. It is solemnly declared in the very compromise acts " that nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair or qualify" the prohibition of slavery north of 36 deg. 30 min., and yet, in the face of this declaration, that sacred prohibition is said to be overthrown. Can presumption further go ? To all who, in any way, lean upon these com- promises, we commend this exposition. The pretences, therefore, that the territory, covered by the positive prohibition of 1820, sustains a similar relation to slavery with that acquired from Mexico, covered by no prohibi- tion except that of disputed constitutional or Mexican law, and that the compromises of 1850 require the incorporation of the pro- slavery clauses of the Utah and New Mexico bill in the Nebraska act, are mere inventions, designed to cover up from public reprehen- sion meditated bad faith. Were he living now, no one would be more forward, more eloquent, or more indignant, in his denuncia- tion of that bad faith, than Henry Clay, the foremost champion of both compromises. In 1820 the slave states said to the free states, " Admit Missouri with slavery and re- frain from positive exclusion south of thirty- six degrees thirty minutes, and we will join you in perpetual prohibition north of that line." The free states consented. In 1854 the slave states say to the free_ states, " Mis- souri is admitted ; no prohibition of slavery south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes has been attempted; we have received the full consideration of our agreement; no more is to be gained by adherence to it on our part : we, therefore, propose to cancel the compact." If this be not Punic faith, what is it ? Not * Act March 1, 1845—5 U. S. Statutes at Large, 797. f Congressional Globe, 1849-1850, p. 1552; act September 9, 1850—9 U. S. Statutes at Large, 446. 258 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. without the deepest dishonor and crime can the free states acquiesce in this demand. We confess our total inability properly to delineate the character or describe the conse- quences of this measure. Language fails to express the sentiments of indignation and ab- horrence which it inspires; and no vision, less penetrating and comprehensive than that of the All-Seeing, can reach its evil issues. To some of its more immediate and inevi- table consequences, however, we must attempt to direct your attention. What will be the effect of this measure, should it unhappily become a law, upon the proposed Pacific railroad ? We have already said that two of the principal routes, the cen- tral and the northern, traverse this territory. If slavery be allowed there, the settlement and cultivation of the country must be_ greatly retarded. Inducements to the immigration of free laborers will be almost destroyed. The enhanced cost of construction, and the dimi- nished expectation of profitable returns, will present almost insuperable obstacles to build- ing the road at all ; while, even if made, the difficulty and expense of keeping it up, in a country from which the energetic and intelli- gent masses will be virtually excluded, will greatly impair its usefulness and value. ' From the rich lands of this large territory also, patriotic statesmen have anticipated that a free, industrious, and enlightened popula- tion will extract abundant treasures of indivi- dual and public wealth. There, it has been expected, freedom-loving emigrants from Eu- rope, and energetic and intelligent laborers from our own land, will find homes of comfort and fields of useful enterprise. If this bill shall become a law, all such expectation will turn to grievous disappointment. The blight of slavery will cover the land. The home- stead law, should Congress enact one, will be worthless there. Freemen, unless pressed by a hard and cruel necessity, will not, and should not, work beside slaves. Labor can- not be respected where any class of laborers is held in abject bondage. We earnestly request the enlightened con- ductors of newspapers printed in the German and other foreign languages to direct the at- tention of their readers to this important mat- ter. It is of immense consequence, also, to scru- tinize the geographical character of this pro- ject. We beg you, fellow-citizens, to observe that it will sever the east from the west of the United States by a wide slaveholding belt of country, extending from the Gulf of Mexico to British North America. It is a bold scheme against American liberty, worthy of an ac- complished architect of ruin. Texas is al- ready slaveholding, and occupies the Gulf region from the Sabine to the Rio Grande, and from the Gulf of Mexico to the Red River. North of the Red River, and extending between Texas and Arkansas, to the parallel of thirty- six degrees thirty minutes, lies the Indian territory, about equal in extent to the latter state, in which slavery was not prohibited by the act of 1820. From thirty-six degrees thirty minutes to the boundary line between our own country and the British possessions, stretching from west to east through more than eleven degrees of longitude, and from south to north through more than twelve de- grees of latitude, extends the great territory, the fate of which is now to be determined by the American Congress. Thus you see, fel- low-citizens, that the first operation of the proposed permission of slavery in Nebraska, will be to stay the progress of the free states westward, and to cut off the free states of the Pacific from the free states of the Atlantic. It is hoped, doubtless, by compelling the whole commerce and the whole travel be- tween the east and the west to pass for hun- dreds of miles through a slaveholding region, in the heart of the continent, and by the in- fluence of a federal government controlled by the slave power, to extinguish freedom and establish slavery in the states and territories of the Pacific, and thus permanently subju- gate the whole country to the yoke of a slave- holding despotism. Shall a plot against hu- manity and democracy, so monstrous, and so dangerous to the interests of liberty through- out the world, be permitted to succeed ? We appeal to the people. We warn you that the dearest interests of freedom and the Union are in imminent peril. Demagogues may tell you that the Union can be maintained only by submitting to the demands of slavery. We tell you that the safety of the Union can only be insured by the full recognition of the just claims of freedom and man. The Union was formed to establish justice, and secure the blessings of liberty. When it fails to ac- complish these ends, it will be worthless, and when it becomes worthless it cannot long endure. We entreat you to be mindful of that funda- mental maxim of democracy, equal rights and exact justice for all men. Do not submit to become agents in extending legalized oppres- sion and systematized injustice over a vast territory yet exempt from these terrible evils. We implore Christians and Christian minis- ters to interpose. Their divine religion re- quires them to behold in every man a brother, and to labor for the advancement and regenera- tion of the human race. Whatever apologies may be offered for the toleration of slavery in the states, none can be urged for its extension into territories where it does not exist, and where that extension involves the repeal of ancient law, and the violation of solemn compact. Let all protest, earnestly and emphatically, by correspondence, through the press, by memorials, by resolu- tions of public meetings and legislative bodies, and in whatever other mode may seem expe- dient, against this enormous crime. For ourselves, we shall resist it by speech and vote, and with all the abilities which God has given us. Even if overcome in the im- pending struggle, we shall not submit. We INDEPENDENT DEMOCRATS.— INDEPENDENT, OR SUB-TREASURY. 259 shall go home to our constituents ; erect anew 1 the standard of freedom, and call on the people to come to the rescue of the country from the domination of slavery. We will not despair : for the cause of human freedom is the cause of God. S. P. Chase, Senator from Ohio. Charles Sumner, Senator from Mass. J. R. Giddings, \ Representatives from Edward Wade, j Ohio. } Representative j New York. Representative Mass. Gerritt Sunn, Alex. De Witt •1 from from Independent, or Sub-Treasury. On the 16th of January, 1838, Mr. Wright of N. Y., from the Committee on Finance, re- ported an Independent Treasury Bill. It passed the Senate on the 4th of March, 1838, by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Allen of 0., Benton of Mo., Brown of X. C, Clay of Ala., Cuthbert of Ga.. Fulton of Ark. : Hubbard of N. H., King of Ala., Linn of Mo., Lumpkin of Ga., Lyon of Mich., Morris of 0.. Mouton of La., Niles of Conn., Norvell of Mich., Pierce of N. H., Roane of Va., Robinson of 111., Sevier of Ark., Smith of Conn., Strange of N. C. Trotter of Miss., Walker of Miss., Wall of N. J., Williams of Me., Wright of N. Y.— 27. Nays. — Messrs. Bayard of Del., Buchanan of Pa.. Calhoun of S. C, Clay of Ky., Clayton of Del., Crittenden of Ky., Davis of Mass., Grundy of Tenn., Knight of R. I., McKean of Pa., Merrick of Md., Nicholas of La., Prentiss of Vt., Preston of S. C, Rives of Va., Robbins of R. I., Ruggles of Me., Smith of Ind., Southard of N. J., Spence of Md., Swift of Vt., Tall- madge of N. Y., Tipton of Iud., Webster of Mass., White of Tenn.— 25. Mr. Calhoun was in favor of the bill as it was at one time shaped, but voted against it because that portion of it providing for a hard money currency was stricken out. It wa3 rejected in the House on the 25th of June, 1838, by yeas and nays as follows: — Yeas. — Messrs. Anderson of Me., Andrews of N. H., Atherton of N. H., Banks of Va.. Beatty of Pa.. Beirne of Va., Bicknell of N. Y., Birdsall of N. Y., Boone of Ind., Bouldin of Va., Brodhead of N. Y., Bronson of N. Y., Bu- chanan of Pa.. By num of N. C. Cambreleng of N. Y., Chaney of 0., Chapman of Ala., Cleveland of Ga., Clowney of S. C, Coles of Va., Conner of N. C, Craig of Va., Crary of Mich., Cushman of N. H., Davee of Me., De Graff of N. Y., Drom- goole of Va., Duncan of 0., Elmore of S. C, Farrington of N. H., Fairfield of Me., Fletcher of Vt., Fry of Pa., Gallup of N. Y., Glascock of Ga., Grant of N. Y., Gray of N. Y., Griffin of S. C, Haley of Conn., Hammond of S. C, Hamer of 0., Harrison of Mo., Hawkins of N. C, Haynes of Ga., Holsey of Ga., Holt of Conn., Howard of Md., Hubley of Pa., Hunter of 0., Hunter of Va., Ingham of Conn., Jackson of N. Y., Johnson of Va., Jones of N. Y.. Jones of Va., Keim of Pa., Kemble of N. Y, Klingensmith of Pa., Leadbetter of 0., Lewis of Ala., Logan of Pa., Loomis of N. Y., Martin of Ala., McKay of N. C, R. McClellan of N. Y., A. McClellan of Tenn., McClure of Pa., Miller of Mo., Montgomery of N. C, Moore of N. Y., Morgan of Va., S. W, Morris of Pa., Murray of Ky., Noble of N. Y., Owens of Ga., Palmer of N. Y., Parker of N. Y., Parmenter of Mass., Parris of Me., Paynter of Pa., Penny- backer of Va., Petriken of Pa., Phelps of Conn., Pickens of S. C, Plummer of Pa., Potter of Pa., Pratt of N. Y., J. H. Prentiss of N. Y.. Riley of Pa., Rhett of S. C, Richardson of S. C, Rives of Va., Sawyer of N. C, Sheffer of Pa., Shepler of 0., Snyder of 111., Spencer of N. Y., Taylor of N. Y., Thomas of Md., Titus of N. Y., Toucey of Conn., Towns of Ga., Turney of Tenn., Vail of N. Y., Wagener of Pa., Webster of 0., Weeks, W. Whittlesley of Conn., Williams of N. H., Worthington of Md., Yell of Ark.— 111. Nats. — Messrs. Adams of Mass.. Alexander of 0.. Allen of Vt., J. V. Allen of 0., Aycrigg of X. J.. Bell of Tenn.. Biddle of Pa., Bond of 0., Borden of Mass., Briggs of Mass., Calhoun of Mass., Calhoun of Ky.. Campbell of tenn., Campbell of S. C. Carter of Me.. Casey of 111., Chambree of Ky.. Chatham of Tenn., Childs of N. X., Clark of N. Y. Coffin of 0., Corwin of 0„ Cranston of R. I., Crockett of Tenn., Curtis of N. Y., Gushing of Mnmter of Mass., Patterson of N. Y., Payne of Ala., Peyton of Tenn., Potter of R. I., Potter of 0., Pratt of N. Y., Ram- sey of Pa., Ralhbun of N. Y., A. H. Read of Pa., Charles M. Read of Pa., Reid of N. C, Reding of N. H., Relfe of 0., Hitter of Pa., Rogers of N. Y., Russell of N. Y., St. John of 0., Sample of Ind., Saunders of N. C, Senter of Tenn., Sey- mour of Conn., Seymour of N. Y., Simons of Conn., Simpson jf 8. C, Slidell of La., Smith of Pa., Thomas Smith of Ind., Smith of 111., Steenrod of Va., Stetson of N. Y., Stewart of Pa., Stewart of Conn., Sliles of Ga., Stone o'f Ky., Strong of N. Y., Sykes of N. J., Taylor of Va., Thomasson of Ky., Thnmp- son of Mis?.. Tibbatts of Ky.. Welter of 0., Wentworth of 111., Wheaton of N. Y.. White of Ky., Williams of Mass., Wilkins of Pa., Woodward of S. C, Wrigld of Ind., Yost of Pa — 158. Nays. — Adams of Mass.. Barnard of N. Y.. Jeremiah Brown. of Pa., Carroll of N. Y., Chappell of Ga., Cranston of R. I. Garret Davis of Ky., Fish of N. Y., Foot of Vt., Giddiugs of 0., Grider of Ky., Hudson of Mass., J. R. Ingersoll of Pa., Jenks of Pa., Daniel P. King of Muss., Mcilvaine of Pa., Morse of Me., Moseley of N. Y., Phoenix of N. Y.. Rodney of Del., Schenck of 0., Severance of Me.. TilUen of O., Tyler of N. Y., Vance of 0., Vanmeter of 0., Vinton of ')., Winthrop of Mass. — 28. The bill passed the Senate on the 14th of February, 1844, by yeas and nays as fol- lows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Allen of 0., Atchinson of Mo., Atherton of N. H.. Bagby of Ala., Barrow of La., Benton of Mo., Breese of 111., Buchanan of Pa., Colquitt of Ga., Fairfield of Me., Foster of Tenn., Francis of K. I., Fulton of Ark.,' Hannegan of Ind., Haywood of N. C, Henderson of Miss., Huger of S. C, Jarui- gan of Tenn., King of Ala., McDuffie of S. C, Mangum of N. C, Rives of Va., Semple of 111., Sevier of Ark., Sturgeon of Pa., Tailmadge of N. Y., Tappan of 0., Walker of Miss, Wood- bury of N. H., Wright of N. Y.— 30. Nays. — Messrs. Archer of Va., Bates of Mass., Bayard of Del., Berrien of Ga.. Choate of Mass., Clayton of Del., Dayton of N.J., Evans of Me., Huntington of Conn., Merrick of Md., Miller of N. J., Pearce of Md., Phelps of Vt., Simmons of R. I., Upham of Vt., Woodbridge of Mich.— 16. . Democrats in italics ; Whigs in roman. The bill became a law, by the approval of President Tyler, on the 16th of February, 1844. President Jackson's Proclamation against the Nullification Ordinance of South Carolina. (Dec. 11, 1832.) Whereas, a convention, assembled in the state of South Carolina, have passed an or- dinance, by which they declare, " That the several acts and parts of acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting to be laws for the imposing of duties and imposts on the im- portation of foreign commodities, and now having actual operation and effect within the United States, and more especially," two acts for the same purposes, passed on the 29th of May, 1828, and on the 14th of July, 1832, "are unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof, and are null and void, and no law," nor binding on the citizens of that state, or its officers : and by the said ordinance, it is further declared to be unlawful for any of the constituted authorities of the state, or of the United States, to enforce the payment of the duties imposed by the said acts within the same state, and that it is the duty of the legislature to pass such laws as may be neces- sary to give full effect to the said ordinance : And whereas by the said ordinance, it is further ordained, that, in no case of law or equity, decided in the courts of said state, wherein shall be drawn in question the vali- dity of the said ordinance, or of the acts of the legislature that may be passed to give it effect, or of the said laws of the United States, no appeal shall be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, nor shall any copy of the record be permitted or allowed for that purpose, and that any person attempting to take such appeal shall be punished as for a contempt of court : And finally, the said ordinance declares, that the people of South Carolina will main JACKSON, ANDREW. 265 lain the said ordinance at every hazard ; and that they will consider the passage of any act by Congress abolishing or closing the ports of the said state, or otherwise obstructing the free ingress or egress of vessels to and from the said ports, or any other act of the federal government to coerce the state, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her commerce, or to enforce the said acts otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country, as incon- sistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union ; and that the people of the said state will thenceforth hold them- selves absolved from all further obligation to maintain or preserve their political connexion with the people of the other states, and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate government, and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent states may of right do : And whereas the said ordinance prescribes to the people of South Carolina a course of conduct, in direct violation of their duty as citizens of the United States, contrary to the laws of their country, subversive of its Consti- tution, and having for its object the destruc- tion of the Union — that Union which, coeval with our political existence, led our fathers, without any other ties to unite them than those of patriotism and a common cause, through a sanguinary struggle to a glorious independence — that sacred Union, hitherto inviolate, which, perfected by our happy Con- stitution, has brought us, by the favor of Heaven, to a state of prosperity at home, and high consideration abroad, rarely, if ever, equalled in the history of nations : To preserve this bond of our political existence from destruction, to maintain inviolate this state of national honor and prosperity, and to justify the confidence my fellow-citizens have reposed in me, I, Andrew Jackson, President of the United States, have thought proper to issue this my proclamation, stating my views of the Constitution and laws applicable to the mea- sures adopted by the Convention of South Carolina, and to the reasons they have put forth to sustain them, declaring the course which duty will require me to pursue, and, appealing to the understanding and patriotism of the people, warn them of the consequences that must inevitably result from an observ- ance of the dictates of the convention. Strict duty would require of me nothing more than the exercise of those powers with which I am now, or may hereafter be invested, for preserving the peace of the Union and for the execution of the laws. But the imposing aspect which opposition has assumed in this case, by clothing itself with state authority, and the deep interest which the people of the United States must all feel in preventing a resort to stronger measures, while there is a hope that anything will be yielded to reason- ing and remonstrance, perhaps demand, and will certainly justify, a full exposition, to South Carolina and the nation, of the views I entertain of this important question, as well as a distinct enunciation of the course which my sense of duty will require me to pursue. The ordinance is founded, not on the inde feasible right of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional and too oppressive to be endured ; but on the strange- position that any one state may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution ; that they may do this consistently with the Consti- tution ; that the true construction of that in- strument permits a state to retain its place in the Union, and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional. It is true, they add that, to justify this abrogation of a law, it must be palpably contrary to the Constitution ; but it is evident, that to give the right of resisting laws of that description, coupled with the un- controlled right to decide what laws deserve that character, is to give the power of resisting all laws. For, as by the theory, there is no appeal, the reasons alleged by the state, good or bad, must prevail. If it should be said that public opinion is a sufficient check against the abuse of this power, it may be asked why it is not deemed a sufficient guard against the passage of an unconstitutional act by Con- gress. There is, however, a restraint in this last case, which makes the assumed power of a state more indefensible, and which does not exist in the other. There are two appeals from an unconstitutional act passed by Con- gress — one to the judiciary, the other to the people and the states. There is no appeal from the state decision in theory, and the practical illustration shows that the courts are closed against an application to review it, both judges and jurors being sworn to decide in its favor. But reasoning on this subject is superfluous when our social compact in ex- press terms declares, that the laws of the United States, its Constitution and treaties made under it, are the supreme law of the land — and for greater caution adds, " that the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." And it may be asserted, without fear of refutation, that no federative government could exist without a similar provision. Look for a mo- ment to the consequences. If South Carolina considers the revenue laws unconstitutional, and has a right to prevent their execution in the port of Charleston, there would be a clear constitutional objection to their collection in every other port, and no revenue could be col- lected anywhere; for all imposts must be equal. It is no answer to repeat, that an un- constitutional law is no law, so long as the question of its legality is to be decided by the state itself; for every law operating injuriously upon any local interest will be perhaps thought, and certainly represented, as uncon- stitutional, and, has been shown, there is no appeal. If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the Union would have been dis- solved in its infancy. The excise law in Penn- 266 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. sylvania, the embargo and non-intercourse law in the Eastern states, the carriage tax in Virginia, were all deemed unconstitutional, and were more unequal in their operation than any of the laws now complained of; but fortunately none of those states discovered that they had the right now claimed by South Carolina. The war into which we were forced, to support the dignity of the nation and the rights of our citizens, might have ended in defeat and disgrace, instead of victory and honor, if the states who supposed it a ruinous and unconstitutional measure, had thought they possessed the right of nullifying the act by which it was declared, and denying supplies for its prosecution. Hardly and un- equally as those measures bore upon several members of the Union, to the legislatures of none did this efficient and peaceable remedy, as it is called, suggest itself. The discovery of this important feature in our Constitution was reserved for the present day. To the statesmen of South Carolina belongs the in- vention, and upon the citizens of that state will unfortunately fall the evils of reducing it to practice. If the doctrine of a state veto upon the laws of the Union carries with it internal evidence of its impracticable absurdity, our constitu- tional history will also afford abundant proof that it would have been repudiated with in- dignation had it been proposed to form a fea- ture in our government. In our colonial state, although dependent on another power, we very early considered ourselves as connected by common interest with each other. Leagues were formed for common defence, and before the Declai^ation of Independence, we were known, in our ag- gregate character, as the United Colonies of America. That decisive and important step was taken jointly. We declared ourselves a nation by a joint, not by several acts, and when the terms of our confederation were re- duced to form, it was in that of, a solemn league of several states, by which they agreed that they would collectively form one nation for the purpose of conducting some certain domestic concerns and all foreign relations. In the instrument forming that Union is found an article which declares that " every state shall abide by the determination of Congress, on all questions which by that confederation shall be submitted to them." Under the Confederation then, no state could legally annul a decision of the Congress, or refuse to submit to its execution ; but no pro- vision was made to enforce these decisions. Congress made requisitions, but they were not complied with. The government could not operate on individuals. They had no judi- ciary, no means of collecting revenue. But the defects of the Confederation need not be detailed. Under its operation we could scarcely be called a nation. We had aeither prosperity at home nor consideration abroad. This state of things could not be en- dured, and our present happy Constitution was formed, but formed in vain, if this fatal doctrine prevails. It was formed for import- ant objects that are announced in the preamble, made in the name and by the authority of the people of the United States, whose delegates framed, and whose conventions approved it. The most important among these objects, that which is placed first in rank, on which all the others rest, is " to form a more perfect Union." Now, is it possible that even if there were no express provisions giving supremacy to the Constitution and laws of the United States over those of the states — can it be conceived that an instrument made for the purpose of " forming a more perfect Union" than that of the Confederation, could be so constructed by the assembled wisdom of our country as to substitute for that Confederation a form of government dependent for its existence on the local interest, the party spirit of a state, or of a prevailing faction in a state ? Every man of plain unsophisticated understanding, who hears the question, will give such an answer as will preserve the Union. Metaphysical subtlety, in pursuit of an impracticable theory, could alone have devised one that is calculated to destroy it. I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one state, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, incon- sistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed. After this general view of the leading prin- ciple, we must examine the particular appli- cation of it which is made in the ordinance. The preamble rests its justification on these grounds ; it assumes as a fact, that the ob- noxious laws, although they purport to be laws for raising revenue, were in reality intended for the protection of manufactures, which pur- pose it asserts to be unconstitutional ; that the operation of these laws is unequal ; that the amount raised by them is greater than is required by the wants of the government ; and, finally, that the proceeds are to be applied to objects unauthorized by the Constitution. These are the only causes alleged to justify an open opposition to the laws of the country, and a threat of seceding from the Union, if any attempt should be made to enforce them. The first virtually acknowledges that the law in question was passed under a power ex- pressly given by the Constitution, to lay and collect imposts ; but its constitutionality is drawn in question from the motives of those who passed it. However apparent this pur- pose may be in the present case, nothing caD be more dangerous than to admit the position that an unconstitutional purpose, entertained by the members who assent to a law enacted under a constitutional power, shall make that law void ; for how is that purpose to be ascer- tained? Who is to make the scrutiny ? How often may bad purposes be falsely imputed ? in how many cases are they concealed by falsa JACKSON, ANDREW. 267 professions? in how many is no declaration of motive made? Admit this doctrine, and you give to the states an uncontrolled right to decide, and every law may be annulled under this pretest. If, therefore, the absurd and dangerous doctrine should be admitted, that a state may annul an unconstitutional law, or one that it deems such, it will not apply to the present case. The next objection is, that the laws in ques- tion operate unequally. This objection may he made with truth to every law tbat has been or can be passed. The wisdom of man never yet contrived a system of taxation that would operate with perfect equality. If the unequal operation of a law makes it unconstitutional, and if all laws of that description may be abrogated by any state for that cause, then indeed is the Federal Constitution unworthy of the slightest effort for its preservation. We have hitherto relied on it as the perpetual bond of our Union. We have received it as the work of the assembled wisdom of the nation. We have trusted to it as to the sheet- anchor of our safety in the stormy times of conflict with a foreign or domestic foe. We have looked on it with sacred awe as the pal- ladium of our liberties, and with all the solemnities of religion have pledged to each other our lives and fortunes here, and our hopes of happiness hereafter, in its defence and support. Were we mistaken, my country- men, in attaching this importance to the Con- stitution of our country ? Was our devotion paid to the wretched, inefficient, clumsy con- trivance which this new doctrine would make it ? Did we pledge ourselves to the support of an airy nothing, a bubble that must be blown away by the first breath of disaffection ? Was this self-destroying, visionary theory, the work of the profound statesmen, the exalted patriots, to whom the task of constitutional reform was intrusted? Did the name of Washington sanction, did the states delibe- rately ratify, such an anomaly in the history of fundamental legislation ? No. We were not mistaken. The letter of this great instrument is free from this radical fault ; its language directly contradicts the imputation ; its spirit — its evident intent contradicts it. No, we do not err! Our Constitution does not contain the absurdity of giving power to make laws, and another power to resist them. The sages whose memory will always be reverenced have given us a practical, and, as they hoped, a permanent constitutional compact. The father of his country did not affix his revered name to so palpable an absurdity. Nor did the states, when they severally ratified it, do so under the impression that a veto on the laws of the United States was reserved to them, or that they could exercise it by impli- cation. Search the debates in all their con- ventions — examine the speeches of the most zealous opposers of federal authority — look at the amendments that were proposed ; they are all silent — not a syllable uttered, not a vote given, not a motion made to correct the expli- cit supremacy given to the laws of the Union over those of the states, or to show that impli- cation, as is now contended, could defeat it No, we have not erred! The Constitution is still the object of our reverence, the bond of our Union, our defence in danger, the source of our prosperity in peace. It shall descend, as we have received it, uncorrupted by sophis- tical construction, to our posterity ; and the sacrifices of local interest, of state prejudices, of personal animosities, that were made to bring it into existence, will again be patrioti- cally offered for its support. The two remaining objections made by the ordinance to these laws are, that the sums in- tended to be raised by them are greater than are required, and that the proceeds will be unconstitutionally employed. The Constitution has given expressly to Congress the right of raising revenue and of determining the sum the public exigencies will require. The states have no control over the exercise of this right, other than that which results from the power of changing the representatives who abuse it, and thus procure redress. Congress may undoubtedly abuse this discretionary power, but the same may be said of others with which they are vested. Yet the discretion must exist somewhere. The Constitution has given it to the represen- tatives of all the people, checked by the repre- sentatives of the states and by the executive power. The South Carolina construction gives it to the legislature or the convention of a single state, where neither the people of the different states, nor the states in their separate capacity, nor the chief magistrate elected by the people, have any representation. Which is the most discreet disposition of the power ? I do not ask you, fellow-citizens, which is the constitutional disposition — that instrument speaks a language not to be misunderstood. But if you were assembled in general conven- tion, which would you think the safest depo- sitory of this discretionary power in the last resort ? Would you add a clause giving it to each of the states, or would you sanction the wise provisions already made by your Consti- tution? If this should be the result of your deliberations, when providing for the future, are you — can you — be ready to risk all that we hold dear, to establish, for a temporary and local purpose, that which you must acknowledge to be destructive, and even ab- surd, as a general provision ? Carry out the consequences of this right vested in the dif- ferent states, and you must perceive that the crisis your conduct presents at this day would recur whenever any law of the United States displeased any of the states, and that we should soon cease to be a nation. The ordinance, with the same knowledge of the future that characterizes a former ob- jection, tells you that the proceeds of the tax will be unconstitutionally applied. If this could be ascertained with certainty, the ob- jection would, with more propriety, be re- served for the laws so applying the proceeds,. Jf>8 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. but surely cannot be urged against the laws levying the duty. These are the allegations contained in the ordinance. Examine thern seriously, my fel- low-citizens — -judge for yourselves. I appeal to you to determine whether they are so clear, so convincing, as to leave no doubt of their correctness : aad even if you should come to this conclusion, how far they justify the reck- less, destructive course which you are directed to pursue. Review these objections, and the conclusions drawn from them once more. What are they ? Every law, then, for raising reve- nue, according to the South Carolina Ordi- nance, may be rightfully annulled, unless it be so framed as no law ever will or can be framed. Congress have a right to pass laws for raising revenue, and each state has a right to oppose their execution — two rights directly opposed to each other ; and yet is this absur- dity supposed to be contained in an instru- ment drawn for the express purpose of avoid- ing collisions between the states and the gene- ral government, by an assembly of the most enlightened statesmen and purest patriots ever imbodied for a similar purpose. In vain have these sages declared that Con- gress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises — in vain have they provided that they shall have power to pass laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry those powers into execution ; that those laws and that Constitution shall be the " su- preme law of the land ; and that the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." In vain have the people of the several states solemnly sanc- tioned these provisions, made them their para- mount law, and individually sworn to support them whenever they were called on to execute any office. Vain provisions ! ineffectual re- strictions ! vile profanation of oaths ! miserable mockery of legislation ! if a bare majority of the voters in any one state may, on a real or supposed knowledge of the intent with which a law has been passed, declare themselves free from its operation — say here it gives too little, there too much, and operates unequally — here it suffers articles to be free that ought to be taxed, there it taxes those that ought to be free — in this case the proceeds are intended to be applied to purposes which we do not ap- prove ; in that the amount raised is more than is wanted. Congress, it is true, are invested by the Constitution with the right of deciding these questions according to their sound dis- cretion. Congress is composed of the repre- sentatives of all the states ; and of all the people of all the states ; but we, part of the people of one state, to whom the Constitution has given no power on the subject, from whom it has expressly taken it away — we, who have solemnly agreed that this Constitution shall be our law — we, most of whom have sworn to support it — we now abrogate this law, and swear, and force others to swear, that it shall not be obeyed — and we do this, not because Congress have no right to pass such laws; this we do not allege ; but because they have passed them with improper views. They are unconstitutional from the motives of those who passed them, which we can never with cer- tainty know, from their unequal operation ; although it is impossible from the nature of things that they should be equal — and from the disposition which we presume may be made of their proceeds, although that disposi- tion has not been declared. This is the plain meaning of the ordinance in relation to laws which it abrogates for alleged unconstitution- ality. But it does not stop there. It repeals, in express terms, an important part of the Constitution itself, and of laws passed to give it effect, which have never been alleged to be unconstitutional. The Constitution declares that the judicial powers of the United States extend to cases arising under the laws of the United States, and that such laws, the Consti- tution, and treaties shall be paramount to the state constitutions and laws. The judiciary act prescribes the mode by which the case may be brought before a court of the United States, by appeal, when a state tribunal shall decide against this provision of the Constitution. The ordinance declares there shall be no ap- peal ; makes the state law paramount to the Constitution and laws of the United States ; forces judges and jurors to swear that they will disregard their provisions ; and even makes it penal in a suitor to attempt relief by appeal. It further declares that it shall not be lawful for the authorities of the United States, or of that state, to enforce the payment of duties imposed by the revenue laws within its limits. Here is a law of the United States, not even pretended to be unconstitutional, repealed by the authority of a small majority of the voters of a single state. Here is a provision of the Constitution which is solemnly abrogated by the same authority. On such expositions and reasonings, the ordinance grounds not only an assertion of the right to annul the laws of which it com- plains, but to enforce it by a threat of sece- ding from the Union, if any attempt is made to execute them. This right to secede is deduced from the nature of the Constitution, which, they say, is a compact between sovereign states, who have preserved their whole sovereignty, and, there- fore, are subject to no superior ; that, because they made the compact, they can break it when, in their opinion, it has been departed from by the othei; states. Fallacious as this course of reasoning is, it enlists state pride, and finds advocates in the honest prejudices of those who have not studied the nature of our government sufficiently to see the radical error on which it rests. The people of the United States formed the Constitution, acting through the state legisla- tures in making the compact, to meet and dis- cuss its provisions, and acting in separate con- ventions when they ratified those provisions ; JACKSON, ANDREW. 2G9 but the testis used in its construction, show it to be a government in which the people of all the states collectively are represented. We are one people in the choice of the President and Vice President. Here the states have no other agency than to direct the mode in which the votes shall be given. The candidates having the majority of all the votes, are chosen. The electors of a majority of the states may have given their votes for one candidate, and yet another may be chosen. The people then, and not the states, are represented in the executive branch. In the House of Representatives there is this difference, that the people of one state do not, as in the case of President and Vice President, all vote for the same officers. The people of all the states do not vote for all the members, each state electing only its own representatives. But this creates no material distinction. When chosen, they are all rep- resentatives of the United States, not repre- sentatives of the particular state from which they come. They are paid by the United States, not by the state ; nor are they account- able to it for any act done in the performance of their legislative functions ; and, however they may in practice, as k is their duty to do, consult and prefer the interests of their par- ticular constituents when they come in con- flict with any other partial or local interest, yet it is their first and highest duty, as repre- sentatives of the United States, to promote the general good. The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league ; and whether it be formed by compact between the states, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which all the people are represented, which operates di- rectly on the people individually, not upon the states : they retained all the power they did not grant. But each state having ex- pressly parted with so many powers as to con- stitute jointly with the other states a single nation, cannot, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offence against the whole Union. To say that any state may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation : because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dis- solve its connexion with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offence. Secession, like any other revolu- tionary act, maybe morally justified by the extremity of oppression ; but to call it a con- stitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms ; and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are will- ing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent on a failure. Because the Union was formed by compact, it is said the parties to that compact may, when they feel themselves aggrieved, depart from it ; but it is precisely because it is a compact that they cannot. A compact is an agreement or binding obligation. It may, by its terms, have a sanction or penalty for its breach, or it may not. If it contains r.o sanction, it may be broken with no other con- sequence than moral guilt : if it have a sanc- tion, then the breach incurs the designated or implied penalty. A league between inde- pendent nations, generally, has no sanction other than a moral one ; or, if it should con- tain a penalty, as there is no common superior, it cannot be enforced. A government, on the contrary, always has a sanction, express or implied ; and, in our case, it is both neces- sarily implied and expressly given. An attempt by force of arms to destroy a govern- ment, is an offence, by whatever means the constitutional compact may have been formed ; and such government has the right, by the law of self-defence, to pass acts for punishing the offender, unless that right is modified, restrained, or resumed, by the constitutional act. In our system, although it is modified in the case of treason, yet authority is ex- pressly given to pass all laws necessary to carry its powers into effect, and under this grant provision has been made for punishing acts which obstruct the due administration of the laws. It would seem superfluous to add anything to show the nature of that union which con- nects us ; but as erroneous opinions on this subject are the foundation of doctrines the most destructiv? to our peace, I must give some further development to my views on this subject. No one, fellow-citizens, has a higher reverence for the reserved rights of the states, than the magistrate who now addresses you. No one would make greater personal sacri- fices, or official exertions, to defend them from violation ; but equal care must be taken to prevent on their part an improper interfe- rence with, or resumption of, the rights they have vested in the nation. The line has not been so distinctly drawn as to avoid doubts in some cases of the exercise of power. Men of the best intentions and soundest views may differ in their construction of some parts of the Constitution ; but there are others on which dispassionate reflection can leave no doubt. Of this nature appears to be the assumed right of secession. It rests, as we have seen, on the alleged undivided sovereignty of the states, and on their having formed in this sovereign capacity a compact which is called the Consti- tution, from which, because they made it, they have the right to secede. Both of these posi- tions are erroneous, and some of the argu- ments to prove them so have been anticipated. The states severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown that in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty. The right to make treaties — declare war — levy taxes — ex- 270 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. orcise exclusive judicial and legislative pow- were all of them functions of sovereign ers power. The states, then, for all these important purposes, were no longer sovereign. The alle- giance of their citizens was transferred, in the first instance, to the government of the United States — they became American citizens, and owed obedience to the Constitution of the Uni- ted States, and to laws made in conformity with the powers it vested in Congress. This last position has not been, and cannot be denied. How then can that state be said to be sovereign and independent, whose citizens owe obedience to laws not made by it, and whose magistrates are sworn to disregard those laws when they come in conflict with those passed by another ? What shows conclusively that the states cannot be said to have reserved an undivided sovereignty, is, that they ex- pressly ceded the right to punish treason — not treason against their separate power — but trea- son against the United States. Treason is an offence against sovereignty, and sovereignty must reside with the power to punish it. But the reserved rights of the states are not less sacred, because they have for their common interest made the general government the de- pository of these powers. The unity of our political character (as has been shown for another purpose) commenced with its very existence. Under the royal gov- ernment we had no separate character — our opposition to its oppressions began as United Colonies. We were the United States under the Confederation, and the name was perpetu- ated, and the Union rendered more perfect, by the Federal Constitution. In none of these stages did we consider ourselves in any other light than as forming one nation. Treaties and alliances were made in the name of all. Troops were raised for the joint defence. How, then, with all these proofs that, under all changes of our position, we had, for designa- ted purposes and with defined powers, created national governments — how is it, that the most perfect of those several modes of union should now be considered as a mere league, that may be dissolved at pleasure ? It is from an abuse of terms. Compact is used as synony- mous with league, although the true term is not employed, because it would at once show the fallacy of the reasoning. It would not do to say that our Constitution was only a league, but, it is labored to prove it a compact (which in one sense it is), and then to argue that as a league is a compact, every compact between nations must of course be a league, and that from such an engagement every sovereign power has a right to recede. But it has been shown, that in this sense the states are not sovereign, and that even if they were, and the national Constitution had been formed by compact, there would be no right in any one state to exonerate itself from its obligations. So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, that it is necessary only to allude to them. The Union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced* by mutual sacrifices of interests and opinions. Can those sacri- fices be recalled ? Can the stated who mag- nanimously surrendered their title to the ter- ritories of the West, recall the grant? Will the inhabitants of the inland states agree to pay the duties that may be imposed without their assent by those on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own benefit ? Shall there be a free port in one state, and onerous duties in another? No one believes that any right exists in a single state to involve all the others in these and countless other evils, con- trary to engagements solemnly made. Every one must see that the other states, in self- defence, must oppose it at all hazards. These are the alternatives that are presented by the convention : a repeal of all the acts for raising revenue, leaving the government without the means of support, or an acqui- escence in the dissolution of our Union by the secession of one of its members. When the first was proposed, it was known that it could not be listened to for a moment. It was known, if force was applied to oppose the execution of the laws, that it must be repelled by force — that Congress could not, without involving itself in disgrace, and the country in ruin, accede to the proposition ; and yet, if this is not done in a given day, or if any attempt is made to execute the laws, the state is, by the ordinance, declared to be out of the Union. The majority of a convention assem- bled for the purpose, have dictated these terms, or rather this rejection of all terms, in the name of the people of South Carolina. It is true, that the governor of the state speaks of the submission of their grievances to a convention of all the states ; which, he says, they " sincerely and anxiously seek and desire." Yet this obvious and constitutional mode of obtaining the sense of the other states, on the construction of the federal com- pact, and amending it, if necessary, has never been attempted by those who have urged the state on to this destructive measure. The state might have proposed the call for a general convention, to the other states, and Congress, if a sufficient number of them concurred, must have called it. But the first magistrate of South Carolina, when he expressed a hope that, " on a review by Congress and the func- tionaries of the general government of the merits of the controversy," such a convention will be accorded to them, must have known that neither Congress nor any functionary of the general government has authority to call such a convention, unless it lie demanded by two-thirds of the states. This suggestion, then, is another instance of the reckless inat- tention to the provisions of the Constitution with which this crisis has been madly hurried on ; or of the attempt to persuade the people that a constitutional remedy had been sought and refused. If the legislature of South Carolina "anxiously desire" a general con- vention to consider their complaints, why have they not made application for it in the way the Constitution points out? The assertion JACKSON, ANDREW. 271 that they " earnestly seek" it, is completely negatived by the omission. This, then, is the position in which we stand. A small majority of the citizens of one state in the Union have elected delegates foj a state convention : that convention has ordained that all the revenue laws of the United States must be repealed, or that they are no longer a member of the Union. The governor of that state has recommended to the legislature the raising of an army to carry the secession into effect, and that he may be empowered to give clearances to vessels in the name of the state. No act of violent opposi- tion to the laws has yet been committed, but such a state of things is hourly apprehended, and it is the intent of this instrument to pro- claim not only that the duty imposed on me by the Constitution " to take care that the laws be faithfully executed," shall be performed to the extent of the powers already vested in me by law, or of such others as the wisdom of Con- gress shall devise and intrust to me for that purpose, but to warn the citizens of South Carolina, who have been deluded into an op- position to the laws, of the danger they will incur by obedience to the illegal and disorga- nizing ordinance of the convention, — to ex- hort those who have refused to support it to persevere in their determination to uphold the Constitution and the laws of their country, and to point out to all the perilous situation into which the good people of that state have been led, — and that the course they are urged to pursue is one of ruin and disgrace to the very state whose rights they affect to support. Fellow-citizens of my native state ! — let me not only admonish you, as the first magistrate of our common country, not to incur the penalty of its laws, but use the influence that a father would over his children whom he saw rushing to certain ruin. In that paternal language, with that paternal feeling, let me tell you, my countrymen, that you are deluded by men who are either deceived themselves, or wish to deceive you. Mark under what pretences you have been led on to the brink of insurrection and treason, on which you stand ! First, a diminution of the value of your staple commodity, lowered by over pro- duction in other quarters, and the consequent diminution in the value of your lands, were the sole effect of the tariff laws. The effect of those laws was confessedly injurious, but the evil was greatly exaggerated by the unfounded theory you were taught to believe, that its burdens were in proportion to your exports, not to your consumption of imported articles. Your pride was roused by the assertion that a submission to those laws was a state of vas- salage, and that resistance to them was equal, in patriotic merit, to the opposition our fathers offered to the oppressive laws of Great Britain. You were told that this opposition might be peaceably — might be constitutionally made — that you might enjoy all the advantages of the Union and bear none of its burdens. Eloquent appeals to your passions, to your state pride, to your native courage, to your sense of real injury, were used to prepare you for the period when the mask which concealed the hideous features of disunion should be taken off. It fell, and you were made to look with complacency on objects which, not long since, you would have regarded with horror. Look back at the arts which have brought you to this state — look forward to the consequences to which it must inevitably lead. Look back to what was first told you as an inducement to enter into this dangerous course. The great political truth was repeated to you, that you had the revolutionary right of resisting all laws that were palpably unconstitutional, and intolerably oppressive — it was added that the right to nullify a law rested on the same principle, but that it was a peaceable remedy ! This character which was given to it, made you receive with too much confidence the assertions that were made of the unconstitu- tionality of the law, and its oppressive effects. Mark, my fellow-citizens, that, by the admis- sion of your leaders, the unconstitutionality must be palpable, or it will not justify either resistance or nullification ! What is the mean- ing of the word palpable, in the sense in which it is here used ? — that which is apparent to every one ; that which no man of ordinary intellect will fail to perceive. Is the uncon- stitutionality of these laws of that descrip- tion ? Let those among your leaders who once approved and advocated the principle of protective duties, answer the question ; and let them choose whether they will be con- sidered as incapable, then, of perceiving that which must have been apparent to every man of common understanding, or as imposing endeavoring to and upon your confidence, mislead you now. In either case, they are unsafe guides in the perilous path they urge you to tread. Ponder well on this circumstance, and you will knoAv how to appreciate the exaggerated language they address to you. They are not champions of liberty, emulating the fame of our revolu- tionary fathers ; nor are you an oppressed people, contending, as they repeat to you, against worse than colonial vassalage. You are free members of a flourishing and happy Union. There is no settled design to oppress you. You have indeed felt the un- equal operation of laws which- may have been unwisely, not unconstitutionally passed, but that inequality must necessarily be removed. At the very moment when you were madly urged on the unfortunate course you have be- gun, a change in public opinion had com- menced. The nearly approaching payment of the public debt, and the consequent neces- sity of a diminution of duties, had already produced a considerable reduction, and that too on some articles of general consumption in your state. The importance of this change was understood, and you were authoritatively told that no further alleviation of your bur- dens was to be expected, at the very time when the condition of the country imperiously 272 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. demanded such a modification of the duties as should reduce them to a just and equitable scale. But, as if apprehensive of the eifect of this change, in allaying your discontents, you were precipitated into the fearful state in which you now find yourselves. I have urged you to look back to the means that were used to hurry you on to the position you have now assumed, and forward to the Consequences it will produce. Something more is necessary. Contemplate the condi- tion of that country of which you still form an important part! — consider its government uniting in one bond of common interest and general protection so many different states — giving to all their inhabitants the proud title of American citizens — protecting their com- merce — securing their literature and their arts — facilitating their intercommunication — defending their frontiers — and making their names respected in the remotest parts of the earth ! Consider the extent of its territory, its increasing and happy population, its advance in arts, which render life agreeable, and the sciences which elevate the mind ! See educa- tion spreading the lights of religion, humanity, and general information, into every cottage in this wide extent of our territories and states ! Behold it as the asylum where the wretched and the oppressed find a refuge and support ! Look on this picture of happiness and honor, and say, We, too, are citizens of America — Carolina is one of these proud states ; her arms have defended — her best blood has cemented this happy Union ! And then add, if you can, without horror and remorse, This happy Union we will dissolve — this picture of peace and prosperity we will deface — this free inter- course we will interrupt — these fertile fields we will deluge with blood — the protection of that glorious flag we renounce — the very name of Americans we discard. And for what, mis- taken men ! for what do you throw away these inestimable blessings — for what would you exchange your share in the advantages and honor of the Union ? For the dream of a se- parate independence — a dream interrupted by bloody conflicts with your neighbors, and a vile dependence on foreign power. If your leaders could succeed in establishing a separa- tion, what would be your situation ? Are you united at home — are you free from the appre- hension of civil discord, with all its fearful consequences ? Do our neighboring republics, every day suffering some new revolution or contending with some new insurrection — do they excite your envy? But the dictates of a high duty oblige me solemnly to announce that you cannot succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subject — my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitu- tion. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution, deceived you — they could not have been deceived them- selves. They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object is disunion • but be not deceived by names : disunion, by armed force, is treason. Are you really ready to in- cur its guilt ? If you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act be the dreadful conse- quences — on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment — on your unhappy state will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the government of your country. It cannot accede to the mad project of disunion, of which you would be the first victims — its first magistrate cannot, if he would, avoid the performance of his duty — the consequence must be fearful for you, distressing to your fellow citizens here, and to the friends of good government through- out the world. Its enemies have beheld our prosperity with a vexation they could not con- ceal — it was a standing refutation of their slavish doctrines, and they will point to our discord with the triumph of malignant joy. It is yet in your power to disappoint them. There is yet time to show that the descendants of the Pinckneys, the Sumpters, the Rut- ledges, and of the thousand other names which adorn the pages of your revolutionary history, will not abandon that Union, to support which so many of them fought and bled and died. I adjure you, as you honor their memory — as you love the cause of freedom, to which they dedicated their lives — as you prize the peace of your country, the lives of its best citizens, and your own fair fame, to retrace your steps. Snatch from the archives of your state the dis- organizing edict of its convention — bid its members to reassemble and promulgate the decided expressions of your will to remain in the path which alone can conduct you to safety, prosperity, and honor — tell them that, compared to disunion, all other evils are light, because that brings with it an accumulation of all — declare that you will never take the field unless the star-spangled banner of your country shall float over you — that you will not be stigmatized when dead, and dishonored and scorned while you live, as the authors of the first attack on the Constitution of your country ! Its destroyers you cannot be. You may disturb its peace — you may interrupt the course of its prosperity — you may cloud its reputation for stability — but its tranquillity will be restored, its prosperity will return, and the stain upon its national character will be transferred and remain an eternal blot on the memory of those who caused the dis- order. Fellow-citizens of the United States ! The threat of unhallowed disunion, the names of those (once respected) by whom it was uttered, the array of military force to support it, denote the approach of a crisis in our affairs, on which the continuance of our unexampled prosperity, our political existence, and perhaps that of all free governments, may depend. The conjunc- ture demanded a free, a full, and explicit enunciation, not only of my intentions, but of my principles of action ; and as the claim was asserted of a right by a state to annul the JACKSON, ANDREW.— JACKSON, JOSEPH W. 2TS laws of the Union, and even to secede from it at pleasure, a frank exposition of my opinions, in relation to the origin and form of our government, and the construction I give to the instrument by which it was created, seemed to be proper. Having the fullest confidence in the justness of the legal and constitutional opinion of my duties which has been eipi^essed, I rely with equal confidence on your undivided support in my determination to execute the laws — to preserve the Union by all constitu- tional means — to arrest, if possible, by mode- rate, but firm measures, the necessity of a recourse to force: and if it be the will of Heaven, that the recurrence of its primeval curse on man for the shedding of a brother's blood should fall upon our land, that it be not called down by any offensive act on the part of the United States. Fellow citizens ! the momentous case is be- fore you. On your undivided support of your government depends the decision of the great question it involves, whether your sacred Union will be preserved, and the blessing it secures to us as one people shall be perpe- tuated. No one can doubt, that the unanimity with which that decision will be expressed will be such as to inspire new confidence in republican institutions, and that the prudence, the wisdom, and the courage, which it will bring to their defence, will transmit them un- impaired and invigorated to our children. May the great Ruler of nations grant, that the signal blessings with which he has favored ours may not, by the madness of party, or per- sonal ambition, be disregarded and lost: and may his wise providence bring those who have produced this crisis to see the folly, before they feel the misery of civil strife : and inspire a returning veneration for that Union which, if we may dare to penetrate his designs, he has chosen as the only means of attaining the high destinies to which we may reasonably aspire. Jackson, Joseph W., of Georgia. Resolution of. On the 5th of April, 1852, the following re- nolution, offered by Mr. Jackson of Georgia, came up : — Resolved, That we recognise the binding efficacy of the compromises of the Constitu- tion ; and believe it to be the intention of the people generally, as we hereby declare it to be ours, individually, to abide such compro- mises, and to sustain the laws necessary to carry them out — the provision for the deli- very of fugitive slaves, and the act of the last Congress for that purpose included — and that we deprecate all further agitation of questions growing out of that provision, of the questions embraced in the acts of the last Congress, known as the compromise, and of questions generally connected with the institution of slavery, as unnecessary, useless, and danger- ous. 18 Mr. Hillyer of Georgia moved the following amendment : — Resolved, That the series of acts passed during the first session of the 31st Congress, known as the compromise, are regarded as a final adjustment and permanent settlement of the questions- therein embraced, and should be maintained and executed as such. Mr. Hillyer's amendment was adopted, by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Willis Allen of 111., Appleton of Mass., Thos. H. Bayly of Va.. Beale of Va.. Bowie of Md., Breckenridge of Ky.. Briggs of N. Y., Brooks of N. Y.. Geo. II. Brown of N. J., Busby of 0., Cabell of Fla., Chandler of Pa.. Clark of Io., Cobb of Ala., Cullom of Tenn., Curtis of Pa., Davis of Ind., Dawson of Pa., Dockery of N.C.. Dunham of Ind.. Edmund- son of Va., Ewing of Tenn., Faulkner of Va.. Fickiin of 111.. Fitch of Ind.. Florence of Pa., Freeman of Miss.. Fuller of Pa., Fuller of Me., Gamble, of Pa., Gentry of Tenn.. Gormar of Ind., Grey of Ky., Hall of Mo., Hamilton of Md.. Hai,<- mond of Md., Hart of N. Y., Uawes of N. Y.. Haven of N. Y.. Hendricks of Ind., Henn of Io., Hibbard of N. II., Hillyer of Ga., Houston of Ala., Howard of Tex.. IngersoU of Conn.. Jackson of Ga., Johnson of Tenn., Johnson of Ga., Jones of Tenn.. Kuhns of Pa., Kurtz of Pa., Landry of Pa., Leicher of Va., Lockhart of Ind., Mace of Ind., E. C. Marshall of Cal.. Marshall of Ky.. Martin of N. Y., Mason of Ky.. McCorkle of Cal.. McDonald of Me., McLanahan of Pa., McMullin of Va., Miller of Mo., John Moore of La., Morehead of N. C, Murray of N. Y., Nabers of Miss., Outlaw of N. C, S. W. Parker of Ind., Fe.aselee of N. II., Penn of La.. Folk of Tenn., Porter of Mo.. Price of N. J., Richardson of 111., Riddle of Del., Bob- bins of Pa., Robinson of Ind., Ross of Pa., Savage of Tenn., Schermerhorn of N. Y., Scurry of Tex., Seymour of N. Y.. Seymour of Conn., Smith of Ala., Stanly of N. C, Stanton of Tenn., Stanton of Ky., Stone of Ky., St. Martin of La., Strother of Va.. Stuart of Mich., Sutherland of N. Y., Thomp- son of Va., Walsh of Md., Ward of Ky., Watkins of Tenn., White of Ky., White of Ala., Wilcox of Miss., Williams of Tenn.— 103. Nats. — Messrs. Aiken of S. C, Allison of Pa.. Ashe of N. C, Averett of Va., Babcoek of N. Y.. Bailey of Ga., Barrere of 0.. Bartlett of Vt., Bocock of Va.. Bragg of Ala.. Brenton of Ind., Brown of Miss., Buell of N. Y., Cable of O., Campbell of 0., Campbell of 111., Caskie of Va., Chapman of Conn., Clingman of N. C, CoDger of Mich., Daniel of N. C, Doty of Wis., Durkee of Wis., Eastman of Wis., Edgcrton of 0., Floyd of N. Y., Fowler of Mass., Gaylord of 0., Goodenow of Me., Goodrich of Mass., Grow of Pa., Harper of 0., Holla- day of Va., Horsford of N. Y., John W. Howe of Pa., Thos. M. Howe of Pa., Hunter of 0., Ives of N. Y., JenHns of N. Y.. Johnson of 0„ Johnson of Ark.. Jo?ies of N. Y., Preston King of N. Y., Mann of Mass.. McQueen of S. C, Meacham of Vt., Meade of Va., Millson of Va.. Molony of 111., Newton of 0., Olds of 0., Orr of S. C, Penniman of Mich., Perkins of N. II., Powell of Va., Rantoul of Mass., Russell of N. Y., Sackett of N. Y., Schoolcraft of N. Y., Scudder of Mass., Smart of Me., Stanton of 0., Stevens of N. Y., Stratton of N. J., Sweetser of 0., Thompson of Mass., Tuck of N. H., YenabU of N. C, Walbridge of N. Y.. Wallace of S. C. Washburn of Me., Wells of N. Y., Woodward of S. C, Yates of 111.— 7-1. The question recurring upon Mr. Jackson's resolution as amended. A division of the same was called for. The first branch, being Mr. Jackson's ori- ginal resolution, was adopted, by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Willis Allen, Wm. Appleton, Thos. H. Bayly, Bocock, Bowie, Bragg. Breckenridge, Brooks, Albert G. Brown, Busby, E. Carrington, Cabell, Caskie, dark, Cobb, Curtis, Daniel, Jno. G. Davis, Dawson, Dockery, Dunham, Edmundson, Ewing. Faulkner, Fickiin, litch, Florence, Free- man, Thos. J. D. Fuller. Gamble, Gentry, Gorman, Grey, Hail, Hamilton, Hammond, Hart, Haws, Haven, Hendricks, Henn, Hibbard, Hillyer, Houston, Howard. IngersoU, Jackson, An- drew Johnson, Jas. Johnson, Geo. W. Jo?ies, Kurtz, Landry, Letcher, Lockliart, E. C. Marshall, Humphrey Marshall. Martin, Mason. McCorkle, McDonald. McMidlin, Meade, Miller. Jno. Moore, Morehead, Murray, Nabers, Outlaw, Sam'l W. Parker, Peaslee, Penn, Phelps, Polk, Price, Richardson, Riddle, Robbins, Robinson. Ross, Savage, Schermerhorn, Scurry, David L. Seymour, Origen S. Seymour, Smith, Fred- erick P. Stanton, Richard H. Stanton, Abraham P. Stevens, Stone, St. Martin, Strother. Stuart, Sutherland, Geo. W. Thompson, Tenable, Walsh, Ward, Watkins, Addison White, Alex. White, Wilcox, Williams. — 101. Nay*. — Messrs. Aiken, Allison, Ashe, Averett, D. J. Bailey t 274 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Barrere, Bartlelt, Brenton, G. II. Brown, BueU, J. Cable, Lewis D. Campbell, Thompson Campbell, Chapmah,Clmginan, Conner, Dean, Doty, Duhkeb, Eastman, Edgerton, Floyd, Fowler, Gaylord, Goodenow, Goodrich, Grow, Harper. JJul- loday, Horsford, Thos. M. Howe, Ives, Jenkins, Jno. Johnson, Daniel T. Jones, Preston King, Kuhns, Mann, McQueen, Meacham, Millson, Miner, Alulony, Newton, On; Vennimun, Perkins, Powell, Rantoul, Sackett, Schoolcraft, Scudder, Smart, Benjamin Stanton. Stratton, Sweetser, Benj. Thomp- son, Tuck, Walbridge, Wallace, Washburn, Wells, Wood- ward, Yates. — 64. Whigs in ronian ; Democrats in italics ; Free Soilers in small caps. The second branch, being Mr. Hillyer's amendment, was then again adopted by a vote of yeas 100, nays 65. Messrs. Dean and Stephens of N. Y. voted for the second branch. They did not vote on it in the shape of Hillyer's amendment. Messrs. Beale of Va., and Isham G. Harris of Tenn., stated, if they had been in the House when the vote was taken, they would have voted for both the resolution and the amendment. The former had, however, in the early stage of the proceedings, moved to lay Mr. Jackson's resolution on the table. The resolution of Mr. Jackson, leaving out the part italicized, was identical with one offered by Mr. Fitch of Ind., on the 1st of March, 1852, which he did not obtain a sus- pension of the rules to introduce. Jones, James C Reasons of, for supporting the Democratic Ticket. Extract from the speech of the Hon. James C. Jones, of Tennessee, delivered in the Sen- ate, August 9, 1856 : — " I have another reason why I am going to vote this Democratic ticket ; and it is a hard thing for me to say. I regard the present Democratic party as affording the only and last hope of security to the South. Gentlemen may say, ' this is sectional.' Be it so ; I do not care whether you call it sectional or not. It is a fact, and I mean to establish it from the records. I say that, in my judgment, the Democratic party affords the best, if not last, hope of safety and security to the South. Why do I say so ? We have had a Democratic party, and we have had a Whig party. We have had contest after contest. What has become of the Whig party of the North? The northern wing of the Whig party has gone off — where ? They have become thoroughly abolitionized. And the American party, rising upon the ruins of the Whig party, did it upon the hope and assurance, as I believe, that they would be able to establish a national party. They did establish a national party ; and how long did it last ? It lasted until they had the first national convention, when they broke asun- der — the North going to itself, and the South standing by itself, with a few exceptions in the North. I maintain there is but one party that is national, and that is maintaining the rights of the South. I do not pretend to say that the South Americans are not as conserva- tive, national, and true to the constitutional rights of the South as any party — I know they are ; but I know, at the same time, they have no such support at the North as to give them power to carry out their purposes. Then where are we to look ? " I ask you to go to the record, and begin as far back as 1845, and let us see how it stands. In 1845 Florida proposed to be admitted into the Union as a slave state. How stood the vote on that question? In the House, northern Democrats voted — yeas 58, nays 4 ; all others from the North, nays 37. In the Senate, north- ern Democrats — 12 yeas, nays none; all other northern men — yeas none, nays 9. Therefore Florida would not have been admitted, and never could have been admitted, but for the votes of the northern Democrats. " Again : when Texas sought to be an- nexed, how stood the vote ? I was opposed to the acquisition of Texas, and therefore I make every allowance. I opposed it upon the grounds of opposition to all territorial ag- grandizement ; but when the question came here, how did the vote stand? Northern Democrats in the House — yeas 37, nays 3 ; all others from the North — yeas none, nays 46. Then it got not a single northern vote except Democratic ones. Now I ask southern gentle- men if that is not significant ? If that does not teach something ? If it does not point to something? Here is a southern state asking for admission. We are not strong enough to admit her, and we have to look to the North for her admission. Who comes to our assist- ance ! Northern Democrats, and northern Democrats alone. " Again : when the fugitive slave law was passed, how did the vote stand ? Northern Democrats — yeas 28, nays 14 ; all others from the North — yeas 3, nays 62. Then the fugi- tive slave law never could have been passed but by northern Democratic votes. It only received three northern votes outside of the Democratic party, and I believe they were Whigs, and therefore it never could have been passed but for the Democratic party. " But I come down to later times, when the Kansas-Nebraska bill was here. Gentlemen say that was not a northern and southern question. I will not pretend to argue that. All that I know is what I find on the record. How did the vote stand? Northern Demo- crats in the House — yeas 45, nays 38 ; all other representatives of the North — not one yea, nays 54. Then the Kansas-Nebraska bill, which I regard as a southern measure, did not receive a single northern Whig vote in the House of Representatives. How did it stand in the Senate ? Northern Democrats — yeas 14, nays 4. How many northern Whigs voted for it'? Not one. " Upon each and every one of these mea- sures we have had to rely on the northern Democrats to carry and to sustain them, and without them they would have been lost, I will state another fact in regard to the Kansas bill. If there had not been a southern Senator in the world — if the last one of us had been engulfed before the vote was taken, the north- JONES, JAMES C— KENNETT, L. M. 275 era Democrats would have passed it over all opposition. It received northern Democratic votes enough to pass it without the vote of a single southern Senator ; and not one northern Whig would stand by us to vote for it. It may be said there is nothing in that ; but is it not a strange coincidence, that in each of these measures the Democrats sustained what are supposed to be the rights and interests of the South, and all others from the North voted against them ? — none except Democrats stand- ing with us, except three, on the fugitive slave bill. " Now, sir, when you come to the election of Mr. Speaker Banks, how does the record stand? After ten weeks of toil and labor, how does it stand? In the final vote Mr. Banks received one hundred and three votes, and Mr. Aiken one hundred. How many northern votes did Mr. Aiken get, and who were they ? Mr. Aiken did not receive a single northern vote which was not a Democratic vote. Where were the North Americans then, who mean to do us justice — who mean to stand by us in the preservation of our rights ? Did a single one of them vote for Mr. Aiken ? Not one. Every northern vote for him was a Demo- cratic vote, and every other northern vote was cast against him. He received every southern vote, American and all, except one or two ; but not one northern vote except from the Democratic party. How was it upon the To- peka convention bill in the other House a few days ago ? The very same thing substantially in regard to that. Now, I ask southern men — - and I wish my voice could reach to every man in the South — how do you think, with these facts before you, your rights are to be pre- served ? You tell me I ought not to vote for the Democratic party. Where shall I flee for safety and protection for myself, for my wife, for my children, and the graves of my ances- tors? Whom shall I trust at the North? Here and there is a man whom you may trust ; but what organized party there may you trust, when the rights of the South are in danger ? If there were no other question in the world, and there was that isolated fact staring me in the face, I should feel bound now, as a man consulting the interests of the country, to cast the vote which I have suggested. " There is another consideration. Are we not bound by an obligation, as high, as solemn as honor itself, to stand by those who have succored us in our hours of trial ? What in- terest have these gentlemen of the North to stand by us ? If they were but consulting the prejudices, and passions, and fanaticism of their people, they would go on with the great tide, swimming, gloriously and quietly. Yet when the question comes here, they stand by the Constitution ; they stand by its com- promises ; they stand by the country. For that they receive anathemas at the North, and, be it said to our shame, too often anathemas at the South. To the South I would say in solemn condemnation, ' Go on in your work of ingratitude, if you choose to peril all : treat these men with the ingratitude and injustice with which you are treating some of them ; and when the dark hour comes, you know that you are in a hopeless minority, you know that that minority is becoming weaker every day ; and when another storm shall come, whom will you call upon to succor you? You banish those men who have stood by you; you denounce them as enemies to the country : you have treated them with ingratitude and. injustice; and when the hour of trial and danger comes, where will you find your sup- port — where? This solemn warning comes up as an echo, and answers, Where? I appeal to this record ; if you find them not there, you will find them not at all. If you find them not at all, what will you do? Men of the South, what can you do? No allies at the North ; no support there ; no succor there. Your venerable men are taken away from the public councils, swallowed up in fanaticism, and what will you do ? You have but one last refuge, and that is your own right arm to de- fend yourself. Then the end has come, and then all our cherished devotion to the Consti- tution and the Union will avail us nothing ; we of the South shall be left to defend our- selves, our own firesides, our own household gods, our wives, and our daughters — we shall be left single and alone to stem the fearful tide. Fearful as this may be, we will stand by them and die by them." Kennett, L. 31., of Missouri. Definition of Americanism in Missouri. I am sorry I cannot suit the gentleman in my reply. He says the Democratic party are a unit — that they everywhere fully endorse the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. I say they nevertheless claim and exercise the largest liberty in putting their own construc- tion upon that bill ; and that construction is notoriously different, not only in different sec- tions of the Union, but amongst brethren of the same locality. Now the American party also needed a platform for the Presidential canvass, and that of February last was put forth to answer that purpose. If it was not perfect, it was the best we could get, and we had to take it, those of us that it djd not pre- cisely suit — with the mercantile reservation — errors excepted. But I will tell the gentleman what I do believe in — namely, the principles of my party as generally understood in my own state, and openly published to the world. All secrecy is there discarded, and religious tests ignored. Whatever may have been the case in the early organization of our party either in Missouri or elsewhere, its principles and objects are now what I represent them to be, patent to all the Avorld, and I would add, in my humble judgment, patriotic, and worthy to succeed — though, perhaps, yet requiring some modifications to make them acceptable to a majority of our people. As a matter personal to myself, I would further say, that from my first connexion with the American 276 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. party I have insisted on its present principles, those now adopted in my own state, as the only ones under which, as a party, we could hope for success, or with which, in fact, we ought to succeed. But the gentleman says we outrage and disgust foreign citizens by refusing to endow them with our franchises, and make them guardians of liberty, as soon as they land upon our shores. Whom do we disgust ? Not those already here, for we will take nothing from them in providing prospectively for a longer residence preparatory to the admission as citizens of those who are yet to arrive. We think they should become Americans in feel- ing before they are made so in fact, and we claim the unquestioned right to prescribe the terms upon which they shall share our privi- leges. Have we not reason to desire that Americans shall rule their own country, and that a majority of those born upon the soil, or who at any rate have lived upon it long enough to become, to some extent at least, " native, and to the manner born," shall make the laws, and elect our Presidents ? I know it is said in reply to this, that Ame- ricans do already rule America, and that this cry is a mere party catchword. But I deny that this is so. For the last five and twenty years, parties in this country have generally been so evenly divided that the vote of citi- zens of foreign birth, but recently arrived, and not in all cases legally qualified, has usually controlled the result of our elections, and per- petuated the power of the Democratic party. Was your President, the present occupant of the White House, at the other end of the avenue, elected by the voice of a majority of American born citizens ? On the contrary, without the foreign vote which was cast for him almost universally, he never would have been elevated to the distinguished position he has filled, and not without honor to himself, for the last four years. Kentucky. On the 8th of December, 1790, President Washington, in his opening address to Con- gress, informed it, that he had received com- munications by which it appeared that the district of "Kentucky, then a part of Virginia, had concurred in certain propositions contained in a law of that state, in consequence of which the district was to become a distinct member of the Union, in case the requisite sanction of Congress be added. On the 9th of December the President trans- mitted to Congress the communications to which he had referred. It consisted of certain resolutions of the district of Kentucky, giving its assent to the terms and conditions of the a.ct of Virginia of the 18th of December, 1789, entitled "An act concerning the erection of the district of Kentucky into an independent state." The resolutions were accompanied by a me- morial of the convention of Kentucky, setting forth the inconveniences resulting from the local situation of their district as a part of Vir- ginia. The memorial went on to say : " here your memorialists would acknowledge with peculiar pleasure the benevolence of Virginia in permitting them to remove the evils arising from that source, by assuming upon them- selves a state of independence. " This they have thought it expedient to do on the terms and conditions stipulated in the above recited act, and fixed on the 1st day of June, 1792, as the period when the said inde- pendence shall commence. " It now remains with the President and Congress of the United States to sanction these proceedings by an act of their honorable legis- lature, prior to the 1st day of November, 1791, for the purpose of receiving into the Federal Union the people of Kentucky, by the name of the state of Kentucky. " Should this determination of your memo- rialists meet the approbation of the general government, they have to call a convention to form a constitution subsequent to the act of Congress and prior to the day fixed for the in- dependence of this country." On the 3d of January, 1791, Mr. Schuyler of N. Y., from the committee to whom the subject was referred, made a report in favor of the admission of Kentucky as an independent state. On the 12th of January, 1791, a bill passed the Senate entitled "An act declaring the con- sent of Congress that a new state be formed within the jurisdiction of the commonwealth of Virginia, and admitted into the Union by the name of the state of Kentucky." This bill passed the House on the 28th of January, 1791, and became a law by the ap- proval of the President on the 4th of February, 1791. Act approved February 25th, 1791, entitled Kentucky to two representatives in Congress. The constitution of Kentucky was never submitted to Congress, nor was any act sub- sequent to its formation passed by Congress recognising her admission in the Union. Her Senators, Messrs. Brown and Edwards, took their seats in the Senate without any inquiry as to what character of constitution Kentucky had formed, or anything else. Resolutions of 1798 and 1799. (The original draught prepared by Thomas Jefferson.) The following resolutions passed the House of Representatives of Kentucky, Nov. 10, 1798. On the passage of the first resolution, one dissentient ; 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, two dissentients ; 9th, three dissentients. 1. Resolved, That the several states com- posing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submis- sion to their general government ; but that by compact under the style and title of a Consti- tution for the United States, and of amend- ments thereto, they constituted a general KENTUCKY. 277 government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, re- serving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government ; and, that whensoever the general government as- sumes undelegated powers, its acts are unau- thoritative, void, and of no force ; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party ; that this government, cre- ated by this compact, was not made the ex- clusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Consti- tution, the measure of its powers ; but, that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of in- fractions as of the mode and measure of redress. 2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the laws of nations, and no other crimes whatever ; and it being true, as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, " that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people," therefore also the same act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and entitled " An act in addition to the act entitled An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States ;" as also the act passed by them on the 27th day of June, 1798, entitled " An act to punish frauds committed on the .bank of the United States," (and ail other their acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes other than those enumerated in the Constitution), are altogether void and of no force, and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and of right appertains solely and exclusively to the respective states, each within its own ter- ritory. 3. Resolved, That it is true, as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that " the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people ;" and that no power over the freedom of" religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being dele- gated to the United States by the Constitu- tion, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the states or to the people ; that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be sepa- rated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed ; and thus also they fuarded against all abridgment by the United tates, of the freedom of religious principles and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this, stated by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference : and that, in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provi- sion has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that " Congress shall make no laws respect- ing an establishment of religion, or prohibit- ing the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," thereby guardiug in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press, insomuch that whatever vio- lates either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others ; and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognisance of federal tribunals. That therefore the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th of July, 1798, entitled " An act in addi- tion to the act entitled An act for the punish- ment of certain crimes against the United States," which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force. 4. Resolved, that alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states distinct from their power over citizens ; and it being true, as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that " the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed the 22d day of June, 1798, entitled, " An act concerning aliens," which assumes power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitu- tion, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force. 5. Resolved, That in addition to the general principle as well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are reserved, an- other and more special provision inferred in the Constitution, from abundant caution has declared, " that the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now ex- isting shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808." That this commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens ; that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory ; that to remove them when migrated is equiva- lent to a prohibition of their migration, and is, therefore, contrary to the said provision of the Constitution, and void. 278 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 6. Resolved, That the imprisonment of a person under the protection of the laws of this commonwealth on his failure to obey the simple order of the President to depart out of the United States, as is undertaken by the said act, entitled, " An act concerning aliens," is contrary to the Constitution, one amend- ment in which has provided, that "no person shall be deprived of liberty without due pro- cess of law," and, that another haying pro- vided, " that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed as to the nature and cause of the accusation, to be con- fronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining wit- nesses in his favor, and to have assistance of counsel for his defence," the same act under- taking to authorize the President to remove a person out of the United States who is under the protection of the law, on his own suspi- cion, without jury, without public trial, with- out confrontation of the witnesses against him, without having witnesses in his favor, without defence, without counsel, is contrary to these provisions also of the Constitution, is therefore not law, but utterly void and of no force. That transferring the power of judging any person who is under the protection of the laws, from the courts to the President of the United States, as is undertaken by the same act concerning aliens, is against the article of the Constitution which provides, that "the judicial power of the United States shall bo vested in the courts, the judges of which shall hold their office during good behavior," and that the said act is void for that reason also ; and it is further to be noted that this transfer of judiciary power is to that magistrate of the general government who already possesses all the executive, and a qualified negative in all the legislative powers. 7. Resolved, That the construction applied by the general government (as is evident by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, excises ; to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the go- vernment of the United States, or any depart- ment thereof, goes to the destruction of all ■ limits prescribed to their power by the i -titution : That words meant by that in- strument to be subsidiary only to the execu- tion of the limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part so to lie taken as to destroy the whole residue of the instrument: That the proceedings of the general government under color of those articles, will he a fit and necessary subject for revisal and correction at a time of greater tranquillity, while those spe- cified in the preceding resolutions call for im- mediate redress. 8. Resolved, That the preceding resolutions be transmitted to the Senators and Represen- tatives in Congress from this commonwealth, who are enjoined to present the same to their respective Houses, and to use their best en- deavors to procure at the next session of Con- gress a repeal of the aforesaid unconstitu- tional and obnoxious acts. 9. Resolved lastly, That the governor of this commonwealth be, and is hereby autho- rized and requested to communicate the pre- ceding resolutions to the legislatures of the several states, to assure them that this com- monwealth considers union for special na- tional purposes, and particularly for those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness, and pros- perity of all the states — that, faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sin- cerely anxious for its preservation ; that it does also believe, that to take from the states all the powers of self-government, and trans- fer them to a general and consolidated govern- ment, without regard to the special delega- tions and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness, or prosperity of these states ; and that, there- fore, this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-states are, to submit to un- delegated and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth : that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them ; that the general government may place any act they think proper on the list of crimes and punish it themselves, whether enumerated or not enumerated by the Constitution as cognisable by them ; that they may transfer its cogni- sance to the President or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge, and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction ; that a very numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants of these states, being by this precedent reduced as out- laws to the absolute dominion of one man and the barriers of the Constitution thus swept from us all, no rampart now remains against the passions and the power of a majority of Congress, to protect from a like exportation or other grievous punishment the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors, •and counsellors of the states, nor their other peaceable inhabitants who may venture to re- claim the constitutional rights and liherties of the states and people, or who, for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the view or marked by the suspicions of the Pre- sident, or to be thought dangerous to his or their elections or other interests, public or >nal ; that the friendless alien has been selected as the safest subject of a first ex- KENTUCKY. 27JJ periinent ; but the citizen will soon follow, or rather has already followed ; for, already has a sedition act marked him as a prey : that these and successive acts of the same character, un- less arrested on the threshold, may tend to drive these states into revolution and blood, and will furnish new calumnies against re- publican governments, and new pretexts for those who wish it to be believed, that man can- not be governed but by a rod of iron ; that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confi- dence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights ; that confi- dence is everywhere the parent of despotism ; free government is found in jealousy and not in confidence ; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power ; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go ; and let the honest advo- cate of confidence read the alien and sedition acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in iestroying those limits ? Let him say what the government is, if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our choice have conferred on the President, and the President of our choice has assented to and accepted over the friendly strangers, to whom the mild spirit of our country and its laws had pledged hospitality and protection ; that the men of our choice have more respected the bare suspicions of the President than the solid rights of innocence, the claims of justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice. In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this Commonwealth does thorefore call on its co-states for an ex- pression of their sentiments on the acts con- cerning aliens, and for the punishment of certain crimes hereinbefore specified, plainly declaring whether these acts are or are not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so an- nounced as to prove their attachment to limited government, whether general or par- ticular, and that the rights and liberties of their co-states will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked on a common bottom with their own : but they will concur with this commonwealth in considering the said acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration, that the compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the general government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these states of all powers whatsoever. That they will view this as seizing the rights of the states and consolidating them in the hands of the general government, with a power assumed to bind the states (not merely in cases made fede- ral) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent ; that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-states recurring to their natural rights in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these void and of no force, and will each unite with this Commonwealth in requesting their repeal at the next session of Congress. Edmund Bullock, S. H. R. John Campbell, S. P. T. Passed the House of Representatives, Nov. 10, 1798. Thos. Todd, .C. H. R. 3, 1798. — Unanimously Attest, In Senate, Nov concurred in. Attest, B. Thurston, C. S. Approved, Nov. 19, 1798. J as. Garrard, Gov. of Ky. By the Governor, Harry Toulmin, Sec. of State. House of Representatives, Thursday, ) Nov. 14, 1799. The House, according to the standing order of the day, resolved itself into a committee of the whole House, on the state of the common- wealth, Mr. Desha in the chair ; and after some time spent therein, the speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. Desha reported that the committee had taken under consideration sun- dry resolutions passed by several state legisla- tures, on the subject of the alien and sedition laws, and had come to a resolution thereupon, which he delivered in at the clerk's table, where it was read and unanimously agreed to by the House, as follows : — The representatives of the good people of this commonwealth, in General Assembly con- vened, having maturely considered the answers of sundry states in the Union, to their resolu- tions passed the last session, respecting certain unconstitutional laws of Congress, commonly called the alien and sedition laws, would be faithless, indeed, to themselves and to those they represent, were they silently to acquiesce in the principles and doctrines attempted to be maintained in all those answers, that of Virginia only excepted. To again enter tha field of argument, and attempt more fully or forcibly to expose the unconstitutionality of those obnoxious laws, would, it is apprehended, be as unnecessary as unavailing. We cannot, however, but lament that, in the discussion of those interesting subjects by sundry of the legislatures of our sister states, unfounded suggestions and uncandid insinuations, dero- gatory to the true character and principles of this commonwealth, have been substituted in place of fair reasoning and sound argument Our opinions of these alarming measures of the general government, together with our reasons for those opinions, were detailed with decency and with temper, and submitted to the discussion and judgment of our fellow- citizens throughout the Union. "Whether the like decency and temper have been observed in the answers of most of those states who hara lc^ THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. denied or attempted to obviate the great truths contained in those resolutions, we have now only to submit to a candid world. Faithful to the true principles of the Federal Union, un- conscious of any designs to disturb the har- mony of that Union, and anxious only to escape the fangs of despotism, the good people of this commonwealth are regardless of censure or calumniation. Least, however, the silence of this commonwealth should be construed into an acquiescence in the doctrines and princi- ples advanced and attempted to be maintained by the said answers, or least those of our fellow-citizens throughout the Union who so widely differ from us on those important sub- jects, should be deluded by the expectation, that we shall be deterred from what we con- ceive our duty, or shrink from the principles contained in those resolutions — therefore, Resolved, That this commonwealth considers the Federal Union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, as con- ducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states : That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeably to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution : That if those who admin- ister the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, an annihilation of the state governments, and the creation upon their ruins of a general consolidated govern- ment, will be the inevitable consequence : That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism — since the discretion of those who administer the gov- ernment, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers : That the several states who formed that instrument being sovereign and independent, have the unques- tionable right to judge of the infraction ; and that a nullification by those sovereignties of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument is the rightful remedy : That this commonwealth does, under the most deliberate reconsideration, declare that the said alien and sedition laws are, in their opinion, palpable violations of the said Constitution ; and, how- ever cheerfully it may be disposed to surrender its opinion to a majority of its sister states, in matters of ordinary or doubtful policy, yet, in momentous regulations like the present, which so vitally wound the best rights of the citizen, it would consider a silent acquiescence as highly criminal : That although this com- monwealth, as a party to the federal compact, will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does, at the same time, declare that it will not now, or ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a consti- tutional manner every attempt, at what quar- ter soever offered, to violate that compact. And, finally, in order that no pretext or arguments may be drawn frona a supposed acquiescence on the part of this commonwealth in the constitutionality of those laws, and be thereby used as precedents for similar future violations of the federal compact — this com-, monwealth does now enter against them its solemn protest. Extract, &c. Attest, T. Todd, C. H. R. In Senate, Nov. 22, 1799 — Read and con- curred in. Attest, B. Thurston, C. S. Louisiana. The Act of March 26, 1804, divided all that country ceded by France to the United States under the name of Louisiana, into two territories, constituting the southern portion thereof the territory of Orleans. The tenth section of the bill contained thft following provision : — "It shall not be lawful for any person or persons to im- port or bring into the said territory, from any port or place within the limits of the United States, or to cause or pro- cure to be so imported or brought, or knowingly to aid or assist in so importing or bringing any slave or slaves, which shall have been imported since the first day of May, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, into any port or place within the limits of the United States, or which may be so imported, from any port or place without the limits of the United States; and every person so offending, and being thereof convicted before any court within said terri- tory, having competent jurisdiction, shall forfeit and pay for each and every slave so imported or brought, the sum of three hundred dollars, one moiety for the use of the United States, and the other to the use of the person or persons who shall sue for the same; and no slave or slaves shall, directly or indirectly, be introduced into said territory, ex- cept by a citizen of the United States, removing into said territory for actual settlement, and being at the time of such removal bona fide owner of such slave or slaves; and every slave imported or brought into the said territory, contrary to the provisions of this act, shall thereupon be entitled to and receive his or her freedom." The bill authorizing the people of Orleans territory to form a constitution and state government, reported in the House by Mr. Macon, of North Carolina, from a committee to whom had been referred the memorial of the legislature of that territory, was brought to a vote in the House on the 15th of January, 1811. The opposition to the bill in the House grew out of the want of power contended for by those who opposed the bill to admit new states created out of territory not originally within the limits of the United States. To use the language of Mr. Quincy, of Massachusetts, who spoke against the bill — " The creation of new states or political sovereignties, without the original limits of the United States, is a usurpation of power not warranted by a sound construction of the Constitution." The vote on the passage of the bill in the House was yeas 77, nays 36. The negative vote was as follows : — Messrs. Bigelow of Mass., Blaidsed of N. II.. Chamberlain of N. H., Chamberlin of Vt.. Chittenden of Vt., Davenport of Conn., Ely of Mass., Emott of N. Y., G. idsborough of Md., Gold of N. Y., Hale of N. H.. Ileister of P»., Hubbard of Vt., Huntington of Conn., Jackson of R. I., Jenkins of Pa., Key of Md., Lewis of Va., It. L. R. Livingston of N. Y., McBride of N. C, Milnor of Pa., Moseley of Conn., Pearson of N. C, Pitkin of Conn.. Potter of R. I., Quincy of Mass., Stanley of N. C, Sturges of Conn., Swoope of Va., Taggart of Mass., Talmadge of Conn., Van Dyke of Del., Van Horn of Md., Van Rensselaer of N. Y., Wheaton of Mass., Wilson ol N. H LOUISIANA. 281 In the Senate, January 30, 1811, on motion of Mr. Dana to amend by inserting the fol- lowing proviso, Provided, That this act shall not be under- stood to admit such state into the Union as aforesaid, unless each of the states shall con- sent to the same, — - It was negatived as follows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Bradley of'Vt, Champlin of R. I., Dana of Conn., German of N. Y.. Gilinan of N. II.. Goodrich of Conn., Horsey of Del., Lloyd of Mass., Pickering of Mass., Reed of Md.— 10. Nats.— Messrs. Campbell of 0., Clay of Ky., Condit of N. J.. Franklin of N. C, Gaillard of S. C, Gregg of Pa., Lambert of X. J.. Leib of Pa.. Matthewson of R. I., Pope of Ky., Robin- son of Vt.. Smith of Md., Smith of X. Y., Tait of Ga., Taylor of S. C, Turner of X. C, Whiteside of Tenn., Worthington ofO.— 18. On motion of Mr. Dana, further to amend, Provided, That this act shall not be under- stood to admit such state into the Union as aforesaid, unless there shall be a constitutional amendment empowering the Congress to ad- mit into the Union new states formed beyond the boundaries of the United States, as known and understood at the time of establishing the Constitution of the United States. It was determined in the negative, yeas 8, nays 17. The vote was the same as in the previous amendment, with the exception that Messrs. Bradley, Horsey, and Robinson did not vote at all on tins. The bill passed the Senate on the 7th of February, 1811, by a vote of yeas 22, nays 10. Yeas.— Messrs. Anderson of Tenn., Brent of Va., Campbell. Clay, Coudit. Crawford, Cutts, Franklin, Gaillard, Gregg, Lambert. Leib. Matthewson, Pope, Robinson, Smith of Md.. Smith of X. Y., Tait, Taylor, Turner, Whiteside, Worth- ington. N \ts. — Messrs. Bayard of Del.. Champlin, Dana, German, Gilman, Goodrich, Horsey, Lloyd, Pickering, Reed. The House and Senate disagreed upon some amendments, which agreements were finally reconciled, and the bill became a law by the approval of the President on the 20th of Febru- ary, 1811. The territory of Orleans, in pursuance of the act, formed a state constitution under the name and title of the State of Louisiana. This constitution was communicated to Con- gress on the 3d of March, 1812, by President Madison. The bill for the admission of Louisiana, reported by Mr. Dawson in the House, from a committee appointed on the message of the President relative thereto, passed the House on the 20th of March, 1812, by a vote of yeas 79, nays 23. The negative vote was as follows: — Messrs. Bleecker ofN. Y., Champion of Conn., Chittenden of Vt , Ely of Mass., Emott of N. Y., Fitch of N. Y., Jackson of R. I., Law of Conn., Lewis of Va., Livingston of N. Y., Milnor of Pa., Mosely of Conn., Pearson of N. C, Pitkin of Conn., Quincy of Mass., Reed of Mass., Sammons of N. Y., Seybert of Pa.. Stuart of Md.. Sturges of Conn., Tallmadge of Conn., Wheaton of Mass., White of Mass. The bill passed the Senate on the 31st of March, 1812, with some amendments, which were concurred in by the House, and it be- came a law by the approval of the President, on the 8th of" April, 1812. Thus Louisiana was admitted as a state. American: Party op. From speech of Mr. George Eustis, of La., in House of Representatives, January 7„ 1856 :— We hold, sir, in Louisiana, and we hold it as a cardinal maxim — and I hope to God that it will be so held in every state of this Union — that religious faith is a question between each individual and his God ; and we consider that any attempt to abridge or circumscribe religious freedom is unworthy of our great country, and must be repudiated by every party in this country. We consider that it is in violation of the organic laws of the land ; and in that spirit the American party in Lou- isiana repudiated the eighth article of the Philadelphia platform ; and, sir, I now repu- diate it in toto. I care not, sir, what construc- tion gentlemen, .in perfect good faith, may be pleased to put upon it. I know that gentlemen have addressed this House, and told us that they meant nothing by the eighth article of the Philadelphia platform ; that is to say, that the construction which they place upon it could not be considered as offensive as against American Catholics, and therefore as inoperative and innocent as against that class of our citizens. But, Mr. Clerk, as I said be- fore, I care not what construction they put upon it. I listened with pleasure to the re- marks of the eloquent gentleman from the Louisville district [Mr. Humphrey Marshall], and I am satisfied that that gentleman agrees with me entirely. I am satisfied that the honorable gentleman from the Louisville dis- trict does not intend to proscribe American Catholics. I am satisfied that, when he says that he is in favor of the broadest religious liberty, what he says comes from the bottom of his heart, and that he stands with me, where every American must stand, upon the broad basis of religious liberty. [Applause in the galleries.] But, as I said before, I care not what con- struction is put upon it. The words are there in white and black, and they are offensive and insulting to the American Catholics of Ameri- ca. Let us look at what took place in the state of Virginia during the last state election. What was the construction which the Ameri- can candidate for governor of that state placed upon the eighth article of the Philadelphia platform ? We all know that, in the early part of his canvass, that candidate published a letter in which he said he never would vote for a Catholic. Thank God, that gentleman was defeated, and, sir, he ought to have been defeated. There was enough in that letter to defeat ten thousand candidates for governor ; and I trust that every man who holds such odious and monstrous doctrines, will ever meet with as deep a political grave as the honorable gentleman, the American candidate for governor of Virginia, has met with. I agree with the honorable gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Bennett] when he says, if the eighth article of the Philadelphia platform does not mean to proscribe Catholics, it means 282 THE POLITICAL TEXT-COOK. nothing. And, sir, what can it mean ? I be- lieve it means nothing. It is a mere abstrac- tion — a mere idle concession to the prejudices of one class of religionists — and has no place in a national platform. And I undertake to show to this House, if they will take the de- claration of the members of the National American party upon this floor, and if they will examine the eighth article of the Phila- delphia platform, that they will find that it means nothing ; because the cardinal princi- ple — the great principle, according to my understanding — of the American platform, is this ; that none but native-born Americans should be elevated to office ; therefore, if none but native-born Americans are to be elevated to office, all foreigners are excluded — foreign Catholics are excluded, foreign Protestants are excluded, and foreign Jew? are excluded. And they are not excluded on account of their religion, but on account of their birth ; there- fore, if foreign Catholics are excluded on ac- count of their birth, and not on account of their religion, the only Catholics who remain to be dealt with, and the only Catholics who can come up and be considered as candidates by the American party, are the American Catholics. They are the only Catholics who can be considered as candidates by the Ameri- can party, because all foreigners are excluded ; and, as I said before, foreign Catholics are excluded by coming within that designation. Mr. Valk. I suggest to the gentleman from Louisiana, with great courtesy and kind- ness to him, that, at this particular stage of the proceedings in the call of the roll, he should be kind enough to suspend his remarks for the present. [Laugh ter, and cries of " Go on!"] Mr. Eustis. I would accept of the gentle- man's suggestion, but I beg to inform him that I have but little more to say. The gentlemen whom I am addressing now are not the Demo- cratic party of this House. The gentlemen whom I am now addressing belong to the Na- tional American party, and I want them to understand distinctly where I stand. I am no Catholic, and I have been but seldom within the walls of a Catholic church — and that, how- ever, is nothing in my favor. I say I desire that they should understand exactly where I stand ; and I tell them that by that eighth ar- ticle of the Philadelphia platform, according t<> the view I take of it, they either exclude or intend to proscribe American Catholics, or they mean nothing, because gentlemen have stated upon this floor that they did not intend to proscribe American Catholics. Then, gen- tlemen, if you mean nothing by that article of the platform, in the name of God strike it out, for it is a blot upon the history of our country. Every one knows, who has given any thoughts to the prospects of this Ameri- can party, that that article has driven thou- sands from our ranks who coincided with us in other respects. The American people are generous, and you have excited that generosity. They will not agree with you in this crusade against Catholicism ; and I would rather thai this right arm should wither than be connected with any party whose purpose it is to perse- cute the Catholics of this great country. Gentlemen talk about the Papal power. The honorable gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Reade] the other day asked the honora- ble gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Stephens], whether he would vote for a Catholic whose religious opinions he suspected of being hos- tile to the general interests of this country. What right has that gentleman to challenge the nationality of his peer, his equal, and require him to purge his conscience, before he can hold communion with him on the footing of an American citizen ? What right have you to denounce him as a traitor to his coun- try, and compel him to stand before your bar as a criminal — as an individual hostile to the institutions of your country ? I tell you, gentlemen, you have just as much right to put your hands in another man's pocket, to see if the money he has belongs to him, as to take that position towards the Ame- rican Catholic — as to dare to presume to ask him whether he entertains opinions hostile to the institutions of this country. Gentlemen ought to recollect that here, in this Congress, there is not a single Catholic priest. And, for my part, I am opposed to all religious interference with our political affairs. I am in favor of maintaining and keeping up the divorce between Church and State which has been established by our great fathers. But, sir, that very same reason which makes me a deadly enemy of Catholic interference with our institutions, makes me blush for my coun- trymen when I see the Protestant Church soil- ing its robes by draggling them in the mire of politics. Your legislatures are filled with gen- tlemen who wear white cravats and black coats. Your Congress has a large proportion of these clerical gentlemen. And I ask you, with all due respect and all due courtesy to gentlemen of the cloth, to show me a Catholic priest or an accredited agent of the Church of Rome in this hall. Gentlemen who talk about the Pope of Rome ought to recollect that that poor old man, who is an object of such terror to them, is now in the custody of a guard of French soldiers. But, Mr. Clerk, I have consumed more time than I desired to have done. I will simply close my remarks by asking the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Reade] where he gets the authority for thus blackballing his peers, his equals, the Catholics? — where he gets the authority for stamping them as the mere tools of the Pope of Rome ? — where he gets the authority for considering them as un- worthy of participating in the great councils of this country ? Does the gentleman find his authority, or will he find it, in the Consti- tion of the United States ? Will the gentle- man find it in the treaty between France and the United States, by which the territory of Louisiana was ceded to this country, and by which the religious rights of its inhabitant* LOUISIANA.— MADISOIS LETTERS. 2S3 were guarantied to them ? Will the gentle- man find it in the Farewell Address of the great Father of our Country — in that address which is so often quoted by the orators of the American party ? Will the gentleman find it in that great book, the Bible, on which so much veneration has been wasted so unpro- fitably in the Philadelphia platform ? I will tell the gentleman where he will find it. He will find it in the teachings and in the inspira- tion of that dark spirit of fanaticism which is the curse of the Anglo-Saxon race. The gen- tleman will find it in that spirit by which Pro- testants were driven from New England by their fellow Protestants in our colonial days, lie will find it in that spirit which made the Episcopa- lians of Virginia drive away their Puritan breth- ren from that state. And where did these per- secuted Puritans and Protestants in general go ? What spot did they choose as an asylum in order to be protected from their Protestant persecutors ? I will tell the gentleman where they went in those colonial times. They went to the colony of Maryland — to that colony whose inhabitants were under the influence of " the aggressive policy of the Church of Rome and its corrupting tendencies." Yes, these Puritans sought a refuge in that colony which first in the United States established the law protecting every man from religious persecution. Mr. Clerk, the American party of Louisiana has a right to be heard ; I regret exceedingly that the only exponent of its views is myself. I regret exceedingly that the pretensions of that party are not in abler hands. But, sir, I will state this much, that in every Native American organization, or in every Native American party, the American party of Lou- isiana has a right to be heard ; for, if I am not mistaken, the legislature of Louisiana was the first legislature which passed resoutions demanding a change in the naturalization laws of this country. I thank the House for the indulgence which it has extended to me on this occasion. I vote for Mr. Fuller. Madison Letters. Defence of the American Party. The contents under this caption contain the material portions of eleven or twelve letters, written over the signature of " Madison,", in vindication of the American party. The editor has examined carefully all the defences of the American organization, and considering this the most able of them all, written, it is said, by the Hon. A. II. II. Stuart, of Virginia, he yields it a space in his work. No. 1. The vital principle of the American party is Americanism — developing itself in a deep- rooted attachment to our own country — its Constitution, its Union, and its laws — to Ameri- can men, and American measures, and Ameri- can interests — or, in other words, a fervent patriotism — which, rejecting the transcend- ental philanthropy of abolitionists, and that kindred batch of wild enthusiasts, who would seek to embroil us with foreign countries, in righting the wrongs of Ireland, or Hungary, or Cuba — would guard with vestal vigilance American institutions and American interests against the baneful effects of foreign influence. No. 2. I closed my first number by stating what I conceived to be the vital principle of the Ame- rican party — the principle which, like the main spring of a watch, imparts activity to its whole machinery. Let us now consider what are the measures and policy which these Americans propose to adopt, to give practical efficiency to this great principle. — There is, doubtless, among the members of that party, as among the mem- bers of all other parties, much difference of opinion in regard to matters of detail ; and mutual forbearance and concession must and will be practised in giving shape to their measures. No one can, therefore, tell with certainty what form they may ultimately as- sume. For the present, I will refer to the action of the National Council as the most authentic exposition of the opinions of the party. Its creed, as expressed by that body, is embraced in the following propositions : — 2d. The perpetuation of the Federal Union, as the palladium of our civil and religious liberties, and the only sure bulwark of Ame- rican independence. 3d. Americans must rule America, and to this end, native-born citizens should be select- ed for all state, federal, and municipal offices or government employment, in preference to all others ; nevertheless, 4th. Persons born of American parents re- siding temporarily abroad, should be entitled to all the rights of native-born citizens ; but, 5th. No person should be selected for poli- tical station (whether of native or foreign birth), who recognises any allegiance or obli- gation, of any description, to any foreign prince, potentate, or power, or who refuses to recognise the federal and state constitutions (each within its sphere) as paramount to all other laws, as rules of political action. 6th. The unqualified recognition and main- tenance of the reserved rights of the several states, and the cultivation of harmony and fraternal good will, between the citizens of the several states, and to this end, non-inter- ference by Congress with questions appertain- ing solely to the individual states, and non- intervention by each state with the affairs of any other state. 7th. The recognition of the right of the native-born and naturalized citizens of the United States, permanently residing in any territory thereof, to frame their constitution and laws, and to regulate their domestic and social affairs in their own mode, subject only 284 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. to the provisions of the Federal Constitution, with the privilege of admission into the Union, whenever they have the requisite population for one representative in Congress. — Provided always, that none but those who are citizens of the United StStes, under the Constitution and laws thereof, and who have a fixed resi- dence in any such territory, ought to partici- pate in the formation of the Constitution, or in the enactment of laws for said territory or state. 8th. An enforcement of the principle that no state or territory ought to admit others than citizens of the United States to the right of suffrage, or of holding political office. 9th. A change in the laws of naturaliza- tion, making a continued residence of twenty- one years, of all not hereinbefore provided for, an indispensable requisite for citizenship here- after, and excluding all paupers, and persons convicted of crime, from landing upon our shores; but no interference with the vested rights of foreigners. 10th. Opposition to any union between Church and State ; no interference with reli- gious faith, or worship, and no test oaths for office. 11th. Free and thorough investigation into any and all alleged abuses of public function- aries, and a strict economy in public expendi- tures. 12th. The maintenance and enforcement of all laws constitutionally enacted, until said laws shall be repealed, or shall be declared null and void by competent judicial autho- rity. These propositions may be classed, for greater perspicuity, under three heads. I. Those that relate to reforms in the natu- ralization laws which require legislation. II. Those that relate to the appointment and election of officers, which are purely mi- nisterial. III. Those that refer to the general policy of the party in the management of the govern- ment, which appeal both to the legislative and executive departments. I intend to discuss these subjects in the order in which they are stated. It is proposed to modify the naturalization laws in four particulars: — 1. To make them prescribe uniform rules of naturalization throughout all the states and territories. 2. To exclude convicts and paupers from the country. 3. To extend the period of residence of the applicant for naturalization, so that he may have time to understand our language and become acquainted with our laws and institu- tions, before he is intrusted with the right to participate in their administration. 4. To guard against fraudulent abuses of the right of naturalization. I am aware that there is a very prevailing idea that Congress has no constitutional power to provide by law, that the rules of naturali- zation shall be the same in all the states ; and I have heard this difficulty suggested as being fatal to the objects of the American party. But the objection is wholly without founda- tion. The Constitution of the United States provides in terms " that Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of natu- ralization." Article I. Section VII. clause 4. This provision has repeatedly been the sub- ject of judicial consideration and interpreta- tion, and although the opinion was at one time expressed by the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylva- nia, that the power was concurrent in the state and federal governments, that opinion has long been overruled, and it is now held by Judge Iredell, in U. S. v. Fellato, 2 Dal- las, 370: Judge Washington in Gordon v. Prince, 3 Wash. C. C. R. by Judge Marshall, in Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheaton, 269 ; by Judge Story, in Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheaton, 40 ; by Chancellor Kent, 1 Comm. 423 ; and by Judge Taney, in Norris v. Bos- ton and Smith v. Turner Howard, that the exclusive power is in Congress. The remarks of C. J. Taney are so clear, not only in regard to the power, but also as to the policy of ex- ercising it, that I readily adopt his argument, as far more satisfactory than any I could offer. He says : — "It cannot be necessary to say anything upon the article of the Constitution which gives to Congress the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. The motive and object of this provision are too plain to be misunderstood. Under the Constitution of the United States, citizens of each state are entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, and no state would be willing that another should deter- mine for it, wdiat foreigner should become one of its citizens, and be entitled to hold lands and vote at its elections. For without this provision, any one state could have given the right of citizenship in every other state ; and as every citizen of a state is also a citizen of the United States, a single state, without this provision, might have given to any number of foreigners it pleased, the right to all the privileges of citizenship in commerce, trade, and navigation, although they did not even reside among us. " The nature of our institutions under the federal government, made it a matter of abso- lute necessity that this power should be con- fided to the government of the Union, where all the states were represented, and where all had a voice ; a necessity so obvious, that no statesman could have overlooked it. The ar- ticle has nothing to do with the admission or rejection of aliens, nor with immigration, but with the rights of citizenship. Its sole object was to prevent one state from forcing upon all the others, and upon the general government, persons as citizens, whom they were unwil- ling to admit as such." Another subject of kindred character, if not indeed falling under the same head, will also doubtless engage the attention of the party, MADISON LETTERS. 285 ■with a view to see if the Constitution does not supply the means of redressing an evil which is of the most flagrant character. I allude to the want of uniformity in the state constitu- tions in regard to the right of suffrage by foreigners. By the constitution of Virginia, none but citizens of the United States can vote, and as no one can legally become a citi- zen of the United States unless he has been a resident of the country for five years, it fol- lows that no one can be a voter in Virginia, who has not been a resident of the United States for five years. But by the constitution of Illinois, it is provided (Art. 2, s. 27), " that in all elections, all white male inhabitants above the age of 21 years, having resided in the state six months next preceding the elec- tion, shall enjoy the right of an elector." Now as the vote of every man cast in Illi- nois for members of the legislature which elects U. S. Senators, for members of Con- gress, and for Presidential electors, has a di- rect bearing on the interests of Virginia, it is well worthy of inquiry whether Virginia is, under the Constitution, to be governed by the votes of aliens. It is a new and a grave ques- tion. There is certainly a difference in form between the question of elective franchise and the question of naturalization. But is not this system of allowing aliens to vote before they are naturalized an abuse, if not an eva- sion of the Constitution? A sensible writer on the subject has well remarked, "if indivi- dual states co,n admit to the elective franchise those who are not citizens, thereby neutraliz- ing the votes of citizens, not only the federal power over naturalization becomes a nullity, but a minority of actual citizens, by the aid of aliens, may control the government of the states, and, through the states, that of the Union." Who will deny that this is a crying abuse, and that all the constitutional powers of the government ought to be brought into requisi- tion to correct it ? 2. It is proposed to exclude by state and federal authority, convicts and paupers from landing on our shores, to corrupt the morals of citizens, to plunder our property, to fill our penitentiaries and alms-houses, and to burden our people with taxation for their support. This is no new policy, and it will at once commend itself to the favorable regard of all reflecting men. It is an evil which attracted the attention of the founders of the republic itt an early day, and has from time to time been pressed upon the attention of the govern- ment, but thus far no adequate measures of prevention have been adopted. On the 16th of September, 1788, the Conti- nental Congress, then about to close its labors, adopted the following resolution : " Resolved, that it be, and it hereby is recommended to the several states to pass proper laws to pre- vent the transportation of convicted malefac- tors from foreign countries into the U. S." — Journal, page 867. On the 13th November, 1788, Virginia did pass such a law imposing a penalty of £50 on masters of vessels who should land convicts in this state. In 1836, the matter was brought to the at- tention of Congress by Mr. Davis of Massa- chusetts, who made a long and able speech to the Senate, on presenting certain resolutions of the legislature of Massachusetts on the sub- ject. In 1838, Mr. Van Bur en, in reply to a call of the House, sent a message to Congress, ac- companied by many documents. A bill was reported to correct the evil, but amidst the press of business it was overslaughed. — See Congressional Globe 1837-'38, page 489, and 1838-'39, page 168. _ In 1845, Mr. Berrien made an elaborate re- port on the subject, accompanied by a great mass of testimony establishing in the most conclusive manner the certainty and magni- tude of the evil.— See Sen. Doc. 173, 28th Cong. No final action, however, vvas taken. In 1847, Mr. Buchanan, as Secretary of State, adopted measures to obtain information on the subject, and a report was made by Mr. A. D. Mann, on the 13th September, 1847. On 1st January, 1855, Mayor Wood, of New York, addressed a strong letter to Presi- dent Pierce, invoking his aid. He says : " It has long been the practice of many govern- ments on the continent of Europe to get rid of paupers and convicts by sending them to this country, and most generally to this port, (N. Y.) The increase of crime here can be traced to this cause, rather than to defect in criminal laws or their administration. An examination of the criminal and pauper re- cords, shows conclusively that it is but a small proportion of these unfortunates who are na- tives of this country. One of the very heavi- est burdens that we bear, is the support of these people, even when considering the di- rect cost, but when estimating the evil influ- ence on society, and the contaminating effect upon all wdio come within the range of their depraved minds, it becomes a matter exceed- ingly serious and demanding immediate and complete eradication."* Mayor Wood being a Democrat and in no way attached to the Ame- rican party, I presume he will be regarded as good authority, and I will here rest this branch of the subject, and I hope I may console my- self with the reflection, that as far as we have * In confirmation of Major Wood's statement, I refer to the following facts, derived from the census tables of 1850: The whole number of criminals in the United States dur ing the preceding year was 26,679 — of these 12,988 were natives and 13,691 were foreigners. The following is a table showing the ratio in four of the Northern states — Massachusetts. New Jersey. Native criminals - - 3.366 Native criminals - - - 346 Foreign do. - - - - 3,884 Foreign do. .... 257 New York. Pennsylvania. Native criminals - - 3,962 Native criminals - - - 564 Foreign do. - - - - 6,317 Foreign do. ... - 293 In the free states there weie 10,822 native criminals and 12.988 foreign. In the slave states there were 2,166 native criminals and 1,902 foreign. 286 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. progressed in the examination of the proposi- tions of the American party, nothing has yet been discovered in conflict with " the cause of civil and religious freedom." No. 3. The boon of citizenship is one of the high- est privileges which any country can bestow on the subjects or citizens of another. It carries with it rights and duties of the gravest character. It imposes on the person natural- ized the obligation of obedience to the laws, and it confers on him the right to protection, in his person and property, by the whole power of the government. It is a privilege which, in most countries, both ancient and modern, was and is conferred with great cau- tion. Among the Romans it was a mark of great distinction, prized as of the highest value ; and the simple announcement by an individual, "I am a Roman citizen!" was a passport to respect throughout the world. In our country this privilege has been granted more freely than in any other, and I think there is a growing conviction in the public mind that it has been rendered too cheap. I have had neither the time nor means to make a complete investigation of the subject of na- turalization by the colonies and states, before the adoption of the Federal Constitution. But I will furnish a few striking incidents. The 42d section of the constitution of New York, adopted in 1777, conferred power on the legislature of that state to naturalize foreigners, but with the following restriction : " Provided, all such persons so to be by them naturalized, as being born in parts beyond sea, and out of the United States of America, shall come to settle in, and become subjects of this state, shall take an oath of allegiance to this state, and abjure and renounce all alle- giance and subjection to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and state, in all mat- ters ecclesiastical as well as civil.''" See Kent Com. v. 2, p. 73. From this clause it will be seen that New York, at that early day, went a bow-shot be- yond the American party — she requiring a renunciation of ecclesiastical and civil allegi- ance, whilst the Americans demand only a renunciation of civil or temporal allegiance. By act of 1779, Maryland required the ap- plicant for naturalization to subscribe a decla- ration of his belief in the Christian religion, and to take, repeat, and subscribe an oath of fidelity, and that "I do not hold myself bound to yield allegiance or obedience to any king or prince, or any state or government." The first law of the United States on this subject of naturalization, was approved 26th March, 1790. The bill was without any op- position in cither House of Congress, but a number of members availed themselves of the opportunity to express sentiments which are almost ilentical with those of the American party of the present day. James Jackson of Ga. said: — "He conceived the present subject to be of high importance to the respectability and character of the American name; the vene- ration he had for, and the attachment he had to this country, made him extremely anxious to preserve its good fame from injury. He hoped to see the title of a citizen of America as highly venerated and respected as a citizen of old Rome. I am clearly of opinion that - rather than have the common class of vagraa-ts, paupers, and outcasts of Europe, that we had better be as we are, and trust to the natural increase of our population for inhabitancs. If the motion made by the gentleman from S. C. should obtain, such people will find an easy admission indeed to the rights of citizenship ; much too easy for the interests of the people of America. Nay, sir, the terms required by the bill on the table are, in my mind, too easy. I think before a man is admitted to enjoy the high and inestimable privilege of a citizen of America, that something more than a mere residence among us is necessary. I think he ought to pass some time in a state of probation, and at the end of the time be able to bring testimonials of a proper and de- cent behavior. No man, who would be a credit to the community, would think such terms difficult or indelicate ; if bad men should be dissatisfied on this account, and should de- cline to immigrate, the regulation will have a beneficial effect, for we had better keep such out of the country than admit them into it." Theodore Sedgwick of Mass. in the same debate said : — " He was against the indiscriminate admis- sion of foreigners to the highest rights of hu- man nature, upon terms so incompetent to secure the society from being overrun by the offcasts of Europe; besides, the policy of settling the vacant territory by immigration is of a doubtful nature. * The citizens of America preferred this coun- try, because it is to be preferred ; the like principle he wished might be held by every man who came from Europe to reside here; but there were at least some grounds to fear the contrary ; their sensations, impregnated with prejudices of education, acquired under monarchical and aristocratical governments, may deprive them of that wish for pure re- publicanism, which is necessary, in order to taste its beneficence with that magnitude which we feel on the occasion. Some kind of probation, as it is termed, is absolutely necessary to enable them to feel and be sensi- ble cf the blessing — without that probation, we should be sorry to see them exercise a right which we have so gloriously struggled to attain." Michael J. Stone of Md. said : — " A foreigner, who comes here, is nut desi- rous of interfering immediately with our politics, nor is it proper that he should. His immigration is governed by a, different prin- ciple : he is desirous of obtaining and holding property. I should have no objection to hia doing this from the first moment he sets his foot on the shore in America; but it appears MADISON LETTERS. 287 to me that we ought to he cautious how we admit foreigners to the other privileges of citi- zenship, and that for a reason not yet men- tioned ; perhaps it may allude to the next generation more than to this ; the present inhabitants were most of them here when we were eng;ao;ed in a lonsc and hazardous war. They have been active in rearing up the pre- sent government, and feel, perhaps, a laudable vanity in having effected what its most san- guine friends hardly dared to contemplate. There is no danger of these people losing what they so greatly esteem ; but the admis- sion of foreigners to all places of government may tincture the system with the dregs of their former habits, and corrupt what we be- lieve the most pure of human institutions." Here we have the principle of the American party, on this subject, clearly expounded by patriots of the earlier and better days of the republic. The act of 1790 was very short and simple in its provisions. The substance of it is embraced in the clause which enacts, " That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer." This act was passed at a time when the population of the United States was but little more than three millions, scattered mainly along the sea coasts, when we had boundless wastes of unsettled territory comparatively unexplored, and when along our whole west- ern frontier we were exposed to the incursions of savage enemies, who required a strong force to keep them in check. There was then every motive to extend inducements to foreign- ers to emigrate to this country, to strengthen us against foreign and domestic enemies, and to subdue and bring into cultivation our wild and unsettled domain. It is not a matter of Burprise, therefore, that the law was so loosely drawn as not even to require a renunciation by the applicant of his allegiance to his native sovereign. A very few years, however, sufficed to show the mistake that had been committed. In 1793, citizen Genet, the representative of French Democracy, came to this country, and commenced a series of intrigues and proceed- ings, in violation of our obligations of neu- trality, and intended to involve us in a war with England. By his artifices he raised up a strong French party in the country, and when Gen. Washington and Mr. Jefferson in- terfered to arrest his unlawful proceedings, he boldly denounced them both, and threat- ened to " appeal from the President to the people." Much excitement ensued, for foreign influence had been brought to bear with fear- ful power on the minds of the people, and nothing but the firmness of Washington and the veneration which was felt for his charac- ter, could have stayed the angry storm. This seems to have opened the eyes of Congress. In 1795, a much more stringent naturaliza- tion law was passed, which required the ap- plicant to make, 1st. A declaration, three years before his admission, that it was his purpose to become a citizen — and to renounce for ever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof such alien may at that time be a citi- zen or subject. 2d. lie was required, when admitted, to take an oath " that he has re- sided within the United States five years at least," and one year within the state or terri- tory in which he applied — and the court was to be satisfied of the truth of this declaration — and he was' required further to swear " to support the Constitution of the United States, and that he doth absolutely and entirely re- nounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatsoever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sove- reignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject." In the progress of the discussion of this bill, many sound American sentiments were expressed, which precisely accord with the sentiments of the American party of the pre- sent day. Samuel Dexter, jun., of Mass. led off in the debate, expressed himself opposed " to the facility with which, under the existing laws, aliens may acquire citizenship." He moved to strike out two years, as provided in the law of 1790. John Page of Va., although in general very friendly to naturalization, said : " He approved the design of the mover, because he thought nothing more desirable than to see good order, public virtue, and true morality constituting the character of citizens of the United States, for without morality, and indeed a general sense of religion, a republican government cannot flourish, nay, cannot long exist, since, without them, disorders will arise which the strong arm of powerful governments can alone correct or retrieve." Mr. Dexter said : — "America, if her political institutions should on experience be found to be wisely adjusted, and she shall improve her national advantages, had opened to her view a more rich and glori- ous prospect than ever was presented to man. She had chosen for herself a government which left to the citizens as great a portion of freedom as was consistent with a social compact. All believed the preservation of this government in its purity indispensable to the continuance of our happiness. The foundation on which it rested was general intelligence and public virtue ; in other words, wisdom to discern, and patriotism to pursue the general good. He had pride, and he gloried in it, in believing hie 288 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. countrymen more wise and virtuous than any other people on earth ; hence he believed them better qualified to administer and support a republican government. This character of Americans was the result of early education, aided indeed by the discipline of the revolu- tion." ***** '• Much information [he said] might be ob- tained by the experience of others, if, in de- spite of it, we were not determined to be guided only by a visionary theory. The ancient re- publics of Greece and Rome [said he], see with what jealousy they guarded the rights of citizenship against adulteration by foreign mixture. The Swiss nation [he said], in modern times, had not been less jealous on the same subject. Indeed, no example could be found, in the history of man, to authorize the experiment which had been made by the United States. It seemed to have been adopt- ed by universal practice as a maxim, that the republican character was in no way to be formed but by early education. In some in- stances, to form this character, those propen- sities which are generally considered as al- most irresistible, were appeased and subdued. And shall we [he asked] alone adopt the rash theory, that the subjects of all governments, despotic, monarchical, and aristocratical, are, as soon as they set foot on American ground, qualified to participate in administering the sovereignty of our country? Shall we hold the benefits of American citizenship so cheap as to invite, nay, to almost bribe, the discon tented, the ambitious, and the avaricious of every country, to accept them ?" Mr. ffm. Vans Murray of Maryland, de- clared : — " He was quite indifferent if not fifty emi- grants came into this country in a year's time. It would be unjust to hinder them, but impolitic to encourage them. He was afraid that coming from a quarter of the world so full of disorder and corruption, they might contaminate the purity and simplicity of the American character." Mr. Ezekiel Gilbert of New York said : — " The terms of residence, before admitting aliens, ought to be very much longer than that mentioned in the bill." Mr. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts said : — " He agreed to the idea of Mr. Gilbert. He wished that a method could be found of per- mitting aliens to possess and transmit pro- perty, without at the same time giving them a right to vote." No. 4. My last number was devoted to the con- sideration of the naturalization laws of 1790 and 1795, and the opinions expressed by dis- tinguished statesmen whilst those bills were under consideration. I come now to the law of 1798. Between 1793 and 1798 our country had been the scene of great excitement. The people seemed to lose sight of their own affairs in their anxiety about the questions which agitated Europe to its centre. There were two great parties in the public councils, and amongst the people ; one of which was partial to England, and the other to France. Foreign- ers flocked to our shores and openly attempted to control the politics of the country. Under circumstances like these, the law of 1795 was found to be inefficient, and it was deemed necessary to frame one better adapted to the exigencies of the times, — extending the term of residence before naturalization to fourteen years, and requiring the applicant at the time of making his declaration to enter on the record a description of his person, age, oc- cupation, nativity, &c, so as to establish his identity, and to prevent imposition by a frau- dulent use of his papers. This certificate was to be filed in the office of the Secretary of State. This bill was fully discussed by many dis- tinguished men, but having devoted so much space already to this branch of the subject, I cannot extract largely from that debate. There is one speech, however, which contains so able an exposition of the principles of the Ameri- can party, that I cannot forbear from giving a paragraph or two from it. I allude to the speech of Robert Goodloe Harper. He said : — " He believed that it was high time we should recover from the mistake which the country fell into, when it first began to form its constitutions, of admitting foreigners to citizenship. This mistake, he believed, had been productive of very great evils to this country, and unless corrected, he was appre- hensive these evils would greatly increase. He believed the time was now come when it would be proper to declare that nothing but birth should entitle a man to citizenship in this country. He thought this Avas a proper season for making a declaration. He believed the United States had experience enough to cure them of the folly of believing that the strength and happiness of the country would be promoted by admitting to the rights of citi- zenship all the congregations of people who resort to these shores from every part of the world. Under these impressions, which, a3 he supposed they would have the same force upon others as upon himself, he should not detain the committee by dilating upon, — he proposed to amend the resolution by adding to it the following words, viz.: 'that pro- vision ought to be made by law for preventing any person becoming entitled to the rights of a citizen of the United States, except by birth.' Mr. Harper said he was for giving foreigners every facdity of acquiring property, of holding property, of raising their families, and of trans- ferring their property to their families. He was willing they should form citizens for us ; but as to the rights of citizenship, he was not willing they should be enjoyed, except by per- sons born in this country. He did not think even this was desirable by the persons them- selves. Why, he asked, did foreigners seek * MADISON LETTERS. 289 residence in this country? He supposed it was either to better their condition or to live under a government better and more free than the one they had left. But was it necessary these persons should at once become entitled to take a part in the concerns of the govern- ment ? He believed it was by no means neces- sary, either to their happiness or prosperity, and he was sure it would not tend to the hap- piness of this country. If the native citizens are not indeed adequate to the performance of the duties of government, it might be expedi- ent to invite legislators or voters from other countries to do that business for which they themselves are not qualified. But if the peo- ple of the country, who owe their birth to it, are adequate to all the duties of the govern- ment, he could not see for what reason stran- gers should be admitted ; strangers, who, how- ever acceptable they may be in other respects, could not have the same views and attachments with native citizens. Under this view of the subject, he was convinced it was an essential \ »■ ilicy, which lay at the bottom of civil society, that no foreigner should be permitted to take a part in the government. There might have been, Mr. II. acknowledged, individual excep- tions, and there might be again, to this rule, out it was necessary to make regulations general, and he believed the danger arising from admitting foreigners, generally, to citi- zenship, would be greater than the inconveni- •; arising from debarring from citizenship the most deserving foreigners. He believed it would have been well for this country, if trie principle contained in this amendment h ■'. 1 been adopted sooner; he hoped it would now be adopted." It will be perceived that Mr. Harper went further than the American party now propose to go, and that too, at a time when the practi- cal evil was not of one-tenth the magnitude it has now attained. Yet who questions his patriotism ? Who dreamed that he was ar- rived against the " cause of civil and religious freedom ?" In the same debate Wm. Craik, of Maryland, said : — " He was disposed to go much further than is proposed in the bill, in restricting aliens from becoming citizens of this country. He should have no objection to say that no fo- reigner coming in this country after this time shall ever become a citizen." James A. Bayard, of Delaware, said : — " Aliens cannot be considered as members of the society of the United States. Our laws are passed on the ground of our policy, and whatever is granted to aliens is a mere matter of favor, and if it is taken away they have no right to complain." Upon the general principle of discouraging excessive immigration, I will, on this branch of the question, quote but one other authority, and that is from the writings of Thomas Jef- ferson. Candor compels me to admit that, when Mr. Jefferson became a candidate for the Presi- 19 dency, he relaxed his opposition to foreigners to a very considerable extent, and that after his election he recommended a change in the law of 1798, which had been passed under the administration of his great rival and politic;;! antagonist, John Adams, so as to reduce the term of residence to live years. But it will be seen that Mr. Jefferson's calm judgment in 1781, when he wrote his Notes on Virginia, and his practice whilst President, as I shall hereafter have occasion to show, conformed to the doctrines of the American party. In his Notes on Virginia, he says : — " Every species of government has its speci- fic principle. Ours are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchy — yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the government they imbibed in their early youth ; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to an- other. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it, warp and bias its direction, and render it a hetero- geneous, incoherent, and distracted mass. I may appeal to experience during the present contest for a verification of these conjectures. But if they be not certain in event, are they not probable ? Is it not safer to wait with patience twenty-seven years and three months longer for the attainment of any degree of population desired or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceful, more durable? Suppose twenty millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom ? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here." In 1797, Mr. Jefferson was quite as emphatic and much more practical in his opposition to foreigners. In a petition to the legislature of Virginia, which he prepared in that year, he said : " And your petitioners further submit to the two Houses of Assembly, whether the safety of the citizens of this commonwealth, in their persons, their property, their laws and government, does not require that the capacity to act in the important office of a juror, grand or petty, civil or criminal, should be restrained in future to native citizens of the United States, or such as were citizens at the date of the treaty of peace which closed our revolutionary war, and whether the ignor- ance of our laws, and natural partiality to the countries of their birth, are not reasonable 290 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. causes for declaring this to be one of the rights incommunicable in future to adopted citizens." — Jefferson's Writings, v. 9, p, 453. How does this sound in the ears of Demo- cracy ? What would Mr. J. have thought if he could have seen the day arrive when, instead of an ascsiregate of half a million of foreign population, there would be an annual in- flux of that number, of the worst classes of Europe ? Then, indeed, would he have uttered, with increased earnestness, the sentiment which we And in one of his letters : — " I hope we may find some means in future of shielding ourselves from foreign influence — political, commercial, or in whatever form at- tempted. I can scarcely withhold myself from joining in the wish of Silas Dean, that there were an ocean of fire between this and the old world I" How it must horrify the Anti- Americans of the present day to find that the first and most eloquent teachers of the doctrines of the American party were the sages of the Revo- lution and the framers of our Constitution ! The naturalization laws were changed in many particulars by the acts of 1802, 1813, and 1816. The last-named act guarded with peculiar care against abuses, by introducing new provisions, which made the identification of the applicant more certain, and required the proof to be matter of record. This was a most valuable feature in the law. It required that the applicant should, when he made his declaration, file a description of himself so minute as to clearly establish his identity, and when he obtained his certificate of natu- ralization this description was incorporated into it and constituted part of it. The law also provided that the date of the recorded declaration should be the evidence of the commencement of residence of five years. The effect of this was to exclude parol evi- dence on this point, and thereby to prevent fraud and perjury. In May, 1828, this law was altered so as to strike out the provisions requiring the appli- cation to be entered of record five years before naturalization. The object was to dispense with record evidence, and to substitute the parol testimony of witnesses to prove resi- dence. This change in the law was made a few months before an exciting Presidential election. One of those who urged the change was Mr. Buchanan, who had, on a private oc- casion, admonished his countrymen against the dangers of foreign influence. That change was doubtless made to conciliate the foreign vote, and in all probability had that effect. As might have been anticipated, it threw open a wide door for fraud, and it has brought upon the country a train of evils the magnitude of which it would be difficult to conceive. The American party now propose to guard against these frauds, not only by an extension of the time of residence, but by restoring the provision of the acts of 1798 and 1816, re- quiring record instead of parol proof of actual residence for the time prescribed by law. No man at all familiar with the proceedings of courts of justice, can have failed to be im- pressed with the facility with which such proof is now obtained, and to be shocked with the perjury in such cases which is hardly dis- guised. Gangs of men come to the witness- box and swear for each other, with as much readiness as they would go through any other mere matter of form. But we are not left to conjecture in regard to the existence of fraud of this character. We all remember the celebrated case of the Plaquemine frauds, when 1044 votes were cast in a district which contained but 400 voters. We also remember the other frauds of 1844, which became the subject of investigation before the Senate of Louisiana on an im- peachment of Benj. C. Elliott, judge of the City Court of the city of Lafayette. Upon the trial it was discovered that the judge had fraudulently issued 1748 false certificates of naturalization, and, being duly convicted, he was removed from office. Similar frauds have been practised to ' a very great extent in Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York. In 1844 the subject was brought to the at- tention of Congress, and on the 27th January, 1845, Mr. Berrien, from the committee on the Judiciary, made an elaborate report accom- panied by voluminous testimony taken at dif- ferent points, to establish the frauds. This report will be found in Sen. Doc. 173, 2d ses- sion of 28th Congress. Five thousand extra copies of the report were ordered to be printed, and it is a singular circumstance that the printing of the extra copies of the report was ordered by a strictly party vote — every Demo- crat in the Senate voting against it ! The commissioners who were appointed to take the testimony reported that they had summoned indiscriminately witnesses of both political parties, but they add, " they regret that those thus subpoenaed belonging to the Democratic party have generally omitted or refused to attend !" This, to say the least of it, is a significant fact. With developments like these before us, and when there is reason to believe that the elec- tions in 1844, both in Louisiana and New York, were carried by fraudulent votes, and that the issue of the Presidential election was thereby changed, is it to be wondered at, that the citizens of the United States should be aroused to a sense of the danger and degra- dation to which they are subjected, by leaving the "whole policy'of the country regulated and controlled by the fraudulent conduct of aliens?" What good man, whether he be a native or adopted citizen, will withhold his aid in cor- recting abuses like these ? It is quite as im- portant to the conservative, law-loving natu- ralized citizens, as to the natives of the country, and I am persuaded that it is only necessary MADISON LETTERS. 291 to bring the facts to their knowledge, to secure their cordial co-operation in the patriotic effort now on foot, to guard against similar mischiefs in future. My next number will be devoted to the con- sideration of the propriety of giving a prefer- ence to native citizens, in the exercise of the power of appointment and election to public offices. No. 5. Having presented the views of the Ameri- can party on the question of naturalization, I proceed now to consider the line of policy which they propose to adopt in regard to elections and appointments to office. Their general proposition is, to give a pre- ference to native citizens over foreigners, for all places of public trust. They do not pro- pose an absolute and entire exclusion of all foreigners, but a mere preference for natives, as the general rule. This is obvious from the language of the 3d article of the platform adopted at Philadelphia. But if doubt re- mained on the mind of any one as to the true interpretation of that article, it must be re- moved by a reference to the 5th article, which, in terms, recognises the selection of officers of "foreign birth." The announcement of this preference of Americans for their own conntrymen has been met by the most bitter denunciations by the courters of the foreign vote. It has been declared to be unjust, prescriptive, and con- trary to the principles of the Constitution ; and the whole vocabulary of vulgar abuse has been exhausted, by demagogues of every grade, in giving expression to their sentiments in regard to it. Without being in the slightest degree ruffled by such outpourings of vitupe- ration, let us now inquire : — 1. Is there any wrong, as a question of principle, in this preference for natives over foreigners, for public stations ? 2. Is there anything in it contrary to the letter or spirit of the Constitution ? 3. What was the opinion of the fathers of the republic on the subject? 1. Is it wrong in principle? Here let it be remembered that it is not proposed to legislate on this subject. No one has yet suggested the idea of enacting a law to exclude foreigners from office. All that is contemplated is, to awaken and to organize the American senti- ment of the country, — to create a wholesome public opinion, which will operate, alike on the people and the government, to induce them, in the exercise of the elective franchise and the power of appointment, to give a pre- ference to Americans for public stations. What will be the effect in practice ? Every man will be left free to exercise his constitu- tional right to vote as he may deem right. There will be no legal restraint upon him. His own discretion and sense of duty will be his only guides. — Well, if, in the exercise of my discretion, I do not choose to vote for a foreigner, has any one a right to complain? Do I wrong anybody by voting according to the dictates of my own conscience and judg- ment? Certainly not. It is of the very es- sence of freedom that I shall vote according to my ?wn sense of right and duty, without dic- tation from any man. And if I have the right, has not my neighbor, or any number of my neighbors, the same right? And may we not legitimately compare opinions — talk the mut- ter over together, and agree to vote in the same way ? Is not such every day's practice ? Is it not the very basis of all party organiza- tion — that men who think alike should vote together ? Do not Whigs and Democrats con^ suit together in their respective primary meet- ings, caucuses, and conventions, and agree to vote together, so as to accomplish their com- mon objects by concert of action? Do not Whigs agree to vote against Democrats, and Democrats against Whigs, without incurring the censure of any one ? And why may not Americans agree to vote against foreigners ? Is it not as legitimate to vote together against foreigners, as against our own countrymen of the opposite political party ?— Was it not as legitimate for our fathers to fight against the Hessians as against the Tories, .when they joined in a common warfare on our liberty and independence ? And may not Americans of the present day, lawfully and rightfully, unite their votes against foreigners, as well as against the Democrats, who use them to oppress us and deprive us of our constitutional rights ? Oh! but this is proscription! Proscrip- tion ! — It would cause a smile — if it did not provoke a graver feeling — to hear such a word from Democratic lips ! Verily, our adversa- ries should take the beam out of their own eye before they seek to remove the mote from their brother's eye ! They talk of proscrip- tion! Was it no proscription in them to banish every Whig from the public service, and to put Democrats in their places ? Was it no proscription to deny to 73,000 voters, representing near half a million of Virginians, a single member of Congress — in violation of the Constitution, and of the official oaths of the legislators who gerrymandered the dis- tricts ? It is true we now have one represen- tative, but that is not through their justice, but in defiance of the efforts of the Democracy in the legislature and at the polls to prevent it! Have not the Democratic organs de- nounced fierce and unrelenting warfare on the American party? Have they not pro- claimed that not even a county officer of the American party is to be spared? All, with- out regard to qualification or public service, are to be doomed to official decapitation ! Has Governor Wise ever appointed, or will he ever appoint, one of the 73,300 American voters, to any office of trust, honor, or profit? And yet, with facts like these staring them in the face, men professing to be Democrats — the guar- dians of popular rights — have the hardihood to cry out " proscription" against Americans, because they love and trust their own country- 292 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. men more than they love and trust the men of other countries ! What is patriotism hut the love of our own country ? Not merely the love of its broad plains, its beautiful rivers, its lofty moun- tains and green hills and fertile valleys, but the love of our countrymen — of the gallant men and lovely women, who constitute the chief element of the country which we are taught in infancy it is our highest duty to l'ive, and serve, and, if necessary, to die for! And shall we forget all these lessons of our childhood, shall we obliterate from our minds all the early lessons of patriotism, and at the bidding of demagogues — who are courting foreign votes, to aid in the advancement of their selfish purposes — adopt the notion that patriotism is a crime, and that it is a duty to love foreigners as well, or better, than the sons of those who achieved our independence, and established our liberties ? Long may it be before such sentiments find a response in the hearts of Virginians ! But let us now proceed to inquire whether the American party are seeking to inaugurate a new principle, unknown to our fundamen- tal laws and at war with their spirit ? The principle of preference of natives is em bodied in our constitutions, both federal and state ; and in the latter by the aid of the vote of Mr. Wise himself. No foreigner can, by the organic laAvs of the United States, and of our commonwealth, be President or Vice President of the United States, or Governor or Lieutenant Governor of Virginia ! This great American principle is to be found in both these instruments. Now if the principle be wrong, it should be stricken out of both. If injustice has been done to our adopted citizens — if the "cause of civil and religious freedom" has been invaded by those prohibitions, then they ought to be expunged from our fundamental laws ! But who will venture to make the proposi- tion ? Not Governor Wise, certainly, for he helped, by his vote, to engraft them on the constitution of Virginia ! It is apparent therefore that the principle is not wrong, and the complaint must be not against the principle, but against the extent to which it is proposed to carry it in practice. Every friend of the Constitution as it stands, must concede that it is proper to prefer natives for the highest executive offices. The only dis- pute is whether this preference shall be ex- tended to inferior officers. Or in other words the question sinks from one of principle into one of expediency. And it therefore necessa- rily follows, that even Mr. Wise and his party are Americans in principle — and the only difference between them and the American party is one not of principle, but of degree. They are not quite so intensely American as we are — that is all. They stop at the half- way house, while we go to the end of our journey ! The same remark applies with equal force to the subject of naturalization. I presume no member of the Democratic party desires a total repeal of the restrictions imposed by the naturalization laws. No one asks that foreign- ers, immediately on their arrival in this coun- try, may be admitted to all the rights of citi- zenship without some probation. I have yet to meet the man, of any party, who contends for that proposition. There are few, if any, who think that the present probation of five years is too long. Bearing this in mind, let us pursue the sub- ject further. The argument against the American party proceeds on the assumption that they propose to do injustice to foreigners. Now if injustice is to. be done, it must be by infringing some right that foreigners possess. This leads us to inquire if they have any right whatever to become naturalized, unless we choose to con- fer it on them by law ? No jurist will con- tend that they have. But if they have such a right, would not that right be as effectually invaded by a restriction of five years as by one of fifteen or twenty-one years ? The dif- ference would only be one of degree. The imposition of an illegal tax of five cents on my property is as much a violation of my rights, as one of five dollars would be. And so a re- striction on my natural rights for five years, is as palpably unjust as one of twenty-one years. The one may be moie burdensome than the other, but it is no more a violation of abstract right. If then the Democracy con- tend that the rights of foreigners are to be violated by the proposed policy of the Ameri- can party, they are inevitably driven, by their own argument, to contend for a repeal of all restrictions. But they will assume no such po- sition, for they know that naturalization is a mere matter of favor, which any government may rightfully grant or withhold at its plea- sure, and may repeal or modify as circum- stances may render expedient. Thus it is clear that upon this point, too, Mr. Wise and his party do not differ in prin- ciple from the American party. They will admit the right to impose restrictions on for- eigners, and the expediency of doing so. They are content with a residence of five years as a pre-requisite to citizenship ; we think that too short a time, and contend some for ten, some for fifteen, and some for twenty-one years. Thus the whole question revolves itself into one of time, and not of principle. The ques- tion is not as to the propriety of a probation, but as to the length of that probation ! It is consoling to the American party thus, by a logical analysis of the matters really in issue between them and the Democracy, to find the latter sanctioning our principles, and giv- ing as the weight of their great names, on our side of the question ! We are happy to find them recognising the cardinal doctrines of the American party, and we confidently antici- pate, that after the next Presidential election shall have revealed the fact, that their foreign allies, whom they have so assiduously courted, MADISON LETTERS. 293 have deserted them, and gone over to the Elack Republicans, they will unite with us not only in endorsing our principles, but also in advocating our policy ! I think we may therefore safely assume that there is nothing wrong in the abstract in this great principle of Americanism — this idea of preferring our country and our own country- men to foreign countries and foreign men — this feeling of nationality and patriotism which prompts the wish that " Americans shall rule America !" We may also set it down as an admitted fact, that it is not op- posed to the principles or spirit of our funda- mental laws, because we find it incorporated in both the federal and state constitutions — and in regard to the highest offices known to our federal and state governments. No. 6. When differences of opinion arise in regard to any matter of principle or policy connected with the administration of the government, it is a safe rule to refer to the opinions and prac- tice of those who were its founders, for in- struction and guidance ; for, however much our country may have progressed in the arts and sciences, since the days of the Revolution, 1 doubt whether we have made any material advance within that time in patriotism or knowledge of the true principles of the Con- stitution. Acting on this idea, I now ask your atten- tion to what the fathers of the republic thought of that doctrine of the American party which declares a preference for natives of the country <>ver foreigners, for all places of public trust. The first evidence to which I will refer on this point is a resolution reported to the Con- tinental Congress in 1777, by a committee, of which Thomas Jefferson was chairman, and Mr. Sherman, Mr. Gerry, Mr. Read, and Mr. Williams were members. It is in these words : — " Resolved, That it is inconsistent with the interests of the United States to appoint any person not a natural born citizen thereof to the office of minister, charge d'affaires, con- sul, or vice-consul, or to any other civil de- partment in a foreign country ; and that a copy of this resolve be sent to Messrs. Adams, Franklin and Jay, ministers of the said States in Europe." But what did George Washington think on this question ? The evidence on this point is abundant ; but I must be satisfied with quot- ing but a few passages from his writings. Before doing so, however, I will call atten- tion to some of his general orders whilst at the head of the army. They will be found in American Archives, 4th series, vol. 2, p. 1630. " You are not to enlict any person who is not an American born, unless such person has a wife and family, and is a settled resident of this country." " The persons you enlist must be provided with wod and complete arms. " Given at headquarters, at Cambridge, this 10 July, 1775. Horatio Gates, Adj. Gen." " By His Excellency, George Washington : "General Orders. " Parole — Dorchester ; Countersign — Exeter. "The General has great reason and is dis- pleased with the negligence and inattention of those officers who have placed as sentries at the outposts, men with whose characters they are unacquainted. He, therefore, orders that for the future no man shall be appointed to those stations who is not a native of this country ; this order is to be considered a stand- ing one, and the officers are to pay obedience to it at their peril. " Fox, Adj. Gen. of the day." On 17th of March, 1778, general orders were issued for one hundred men, " to be an- nexed to the guard of the commander-in-chief, for the purpose of forming a corps to be in- structed in the manoeuvres necessary to be introduced into the army and serve as models for the execution of them." In the description of the men to be selected, we find, among the other qualifications re- quired, the following: "They must be Ameri- cans born." In a letter from Gen. Washington to Col. Spotswood, dated in 1777, arid to be found in a recent publication entitled " Maxims of Washington," p. 192, the following passage occurs : — " You will therefore send me none but na- tives, and men of some property, if you have them. I must insist that in making this choice you give no intimation of my preference for natives, as I do not want to create any invidi- ous distinction between them and foreigners." The correspondence of Gen. Washington, from the commencement of the Revolution almost to the date of his death, abounds in similar sentiments. I refer to a few of his letters : — " Morristown, May 7th, 1777. " Dear Sir : I take the liberty to ask you what Congress expects I am to do with the many foreigners that have at different times been promoted to the rank of field-officers, and by their last resolve two to that of colonels ? These men have no attachment for the country further than interest binds them. Our officers think it exceedingly hard, after they have toiled in the service and have sustained many losses, to have strangers put over them, whose merit perhaps is not equal to their own, but whose effrontery will take no denial. It is by the zeal and activity of our own people that the cause must be supported, and not by the few hungry adventurers. "I am, &c, Geo. Washington. " To Richard H. Lee." "To the same: You will, before this reaches you, have seen Monsieur Decoundray ; what his real expectations are, I know not ; but I fear if his appointment is equal to what I have been told is his expectation, it will be attended 294 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. •with unhappy consequences, to say nothing of the policy of intrusting a department on the execution of which the salvation of the army depends, to a foreigner, -who has no other tie to hind him to the interests of the country than honor. I would beg leave to observe that by putting Mr. D. at the head of the artillery you will lose a very valuable offi- cer in General Knox, who is a man of great military reading, sound judgment, and closer inspections, and who will resign if any one is put over him. " I am, &c, Geo. Washington." " White Plains, July 24th, 1778. " Dear Sir : The design of this is to touch cursorily upon a subject of very great import- ance to the well-beingof these states, much more so than will appear at first sight — I mean the appointment of so many foreigners to offices of high rank and trust in our service. " The lavish manner in which rank has hitherto been bestowed on these gentlemen, will certainly be productive of one or the other of these two evils, either to make us despicable in the eyes of Europe, or become a means of pouring them in upon us like a torrent, and adding to our present burden. But it is neither the expense nor the trouble of them I most dread ; there is an evil more extensive in its nature and fatal in its conse- quence to be apprehended, and that is, the driving of all our officers out of the service, and throwing not only our own army, but our military councils, entirely into the hands of foreigners. " The officers, my dear sir, on whom you must depend for the defence of the cause, dis- tinguished by length of service and military merit, will not submit much, if any, longer to the unnatural promotion of men over them, who have nothing more than a little plausi- bility, unbounded pride and ambition, and a perseverance in the application to support their pretensions, not to be resisted but by un- common firmness ; men who, in the first in- stance, say they wish for nothing more than the honor of serving so glorious a cause as volunteers, the next day solicit rank without pay, the day following want money advanced to them ; and in the course of a week, want further promotion. " The expediency and policy of the measure remains to be considered, and whether it is consistent with justice or prudence to promote these military fortune-hunters at the hazard of our army. Baron Steuben, I now find, is also wanting to quit his inspectorship for a command in the line. This will be productive of _ much discontent. In a word, although I think the Baron an excellent officer, I do most devoutly wish that we had not a single foreigner amongst us, except the Marquis de Lafayette, who acts upon very different princi- ples from those which govern the rest. "Adieu. I am, most sincerely yours, " George Washington'. " To Gouverneur Morris, Esq." couragement During his Presidency he wrote thus : — "Philadelphia, Nov. 17th, 1794. " Dear Sir : * * * My opinion with res- pect to immigration is, thai* except of useful mechanics, and some particular description of men and professions, there is no use of en- I am, &c, "G. Washington. " To John Adams, Vice President of U. S.'' "Mount Vernon, January 20th, 1790. " Sir : * * * You know, my good sir, that it is not the policy of this government to employ foreigners when it can well be avoided, either in the civil or military walks of life. * * * There is a species of self-importance in all foreign officers, that cannot be gratified without doing injustice to meritorious charac- ters among our own countrymen, who con- ceive, and justly, where there is no great pre- ponderance of experience or merit, that they are entitled to all the offices in the gift of their government. I am, &c, "G. Washington. " To J. Q. Adams, American Minister at Berlin." About the same time he wrote to a foreigner who applied to him for office : — " Dear Sir : * * * It does not accord with the policy of this government to bestow offices, civil or military, upon foreigners, to the exclusion of our own citizens. " Yours, &c. G. Washington." To Sir John St. Clair, he wrote thus : — " I have no intention to invite immigrants, even if there are no restrictive acts against it. I am opposed to it altogether." No man will have the audacity to question that George Washington was a wise man as well as true patriot. In the passages from his writings above cited, we have the clearest evidences of his concurrence in sentiment with the American party. May we not then assume, from the fact that he sanctioned them, that those sentiments are both wise and pa- triotic ? And yet presumptuous men, who set themselves up as wiser and better than Wash- ington, rail against those very sentiments as illiberal, unjust, and unpatriotic ! In whose judgment will the people of Virginia place the most confidence — in that of the partisan politicians of the present day, or in that of the illustrious Father of his Country? In discussing the subject of naturalization, I have already had occasion to present some passages from the writings of Mr. Jefferson, showing his opinions of the unhappy effects of immigration and foreign influence, and his conviction that no foreigner should be allowed to serve on a jury, grand or petty, in any case, civil or criminal ! In this last proposition he went further than the Americans propose to go — much further than the writer of this article would be willing to go. But these are not the only expressions of his sentiments on this subject. While ministei MADISON LETTERS. 295 _ to France, in 1788, he -wrote to Mr. Jay in the following words : — "Native citizens, on several valuable ac- counts, are preferable to aliens or citizens alien born. Native citizens possess our language, know our laws, customs, and commerce, have general acquaintance in the United States, give better satisfaction, and are more to be relied on in point of fidelity. To avail our- selves of native citizens, it appears to me to be advisable to declare by standing law that no person but a native citizen shall be capable of the office of consul." Again, shortly after his election to the Presidency, he addressed a political letter to Nathaniel Macon, dated Washington, May 14th, 1801, in which he details to Mr. Macon many of his reforms. In this letter we find the following remarkable paragraph : " An early recommendation had been given to the Postmaster General, to employ no printer, foreigner, or revolutionary tory in any of his offices." We may judge of his distrust of foreigners when we find him classing them with tories ! George Mason — the author of the Bill of llights, and of the Virginia Constitution of 1776 — a man who was pronounced by Mr. Jefferson to be " himself a host," and " a man of the first order of wisdom," also expressed his concurrence in this doctrine of the Amer- ican party. In the convention which framed the Federal Constitution, four years' residence had been proposed as a qualification for election to the Senate of the United States. Gouverneur Mor- ris proposed to substitute fourteen years, al- leging as a reason, " the danger of admitting strangers into our councils." A discussion thereupon ensued in which Mr. Pinckney said, " As the Senate is to have the power of making treaties, and managing our foreign affairs, there is peculiar danger and impropriety in opening its doors to those who have foreign attachments. He quoted the jealousy of the Athenians on this subject, who made it death for any stranger to intrude his voice into their legislative proceedings." " Col. Mason highly approved of the policy of the motion. Were it not that many, not natives of this country, had acquired great credit during the Revolution, he should be for restraining the eligibility into the Senate to natives." I am happy to be able to add that his dis- tinguished descendant, the Hon. James M. Mason, now honored by his native state with a seat in the Senate of the United States, has, within the last three years, expressed, in his place in the Senate, sentiments which justly entitle him to the thanks of the American party. In the debate on the Kansas bill, the amendment of Mr. Pearce being before the Senate, James M. Mason of Virginia said : — " I am one of those who regret verv much that a majority of the American people — so far as opinion is to be gathered from the vote of their representatives — consider it wise or expedient to grant to any others than citizens a participation in political power. * * * * " Sir, I repeat it again, although I know but little, because it has not come in my way to know much, of this foreign population that is streaming on our shores, I do know some- thing of human nature, and of the sentiments of enlightened and intelligent men : and I say that the sober sense of that population, when it is brought to reflect upon the subject, ought to satisfy them that, before they become Amer- ican citizens, they should understand some- thing of American institutions." In the debate in the Federal Convention on the qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, Mr. Elbridge Gerry said that he wished " that in future the eligibility might be confined to natives. Foreign powers will intermeddle in our affairs, and spare no ex- pense to influence them. Persons having foreign attachments will be insinuated into our councils, in order to be made instruments for their purposes. Every one knows the vast sums laid out in Europe for secret services." The strength of the American feeling during the administration of Mr. Madison will be ap- parent from the fact, that when he nominated Mr. Gallatin, as one of the commissioners to negotiate the treaty of peace with Great Bri- tain, Wm. B. Giles of Va., Samuel Smith of Md., and Mr. Stone of N. C, strongly op- posed the nomination on the ground that Mr. G. was a foreigner, and he was rejected in the Senate by a vote of 18 to 17. Mr. Madison afterwards nominated Mr. Gallatin as Minister to France, and he was confirmed in the absence of the above-named gentlemen. The apology for this violation of the settled policy of the government was, that Mr. Gallatin came to the United States in 1781, being prior to the formation of the Fed- eral Constitution. Mr. John Randolph was also a strong Amer ican in his sentiments. When the bill for chartering the Bank of the United States wa* before Congress, Mr. R. moved to add the word " Native," in the clause which limited the choice of directors to citizens of the United States. In the course of his remarks " he inveighed, with much acrimony, against the whole class of naturalized citizens ; attributing to them the declaration of war, and almost all other political evils — maintaining, that they ought to be admitted only as denizens, without any participation in the councils of the country and the benefit only of protection during good behavior."— Niles Reg. 10, 31-47. But there is another authority which among all professing to be Democrats will, I presume, be regarded as of the most important charac- ter. I allude to the Virginia legislature of 1798-'9. That venerable body has received at the hands of the Democracy, a sort of political apotheosis. Its patriotism and wisdom and profound knowledge of the Constitution are the constant themes of praise. The celebrated resolutions passed by it on the 21st of Decern- 296 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ber, 1798, are regarded as of but little less authority than the Constitution itself. No convention of the party, state or federal, closes its sessions without a reverent acknowledg- ment and reaffirmation of the doctrines of 1798-'99. Let us then see what that illustrious body of statesmen thought, and officially declared, in regard to the peculiar principles of the American party ? By reference to the New Series of Hening's Statutes at Large, vol. 2, p. 194, it will be seen that on the 16th day of January, 1799, the legislature of Virginia, in response to certain resolutions of Massachu- setts, passed the following preamble and reso- lution : — " The General Assembly, nevertheless, con- curring in opinion with the legislature of Massachusetts, that every constitutional bar- rier should be opposed to the introduction of foreign influence into our National Councils: — " Resolved, That the Constitution ought to be so amended that no foreigner who shall not have acquired rights under the Constitution and laws, at the time of making this amend- ment, shall thereafter be eligible to the office of Senator and Representative in the Congress of the United States, nor to any office in the judiciary or executive departments." What will our Democratic friends say to this ? This solemn resolution emanated from the same source, and is recorded in the same journal with the other resolutions of '98-'99, which constitute the basis of their political creed. How can they discriminate between them ? How can they claim infallibility for the one set of resolutions, and denounce the other as containing a dangerous political heresy? Truly they are placed in an awk- ward dilemma ! But it would seem that the Democracy have not always been such devoted friends of foreigners, as they now profess to be. Some twelve or fourteen years ago, Mr. Webster, then Secretary of State, appointed Mr. Reynolds, a foreigner, to a clerkship in that department. This act at once drew down on Mr. Webster the most bitter denunciation of the Democratic press. The New York Evening Post, edited by W. C. Bryant, published an article on the sub- ject (which was copied by the Globe,) from which the following is an extract: "The ap- pointment of a man named Reynolds, an alien, by Mr. Webster, to a place in the department of state, has astonished those who knew him in this city." ***** " The indecency of this appointment of an alien to a post in the department which has charge over our foreign relations, will surprise those who have not, like us, ceased to be sur- prised at anything done by Mr. Webster." I will close this article (already too much extended), by a gem from the celebrated ora- tion of Mr. Buchanan, the favorite candidate of the Democracy of Virginia for the Presiden- cy. This oration was delivered at Lancaster, Pa., on 4th of July, 1815. Mr. B. said, " Again we stand neutral to- wards all the European powers. What then , should be the political conduct of our country in future? Precisely to pursue the political maxims adopted by Washington. We ought to cultivate peace with all nations by adopting a strict neutrality ; not only of conduct, but of sentiment. We ought to make our neutral- ity respected, by placing ourselves in an atti- tude of defence. We ought for ever to aban- don the wild project of a philosophic visionary (Quere — Does he mean Mr. Jefferson ?), of let- ting commerce protect itself. For its protec- tion we ought to increase our navy. (No more gun-boats ! I suppose.) We ought never to think of embargoes and non-intercourse laws without abhorrence. (A pretty hard hit at Mr. Jefferson !) We ought to use every honest exertion to turn out of power those weak and wicked men (Mr. Madison was then President), who have abandoned the political path marked out for this country by Washing- ton, and whose wild and visionary theories (the doctrines of the Democratic party) have at length been tested by experience and found wanting. Above all, we ought to drive from our shores foreign influence, and cherish ex- clusively American feelings. Foreign influ- ence has been, in every age, the curse of republics. Her jaundiced eyes see all things in false colors. The thick atmosphere of pre- judice, by which she is ever surrounded, ex- cludes from her sight the light of heaven. Whilst she worships the nation which she favors for this very crime, she curses the enemy of that nation for her very virtues. In every age she has marched before the enemies of her country, proclaiming peace when there was no peace, and lulling its defenders into fatal security while the iron hand of despotism was aiming a death-blow at her liberties. Already our infant republic has felt her withering influences. Already she has in- volved us in a war, which has nearly cost us our existence. Let us then learn wisdom from experience, and for ever banish this fiend from our society." No. 7. The next topic which I propose to discuss is the immigration to this country — its growth, extent, and character — and its relations to crime, pauperism, social and political order, and to Southern institutions : — If the inquiry were propounded to any candid man, whether, in his opinion, there ia any great nation in Europe, at the present time, which is capable of sustaining republican institutions, the answer would necessarily be in the negative. England, the most enlight- ened and best educated in the principles of liberty of all the countries of the old world, has made the experiment and failed. France, which boasts of its refinement and civilization, and which has outstripped every other country in its progress in the arts and sciences, has twice made the effort, and, after passing through the most appalling scenes of anarchy and blood, has relapsed into despotism. Nev- MADISON LETTERS. 297 ther Bussia, Prussia, nor Austria have ever ventured on the hopeless attempt. The spas- modic convulsions in Italy and Hungary have not been marked by a single circumstance tending to indicate that those who incited the people to insurrection had the faintest com- prehension of the principles of national free- dom. And yet it is from these countries that the immigrants flock to our shores. As a general rule, too, I may add that those who come are not of the better classes — not those who are educated and prosperous in their own country — but the ignorant, the starving, and the depraved, those who "leave their country for their country's good." That there are many exceptions, I am willing to admit, but that the general remark is correct, will not be denied by any who have seen the hordes of foreigners who are crowding to our North- western states, or who have visited our lines of internal improvements and the outskirts and alleys of our cities, or who have inspected the criminal calendars of our courts. Assuming these propositions to be true, the inquiry very naturally suggests itself, if these people — even the best of them — are incapable of maintaining a free government at home, what additional qualifications do they acquire for the fulfilment of the high functions of a citizen of a republic, by being transported across the Atlantic ? Can they change their nature, — their habits, — their prejudices, by a change in their geographical position ? Do they become wiser and better men by a voyage across the ocean ? No one will contend for a proposition so absurd upon its face. How then can we expect immigrants, forthwith to understand the theory and practical operations of our complicated systems of governments, and to be prepared to participate intelligently in their administration ? If the whole popu- lation was of this character, all will admit that our government could not stand many years. Nay, if one-half or one-third of our people were foreigners, of recent importation, it must be manifest, that the existence of our institutions would be in imminent jeopardy. And if such be the fact, does it not follow that precisely as you augment the proportion of the foreign to the native population, you augment the perils to freedom ? Of all governments on earth ours requires the largest amount of virtue and intelligence to sustain it. Its very foundation is laid in the virtue, intelligence, and patriotism of the people. Let them become corrupt, ignorant, or careless in the discharge their duties, and the government can no longer stand. Igno- rance may be tolerated in a subject, because he has no part to perform but to yield obedi- ence. But where the people are the sources of all power — where they perform important functions in the administration of public affairs, if they are deficient either in knowledge of their duties, or in the integrity necessary to a faithful discharge of them, the whole machi- nery must at once become deranged, and the most disastrous consequences ensue. Bearing these facts in mind, let us now turn to the statistical tables, and see what has been the extent of immigration to this country since 1790 (the earliest date from which we have any information to be relied on), to the begin- ning of the year 1855. From 1790 to 1800 the number of 50,000 70,000 1800 1810 immigrants was 1810 1820 1830 1840 18-U 1820 1830 1840 1844 1855 114,000 135,986 579,370 334,339 - 2,523,758 This is the estimate of Mr. De Bow in his census report made to Congress and published by its order. The following statement will show the average annual immigration in the various periods above stated. From 1790 to 1800 the average per year was 5,000 1800 1810 - - 7,000 1810 1820 - - 11,400 1820 1830 - - 13,598 1830 1840 - - 57,937 1840 1844 - . 83,564 1844 1855 - - 229,432 This table shows that for the last eleven years the average annual immigration was nearly thirty-fold greater than during the first decade ! But, startling as this fact is, it does not pre- sent the case in its strongest light. Mr. De Bow's tables are compiled from the reports of the collectors of the principal ports, which are very often imperfect, and do not present the whole truth, because captains of vessels being limited by law in regard to the number of their passengers, have a strong interest, when they violate it by bringing more than the number allowed by law, to conceaJ the fact by false returns. Other tables made from returns in the office of the Secretary of State, of the number of passengers who arrived in this country from 1843 to 1855, show the following result, in round numbers : — From 30th Sept. 1843 - - - 84,000 « 1844 - - - 119,000 " 1845 - - - 158,000 " 1846 - - - 232,000 " 1847 - - - 220,000 a a 1848 - - 309,000 CI (I 1849 - 66,000 31st Dec. 1849 - - 315,000 it u 1850 - - 408,000 u a 1851 - - 398,000 U (< 1852 - - 400,000 u a 1853 - - 460,000 Agg'e (including fractions omitted) 3,174,395 But even these tables do not show the whole amount of immigration, because they embrace only those who arrive by sea, and do not include such as come in by land from the British possessions, or any of the other conti- guous countries. 298 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. It will, I doubt not, be safe to adopt the estimate of many well-informed persons, that for the year 1853, the aggregate immigration of the United States, by land and sea, was not short of half a million of souls ! In this connexion, let us look at some other facts derived from the census tables, and in regard to the accuracy of which there can be no doubt. In 1850 the white population of Virginia was 894,800 Maryland 417,943 North Carolina 553,028 South Carolina 274,563 Georgia 521,572 Alabama 426,514 Louisiana 255,491 Florida 47,203 It will be seen that at the rate of immigra- tion in 1853, there arrived in this country, every year, a sufficient number of persons to make a state embracing as large a white popu- lation as Maryland or Alabama ! and within a fraction enough to make one having as large a white population as North Carolina or Georgia ! Every two years there would be enough to balance the white population of Virginia ! Every six months there would be almost enough to offset South Carolina or Louisiana ! And every five weeks a sufficient number to act as a counterpoise to the entire white popu- lation of Florida ! ! and every year enough to weigh down in the political scale ten such states as Florida ! ! Is this a picture to be contemplated with pleasure by the citizens of America ? But there is one other aspect in which I would present the subject to the people of the Southern states. In 1850 the aggregate whito population of all the slave states was 6,547,993. Assuming the immigration to continue what it was in 1853 — making no allowance for its increase, though the tables show it had been progressively and rapidly increasing every year — it will be seen that in thirteen years a foreign population would be poured on our shores equal to the entire white population of the fifteen slave states ! The next inquiry is, where do these foreign- ers settle ? The census tables enable us to answer that question with accuracy. In 1850 there were in the free states, of foreigners - - • - - 1,924,011 Do. do. slave states 316,673 Or, in other words, about six out of seven of immigrants settled in the free states. But this statement is too favorable to the South, for it is well known that a large pro- portion of the foreigners, reported as residents of the South, were only temporary sojourners, as laborers on railroads, canals, &c, and as soon as their contracts were completed, they would naturally seek a climate and a popula- tion more congenial to their constitution and their tastes, in the Northern states. From these figures, it is easy to see what has been at least one potential cause of the relative decline of the South in representation and influence in the national councils. But unfortunately for the country it hap- pens, that as the number of immigrants in- creases, their character for intelligence and virtue, and all the qualities that make good citizens, depreciates. In the early days of the republic, the immi- grants constituted one of the most valuable classes of our population. They were gene- rally men of adventurous spirit — of energy, intelligence, and education — men who were attracted here by commerce, or the arts, or the learned professions. Their education and refinement fitted them for association with the most cultivated society, and they soon assimilated to the circles in which they moved. Such were the Scotch and Irish merchants, who settled in the valleys of the Rappahan- nock, the Potomac, and the James. Such were the refugees who fled from the horrors of the bloody days of the Goddess of Reason ! But what is the character of the great mass of those who crowd our immigrant ships now ? They are the most ignorant of their country- men — those who fly from starvation in their native land — whose highest aspiration is to satisfy the cravings of nature — who are igno- rant of our laws, of our language, and of our institutions — and whose idea of liberty is com- prehended in the license to drink all the whis- key they can get, and to indulge in the luxury of riots and the gratification of provincial animosities, without hindrance from the offi- cers of the law. I appeal to the history of the country, and to the personal observation of every man who has seen large bodies of them assembled, on public works, and in populous cities, for the truth of the picture that I have drawn. Yet such are the people who are imported to this country at the rate of half a million a year, and by fraudulent devices, in a few weeks or months, invested with all the privileges and franchises of American citizens ! Such are the men who are to give tone to our politics and to mould our legislation ! Theirs is to be the standard of intelligence, and patriotism, and devotion to liberty, which is to be con- sulted by aspirants to places of honor and trust, to be conferred by their suffrages ! Each one of these is to weigh as much in the politi- cal scale as a Washington, a Henry, a Jeffer- son, or a Madison, of the olden time ; or a Rives, or Mason, or Hunter, or Summers, of the present day ! And because our American feeling revolts at this, we are to be taunted with being hostile to the " cause of civil and religious freedom \" No. 8. To qualify a people for a republican govern- ment, they must not only have intelligence and virtue, but they must undergo a system of training and instruction in the principles of liberty, and in the practical workings of free MADISON LETTERS. 290 institutions. They must learn to reverence the law and to obey it. They must acquire self-re- spect, and self-confidence, and understand that their well-being is inseparably interwoven with the peace and good order of society. They must comprehend that the restraints of social Organization are not the arbitrary impositions of tyrannical power, but the voluntary sur- render of a portion of their natural liberty for the more secure enjoj'inent of the residue. Without such a training, the efforts of our ancestors to establish our present form of gov- ernment would have proved an abortion. For more than one hundred years, they were edu- cated in the principles of free government, under the fostering care of the mother coun- try. Widely separated from England, the colo- nies were necessarily intrusted with the power of legislation, subject of course, to the super- vision of the supreme government of Great Britain. This led the colonists to study the principles of freedom, engrafted during a long succession of ages on the British constitution, and to practise them in the regulation of their own affairs. When the crisis, therefore, ar- rived in their affairs, caused by the attempt of the mother country to violate the rights of the colonies, they were prepared to understand the wrong that was about to be done them, and to assert the true doctrines of liberty in their own behalf. The protracted struggle of the Revolution, and the dangers and sufferings incident to it, also tended to enlighten the minds of the peo- ple, and to fit them for the high responsibili- ties of their position. Discussion was the order of the day throughout the colonies. The ablest men of the country were busily engaged in explaining to the people, in oral harangues, and published addresses, the nature of the evils with which they were threatened. The whole country was aroused to the highest pitch of excitement. Information was greedily sought for by all classes. The works of Mil- ton, Locke, and Hampden were in every hand ; and there never has been a day, when the mind of a nation was so thoroughly aroused, and so well instructed, not only in regard to the particular questions involved, but also in regard to the abstract nature of the rights and duties of the government and the people, as were the colonists at the close of the Revo- lutionary war. Thus taught in a seven years' school of trial and adversity, when they came to form a government, they brought to the council cham- ber an amount of knowledge of the true prin- ciples of freedom which, I venture to say, no nation of the present day could equal. But with all these advantages, it was after long trial and tribulation that they were enabled to consolidate their liberties, by the adoption of the admirable system of government under which we live. Is it a matter of surprise then that Ameri- cans — the descendants of those who accom- plished this great work, and who have learned, not only from history, but from the lips of their fathers, the dangers and troubles by which the country was surrounded, and the difficulty with which they were surmounted, should look with jealousy on everything which tends to put their priceless heritage in peril ? Is it to be wondered at, that, knowing the complexity and delicacy of the great machine intrusted to their charge, they should be un- willing to see it surrendered to ignorant, in- competent, or unfaithful hands ? How is it possible that foreigners can have the same interest in, and attachment to, our country and its institutions as Americans ? All their early recollections are associated with a far distant land. Their traditions, sympa- thies, and affections (if they be good men) are all with the homes of their childhood. As Archbishop Hughes remarked, with equal truth and beauty, " I would not exchange the bright memories of my early boyhood, in another land, and under another sky, for those of any other man living, no matter where he was born." Who does not concur in the noble sentiments expressed by Henry Clay, in the Senate, on the 7th of February, 1839—" The Searcher of all hearts," said he, " knows that every pulsa- tion of my mind beats high and strong in the cause of civil liberty ; wherever it is safe and practicable, I desire to see every portion of the human family in the enjoyment of it. But I prefer the liberty of my own country to that of any other people, and the liberty of my own race to that of any other." Shall we then jeopard the liberty of " our own country" and " our own race" by intrust- ing it to the custody of people of foreign coun- tries, and of a race alien to our own ? But let us now turn to the statistics of pau- perism, crime, intemperance, and vagrancy, and see what revelations they will make in regard to the virtue and intelligence and ca- pacity for self-government of our foreign pop- ulation. The report of the superintendent of the census shows that, in 1850, there was ex- pended in the United States, of public money for the support of paupers, $2,954,806. This was, of course, independent of all private charities. The number of paupers supported was 134,972, and of these, 68,538, or more than one-half, were foreigners ! New York had, in that year, 40,580 foreign paupers, and only 19,275 natives. In that state, one in every sixteen of her foreign pop- ulation was a pauper, whilst of the native pop- ulation, but one of every one hundred and twenty-seven was of that class. In Pennsylvania, one in fifty-four of the foreign population was a pauper, and one in three hundred and forty-two of the native pop- ulation. From other sources, such as the Prison Dis- cipline Journal, American Register, American Almanac, &c, the following facts have been ascertained : — From 1837 to 1840, there were 8671 persona 300 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. relieved and maintained in Massachusetts at public expense, and of this number 6104 were foreigners. The number received into the Baltimore Almshouse in 1851 was 2150, of which num- ber about 900 were Irish and Germans. In 1854, the whole number received was 2358, of whom 1398 were foreigners; 641 being Germans, and 593 Irish. In Louisville, the number of inmates of the Almshouse was 164, of whom 135 were for- eigners. In Buffalo, New York, the returns of com- mitments to the Work-House are as follows : — Native. Foreign. Total. 1852 254 708 962 1853 318 832 1150 1854 344 854 1198 1855 360 1022 1382 Total, 4 years, 1276 3416 4692 In Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, the Trans- cript says, that during a period of nine months, 553 paupers were received at the Poor-House of Franklin county, of whom 522 were for- eigners. In New Orleans, the number of commit- ments to the city Work-House for two weeks ending 3d August, 1855, was 108, of whom 92 were foreigners. I might extend these details almost indefi- nitely, but those that I have given must be sufficient to satisfy any reasonable mind of the character of the mass of the immigrants. Crime. — I have already, in connexion with the letter of Mayor Wood, and to confirm his statements, shown that more than half the criminals of our country are of foreign birth. I will now add a few more specific facts from the different states. In Massachusetts there were, according to the tables of 1850, 7250 convicts, of whom more than half were foreigners — and through- out all New England the proportion was about the same. In Missouri there were 908 convicts, of whom 666 were foreigners. In Connecticut the whole number was 850, of whom 305 were foreigners. In Illinois the whole number was 316, of whom 189 were foreigners. In Maine the whole number was 744, of whom 460 were foreigners. But without going more at large into the subject, I will state the general fact, that ac- cording to the census of 1850, the convictions among the native population were but one in every fifteen hundred and eighty — those in the foreign population were one in every one hundred and sixty-five. In the four cities of New York, Brooklyn, Albany, and Buffalo, the number of convic- tions in 1852 was 3733, of whom 2802 were foreigners. Of three hundred and one arrested in New York for drunkenness, in the first week in August, 1855, two hundred and fifty-two were foreigners. But I pass from these disgusting details, to consider the indirect effects of this population on social and political order. No argument can be necessary to show that such elements as those described in the statis- tics above cited, must necessarily create disor- der, riots, and violations of law in any com- munity into which they may be thrown. The tables themselves show that fact. But such persons bring other and indirect evils on the country which, if possible, are more fatal to its security than those to which I have re- ferred. When they become invested with the right of suffrage, candidates for office will seek their votes, and, in order to get them, will p*an- der to their prejudices, consult their pleasure, and adopt every means to win their favor. To do this, the office-hunter must sink to their level. He must promise to do what accords with their wishes and tastes. He must associate with them, drink with them, flatter them, and, if need be, bribe them ! In this way the candidates become prostitutes, and the representatives become corrupt. After election, being anxious to retain their places, their eyes are constantly fixed on the voters, and their legislative action is shaped, not by a regard to the principles of the Constitution and the welfare of the coun- try, but by a desire to conciliate the favor of this potential element in elections. And hav- ing made large sacrifices to secure their seats, they think it but fair to seize the earliest op- portunity to reimburse themselves by plunder- ing the treasury, under the guise of some con- tract or claim on the government. Have we ' not even beheld the humiliating spectacle of candidates for the Presidency courting the foreign vote in the most open and undisguised manner? And what are all the homestead laws, and pre-emption laws, and land distri- bution laws at nominal prices, but palpable, and I had almost said corrupt bids, by politi- cal aspirants, for the foreign vote ? The dig- nity and independence of the officer is de- stroyed by practices like these, and he soon becomes a supple tool in the hands of an un- scrupulous constituency. The next step is from indirect to direct bribery. Instead of honeyed words, which do not satisfy hunger, or homesteads for men who would be too lazy to work them if they had them — money, ready money, will be demand- ed — yea, has been, and is now in some states too often demanded, as the price of votes ! Thus money is made an element in political contests, and we already begin to see in our republic the germ of that corruption which enabled the foreign Pretoriau bands to put up the imperial crown of Rome at auction ! Continue to import hordes of ignorant and depraved foreigners, and clothe them with the elective franchise, and the day is not far dis- tant when the party that can command the most money will control the elections; and men of property will justify themselves with the idea that they are buying their peace be- cause the alternative left them is corruption or agrarianism. MADISON LETTERS. 301 But this is not the only form in which the evil of foreign influence on political affairs developes itself. Many of the educated foreign- ers bring with them the most distorted views of the ends and views of social organization. Many of them are infidels, atheists, socialists, and agrarians, and by their Avild and demo- ralizing ideas corrupt the very fountains of liberty. Mormonism is a striking illustration of this species of foreign importation. In it we behold the most disgusting exhibition that the civilized world has ever witnessed of im- posture, irreligion, and beastly licentiousness, introduced into the heart of our country, and sustained by the aid and influence of fo- reigners. The political and religious — or rather anti- religious — theories of many of the Germans, are quite as shocking to the moral sense of the mass of our people, as the practices of the Mormons are revolting to their ideas of decency and propriety. It is well known, that some years ago an association was formed, under the title of " Free Germans," having its head quarters in Louisville, with branches in all the principal cities of the Union, which entertained and sought to give efficiency to the most danger- ous and anarchical doctrines. In March, 1854, the branch in Richmond published a platform of its principles, and the measures designed to carry them into practice. This platform is now before me, and I would gladly incorporate it into this article, did not its 4ength forbid. But I hope that during the canvass it will be republished at large, so that every Virginian may see and reflect upon it. It denounces slavery as a " political and moral cancer" — protests against the extension of slavery into any new territory — demands a repeal of the fugitive slave law, as demoral- izing and degrading, and as contrary to human rights and to the Constitution — and insists " that in national affairs the principle of liberty shall be strictly maintained, and even in the several states it be more and more realized, by gradual extermination of slavery." It further affirms that " in free states the color of the skin cannot "justify a difference in legal rights." This platform also holds that " Sabbath laws. Thanksgiving days, prayers in Congress, and legislative oaths upon the Bible, the in- troduction of the Bible into free schools," &c, shall be abolished " as an open violation of human rights." It also demands a free cession of lands to n'l settlers, and that citizenship must be early acquired, and that new settlers shall be aided with " national means." All elections to be by the people, and the people to have the.power to recall their repre- sentative at pleasure. Neutrality in our foreign relations to be abandoned. "Women to have the same politi- cal rights and privileges as men ; and the death penalty to be abolished in all cases. This is a summary of their avowed princi- ples ; but as this is a picture of their doctrines in " the green tree," let us see how they ex- hibit themselves when more fully developed. With this view, I submit the following ex- tract from a German paper published in St. Louis : — " The first and most principal mark where- by we distinguish ourselves from religious people is, that in a belief on a God, and that which connects itself with this belief, we re- cognise a destructive cancer, which for thou sands of years has been gnawing at humanity and preventing it from attaining to its destiny. No individual can live as a human being ; in no family can true happiness flourish ; the whole human race is hastening on ways of error so long as the most abominable hobgob- lins God, future existence, eternal retribution, are permitted to maintain their ghostly exist- ence. It is therefore the greatest task of every genuine revolutionist to put forth his best powers for the destruction of flagitious non-trio, viz. : the hobgoblins, God, future ex- istence, and future rewards and punishments. No revolution is more than half executed un- less the vi el nerve of the great arch-monarch beyond the stars is cut asunder ; every at- tempted revolution is vain if the ministers of this monarch are not exterminated, as we are wont to exterminate ruinous vermin." Can horrid blasphemy like this need a word of comment in a Christian community ! And yet we find men denouncing the American party as " hostile to the cause of civil and re- ligious liberty," because they are unwilling to see wretches who hold doctrine like these elevated to places of power, and trust, and dignity, in this land of religion and liberty ! 1 had proposed, in this number, to present some views of the bearing of foreign immigra- tion on Southern institutions ; but as I find I have already transcended my accustomed limit, I will reserve what I have to say on that subject, until a more convenient season. My next number will be devoted to a con- sideration of the true relations of the Ameri- can party to the members of the Romish church ; and to a vindication of it from the slanderous charges of intolerance, religious persecution, and a disposition to violate the rights of conscience. No. 9. There is no subject on which the American party has been more misunderstood and mis- represented than in regard to its relations to the members of the Roman Catholic Church. It has been charged by its enemies, with being hostile to religious freedom, and as making war on the Catholics on account of their pecu- liar modes of faith and worship. The motive which prompts these accusations is obvious. The purpose is, to fasten the odium of intole- rance, and of a disposition to deny to individu- als the right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences, on the American party. But I affirm that all these charges are untrue. The American party 302 THE POLITICAL TEXT -BOOK. seeks to interfere with the religion of no man. It cheerfully acknowledges that that is a mat- ter which rests — and should continue to rest — between each individual and his Creator. It recognises the freedom of religious opinion, and of religious worship, in the broadest sense of the terms. It is as tolerant of the religious sentiments of Catholics as of Protestants. It proposes to interfere no more with the reli- gious faith and worship of the one than of the other. Individual members of the order may be disposed to go further, but I challenge the production of evidence to show that the American organization, as a party, asserts any such doctrines. Turn to the authentic exposition of the principles of the party, an- nounced at Philadelphia, and see if it gives countenance to any such idea. The only pro- visions in the Philadelphia platform which bear on the subject of Catholicism in any form, are the following, viz., (the 5th). No person should be selected for political station (whether of native or foreign birth), who recognises any allegiance ( obligation of any description to any foreign prince, po- tentate, or power, or who refuses to recognise the federal and state constitutions (each with- in its sphere) as paramount to all other laws, as rules of political action. And the 10th, which is in these words : — Opposition to any union between church and state ; no interference with religious faith or worship, and no test oaths for office. It cannot be pretended that either of these, indicate any disposition to interfere with the freedom of conscience, or to persecute Catho- lics on account of their faith or worship. On the contrary, the doctrine emphatically pro- claimed in the 10th section above quoted, " no interference with religious faith," " no union between church and state," and " no test oaths for office." And yet, in the face of these solemn decla- rations of the creed of the party, our enemies persist in charging us with intolerance and persecution for opinion's sake. This leads us to inquire why, and in what respects, there is any antagonism between the American party and the Roman Catholics ? That there is a controversy between the Americans and the ultramontane branch of the Roman church, will not be denied. But that controversy is not of a religious character, but purely political. It has nothing to do with the faith or worship of the members of that division of the church, but relates entirely to certain political opinions, avowed by them, in regard to questions, not of an ecclesiastical character, but, affecting the policy of the state. With the Gallican branch of the Roman church, which professes the same religious faith, and practises the same forms of worship, with the ultramontane branch — but which repudiates the obnoxious political opinions — the American party have no controversy whatever. They can cordially extend to them the embrace of brotherhood, and sustain them, without any sacrifice of principle, for political office. The Roman church is now, and has been for near three hundred years, divided into two great parties. One of these is known as the Gallican, or French branch, and the other as the ultramontane or Italian branch. The latter maintain that the power of the Pope is supreme in temporal as well as spiri- tual things. They hold that he is lord over all kings, and potentates, and governments of the earth ; that the subjects and citizens of all governments owe to him a higher allegiance than to their immediate sovereign ; and that the Pope has the power to subvert republics, to nullify laws, and to absolve both subjects and citizens from their allegiance to any sovereign or republic which may incur his displeasure. The Gallican branch of the church recognise the supremacy of the Pope in all ecclesiastical •matters, but utterly repudiate it in all temporal or political affairs. Great misconception has arisen in the minds of men, from not understanding the difference between the two branches of the Roman church. And our adversaries, with a cunning worthy of Jesuits, have studiously endeavored to keep this important division in the back ground ; whenever an American endeavors to show the danger of the ultramontane doctrine, and its irreconcilable antagonism to the prin- ciples of our Constitution, they deny that the Roman church entertains any such doctrines, and quote largely from members of the Galli- can branch to prove their proposition ! Begging my readers not to lose sight of this marked distinction between the two branches of the church, I will now endeavor to exhibit, from the highest authority, the pre- sent position of parties on this most important question. Politicians are not generally very well in- formed on questions of an ecclesiastical cha- racter, a*hd they may, therefore, be very naturally led into error, by not understanding matters of detail. A striking illustration of this fact was exhibited, but a little more than a year ago, in the Congress of the United State». In the course of a debate in that body, some allusion was made to the claims of the Pope to supre- macy in temporal affairs. This at once drew from Mr. Chandler, himself a member of the Gallican branch of the church, an eloquent reply, in which he utterly disclaimed and denied any such assumption on the part of the Pope. The members of Congress not being profoundly versed in Catholic lore, were at once silenced, and the speech went to the country as a conclusive answer to the unjust charge against the church. But unfortunately for Mr. Chandler, neither Protestants nor the members of the ultramontane branch of his church were disposed to rest quietly under his exposition of the doctrines of the church. The press, both in this country and Europe, MADISON LETTERS. 303 teemed with articles denunciatory of the speech of Mr. Chandler as insincere, or founded in ignorance or cowardice. Professor McClintock was among the first to correct the error. He said, " if Mr. Chand- ler had been well informed on the subject, he would have told his auditors there are two parties in the Catholic church on this ques- tion : one (the ultramontane party) affirming, and the other (the Gallican party) denying that the Pope, by reason of the spiritual power, has also a supreme power, at least indirectly, in temporal matters." He then proceeds to state the relative strength of the two powers, and shows that the ultramontane is largely in the ascendancy, and that the Gallican party is a mere faction, which is rather tolerated than cherished by the church. Indeed, Gallicanism is stigma- tized as the " half-way house to Protest- antism." Professor McClintock then says : ****** " It remains for me briefly to set forth the present state of Roman Catholic opinion. The ultramontane doctrine is held, 1st, by the Pope ; 2, by all the cardinals, without excep- tion ; 3, by all, or nearly all, the Italian bishops ; 4, by a majority of the bishops of Germany, Spain, and Portugal ; 5, by about two-thirds of the French bishops. Among the religious orders it is held, — 1, by the Jesuits without exception, as no man can be .dmitted to the order who denies it ; 2, by a majority of the members of the other (sixty or more) religious orders, which vie with each other in devotion to the Pope, each of them having a general at Rome. As for the Catho- lic journals, — 1, the Civito Catolica at Rome was established for the very purpose of main- taining this theory, and does maintain it most effectually ; 2, the Historisch Politische Blat- ter, the most eminent Papal journal in Ger- many, is strongly ultramontane ; 3, the Uni- vers, of Paris, is more ultramontane than Bellarmine ; 4, the Belgian papers, I think, without exception, are on that side ; and 5, Brpwnson's Review, in this country, is what I have shown you above. "I have now done all that I promised to do m the beginning. May I not hope that, after reading this letter, you will rise in your place in Congress, at the first convenient opportu- nity, and restate your theory of the church ? Does not your reputation as a scholar and a gentleman need such a vindication as you can only make by 'defining your position' anew? If you do not do this, my confidence in your candor and ingenuousness will have been sadly misplaced. If you do, I beg you to read in the course of your speech, the follow- ing truthful passage from the coryphaeus of Roman Catholic editors in America : — " ' There is, in our judgment, but one valid defence of the Popes, in their exercise of tem- poral authority in the middle ages over sove- reigns, and that is, that they possess it by divine i-ig-M, or that the Pope holds that au- thority by virtue of his commission from Jesus Christ, as the successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, and visible head of the church. Any defence of them on a lower ground must, in our judgment, fail to meet the real points in the case, and is rather an evasion than a fair, honest, direct, and satis- factory reply. To defend their power as an extraordinary power, or as an accident in church history, growing out of the peculiar circumstances, civil constitution, and laws of the times, now passed away, perhaps for ever, may be regarded as less likely to displease non-Catholics, and to offend the sensibilities of power, than to defend it on the ground of divine right, and as inherent in the divine constitution of the church ; but even on the low ground of policy, we do not think it the wisest in the long run. Say what we will, we can gain little credit with those we would con- ciliate. Always to their minds will the tem- poral power of the Pope, by divine right, loom up in the distance, and always will they believe, however individual Catholics here and there may deny it, or nominal Catholic gov- ernments oppose it, that it is the real Roman Catholic doctrine, to be re-asserted and acted the moment that circumstances render it pru- dent or expedient. We gain nothing with them but doubts of sincerity, and we only weaken among ourselves that warm and gene- rous devotion to the Holy Father, which is due from every one of the faithful, and which is so essential to the prosperity of the Church, in her increasing struggles with the godless powers of this world.' — Brownson's Review, Jan. 1854." The Dublin Tablet, a Catholic publication of high authority, is equally emphatic in its condemnation of Mr. Chandler's speech. The writer, after arguing to prove the power of the Pope to depose sinful sovereigns, says : — " Mr. Chandler goes a great deal further — we are sorry to refer to him so often — and trenches on the real spiritual power, which he is so anxious to guard inviolate. His words are these : ' I deny to the Bishop of Rome the right resulting from his divine office, to inter- fere in the relations between subjects and their sovereigns — citizens and their governments.' " It is impossible that he can mean what these words imply. The Pope is at this mo ment interfering in Piedmont, defending one class of citizens there against the government — and yet, in the House of Representatives, a Christian denies the right ! Governments may and do prohibit good works, and the Pope in- terferes. They also encourage and commit evil — the Pope interferes, and good Christians prefer the Pope's authority to that of the state. The godless colleges in Ireland, the hierarchy in England, the trouble in Pied- mont — all bear witness together against this unchristian opinion which must have escaped from the speaker, who did not ponder hia words." The closing paragraph of the article in the Tablet is in these words : — 304 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. " The old Gallican leaven, driven out of the Old World, foments in the New, and the ex- ploded opinions of obstinate men in Europe seem to have found favor in some quarters in America. Humanly viewed, the matter is easy of explanation ; but it is not the less perilous, for unsound theories about the ex- tent of the ecclesiastical power will never convert heretics, but are sure to pervert Cath- olics." The opinions expressed by Mr. Chandler in the above extract from his speech, are pre- cisely the opinions of the American party, and yet when Americans announce them, they are charged with being persecutors and enemies of religious freedom ! The American party deny that the Pope has any temporal or political power outside of his own dominions. They deny that the subjects or citizens of any other government owe him any political allegiance. They deny that the Pope has any power to depose sove- reigns or to overthrow republics. They deny that he has a right to absolve citizens or sub- jects from their allegiance to their own gov- ernment. And they utterly repudiate the idea that there is a paramount allegiance due to him which overrides their own govern- ment. And as a corollary to these propositions, they are unwilling to vote for any man for pubfic office, in this country, who holds the opposite, or ultramontane doctrine. They hold that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and no man who denies that proposition ought to hold office under it. They hold that our first, highest, and only political allegiance is due to our own country, and that none is due to any other. They disclaim and denounce " the higher law doctrines" in all their length and breadth, whether they exhibit themselves in abolition fanaticism at the North, or in the recognition of a higher allegiance to the sovereign of the States of the Church than is due to the govern- ment of our own country. They require that when a man swears to support the Constitution of the United States, he shall do so in good faith, and according to its true spirit, and not with qualifications and mental reservations. None, who are unwilling to conform to these requisitions, can receive the support of the American party. Ah ! but (say our adversaries) this recogni- tion of the temporal power of the Pope is a part of the Catholic religion, and therefore you are interfering with their religious free- dom ! So, it may be said, polygamy is a part of the religious faith of the Mormons, and abolition is an element in the creed of Theo- Jore Parker, II. W. Beecher, and others of their fanatical stripe ! And would our adver- saries be willing to elect a Mormon or an Abolitionist to high office? I presume not, and therefore the argument proves too much. No such device can be tolerated as that by blending obnoxious political sentiments witr religious opinions, immunity can be claimed for both, under the broad shield of the free- dom of religion ! The Americans are charged with dragging religion into the political arena. This is wholly untrue. Their steadfast aim is, to keep religion out of the party contests of the day. They have manifested no aggressive spirit. Throughout they have been on the defensive. It was not until the organs of the ultramon- tane branch of the Roman Church avowed their purpose to war on the freedom of reli- gion — to strive to gain the ascendancy in this, country, .with the view to prostrate it at the footstool of Rome — to persecute Protestants — and for the accomplishment of these ends to vote as Catholics, and in a body, in such a way as to be most effective — that, the Ameri- cans were roused to resistance. No. 10. In my last number I furnished some strik- ing proofs of the extraordinary pretensions of the dominant party of the Romish church, to temporal poAver in the Pope. Before pass- ing from this point, I will add further evi- dence to support my position. Brownson's Review is the accredited organ of that party. He ostentatiously parades the names of the archbishops and bishops on the cover of his book, to give the stamp of authen- ticity to its sentiments, and he inserts in it that " I never think of publishing anything in regard to the church, without submitting my articles to the bishop for inspection, ap- proval, and endorsement." This declaration stands to the present day, uncontradicted, and, therefore, on every principle of evidence. must be taken to be true. Let us then look to his pages for an exposi- tion of the devotions of his church. In his number for January, 1853, he says : — " For every Catholic at least, the church is the supreme judge of the extent and limits of her power. She can be judged by no one ; and this, of itself, implies her absolute supre- macy, and that the temporal order must receive its law from her." ****** " Whenever the occasion occurred, she as- serted her power, not in empty words only, but in deeds, to judge sovereigns, kings, and Csesars, to bestow or to take away crowns, to depose ungodly rulers, and to absolve their subjects from their oaths of allegiance." Again, in the number for July, 1853, he says : — " The church is supreme, and you have no power except what you hold in subordination to her, either in spirituals or in temporals * * * you no more have political than ecclesiastical independence. The church alone, under God, is independent, and she defies both your powers and her own." " They have heard it said from their youth up, that the church has nothing to do with MADISON LETTERS. 305 politics, that she has received no mission in regard to the political order. * * In opposing the nonjuring bishops and priests, they believed they were only asserting their national rights as men, or as the state, and were merely resisting the unwarrantable assumption of the spiritual power. If they had been distinctly taught, that the political authority is always subordi- nate to the spiritual, and had grown up in the doctrine that the nation is not competent to define, in relation to the ecclesiastical power, its own rights — that the church defines both its powers and her own, and that though the nation may be, and ought to be independent, in relation to other nations, it has and can have no independence in the face of the church — the kingdom of God on earth ; they would have seen at a glance, that to support the civil authority against the spiritual, no matter in what manner, was the renunciation of their faith as Catholics, and the actual or virtual assertion of the supremacy of the temporal power." In the same number, page No. 301, he says : — "She (the church) has the right to judge who has or who has not, according to the law of God, the right to reign — whether the prince has, by his infidelity, his misdeeds, his tyranny and oppression, forfeited his trust and lost his right to the allegiance of his subjects, and therefore whether they are still held to their allegiances, or are released from it by the law of God. If she have the right to judge, she has the right to pronounce judgment, and order its execution: therefore, to pronounce sentence of deposition upon the prince, who lias forfeited his right to reign, and to declare his subjects absolved from the allegiance to him, and free to elect themselves a new sove- reign." I might multiply authorities on this point, almost indefinitely, but it would seem to be unnecessary. Those who are disposed to pur- sue this subject, will find it ably treated in the speeches of Hon. Erastus Brooks, delivered last year, in the Senate of New York. Can any man, who cherishes republican principles, tolerate sentiments like these ? Is it not obvious that they are diametrically op- posed to the cardinal doctrine which lies at the basis of all free institutions — viz. : the sovereignty of the people ? According to that authoritative doctrine of Mr. Brownson, en- dorsed by his church, — all power is in the Pope. He is the supreme judge. If oppressed the peojde must look to him for redress. They have no inherent and inalienable rights — and the doctrines of the Declaration of Independ- ence are all dangerous falsehoods ! But let us now come to the more immediate purpose of this number, which is to show the aggressive spirit of the ultramontane Catho- lics — their hostility to freedom of religion — their intolerance of Protestantism — their in- terference in politics, and their determination, if possible, to bring this country under the dominion of Rome. 20 As early as 1844, the Catholics, as a body, took their stand in the political arena. The illustrious Henry Clay and the virtuous and pious Theodore Frelinghuysen, were the nomi- nees of the Whig party for the Presidencv and Vice Presidency. I am not aware that there was any particular hostility entertained towards Mr. Clay, for at that time he was not a member of any church. But, Mr. Freling- huysen was a member of the Presbyterian church, and what is more, he was the Presi- dent of the Board of Foreign Missions ! This fact at once drew, not only upon him, but upon his distinguished associate, Mr. Clay, the bitter animosity of the Catholic press, and of the Catholic sect. Brownson, in his number for July, 1844 — in the heat of the contest, thus assailed Mr. Clay:- " He is ambitious but short-sighted. * * He is abashed by no inconsistency, disturbed by no contradiction, and can defend, with a firm countenance, without the least misgiving, what everybody but himself sees to be a poli- tical fallacy or logical absurdity. * * * He is no more disturbed by being convicted of moral insensibility, than intellectual absurd- ity. * * * A man of rare abilities, but apparently void of both moral and intellectual conscience * * * and therefore a man whom no power under that of the Almighty can restrain ; he must needs be the most dan- gerous man to be placed at the head of affairs it is possible to conceive." It will be seen that the denunciations of Mr. Clay are all vague and declamatory. No spe- cial objection is taken to him, and it is obvi- ous that the opposition was not so much to him as through him to Mr. Frelinghuysen. The Boston Pilot, another Catholic organ, dis- closes the plot in its number of 31st October, 1844: — about five days before the election ! Here is what it said : " We say to all men in the United States, entitled to be naturalized, become citizens while you can — let nothing delay you for an hour — let no hindrance; short of mortal disease, banish you from the ballot-box. — To those who are citizens, we say, vote your principles, whatever they may be — never desert them — do not be wheedled or terrified — but vote quietly, seriously, and unobtrusively. Leave to others the noisy war- fare of words. Let your opinions be proved by your deliberate and determined action. We recommend to you no party ; we condemn no candidate but one, and he is Theodore Fre- linghuysen. We have nothing to say to him as a Whig — we have nothing to say to Mr. Clay, or any other Whig, as such — but to the President of the American Board of Foreign Missions, the friend and patron of the Kirks and Cones, we have much to say. We hate his intolerance — we dislike his associates — and we shudder at the blackness and bitterness of that school of sectarians, to which he be- longs, and amongst whom he is regarded as an authority." Presbyterians ] Do you hear that ! And d« • 30G THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. you think that Americans are -warring on civil and religious freedom, when they seek to re- huke sentiments of this character ! Appeals like these had their effect. The Catholics were rallied to the polls, and de- cided the election. On the 9th November, 1844, Mr. Freling- huyscn wrote to Mr. Clay as follows : " More than 3000, it is confidently said, have been naturalized in this city (New York) alone since the 1st of October. — It is an alarming fact that this foreign vote has decided the great questions of American policy, and con- tracted a nation's gratitude." But hear Brownson again : — "Heretofore we have taken our politics from one or another of the parties, which di- vided the country, and have suffered the ene- mies of our religion to impose their political doctrines upon us ; but it is time for us to be- gin to teach the country itself those moral and political doctrines which flow from the teach- ings of our own church. We are at home here, wherever we may have been born ; this is our country, and as it is to become tho- roughly Catholic, we have a deeper interest in public affairs than any other of our citizens. The sects are only for a day, the church for ever!" Here we have a candid declaration, from the accredited organ of the church, that thenceforth Catholicism is to be made an clement in the party contests of the country. Catholic politics are to be taught by the press, and Catholic votes are to be employed to make the country " thoroughly Catholic." True to his professions, and keeping his eye single to Catholic interests, we find Brownson alternately denouncing both the great parties of the country, and vilifying without measure their leading men. Gen. Cass having made a speech in the Senate in favor of free worship and the rights of conscience for Americans abroad, Brown- son, after commiserating his " confusion of ideas" and " drivelling," said in his number for October, 1852 :— " We are glad to see Gen. Cass laid on the 9helf, for we can never support a man who turns radical in his old age." When Mr. Fillmore's administration closed, it was thus noticed by the " Freeman's Jour- nal," the organ of Archbishop Hughes — the provocation being a letter written by Mr* Everett, asking the Grand Duke of Tuscany to release Medais from imprisonment : — " It does not escape the independent judg- ment of the universe, that the administration, now happily defunct, has been as bigoted as it lias been imbecile. The universe congratu- lates the country upon having elected a states- man for President, and for permitting the Uni- tarian ex-preacher, late Secretary of State, to return to his pulpit, to proclaim that Jesus is not God, and Mr. Fillmore himself to become a village lawyer." From this it would seem that Gen. Pierce was a special favorite of the Catholic Church, as he had taken pains to conciliate it by ap pointing one of its members to a position in his cabinet. But the moment a controversy arose between the United States and Catholic Austria, in regard to Kosta's case, we find Brownson, with the instincts of a Jesuit, ma- king his religion paramount to his civil obli- gations, and taking sides against his own country. In his number for January, 1854, after reviewing the case, he says : " The secret of the whole transaction is not difficult to di- vine. It was to get up, if possible, a war with Austria, in accordance with the plans and ar- dent wishes of Ludwig Kossuth. For this purpose, we doubt not, Kosta returned, or was ordered by Kossuth to return to Turkey, and very possibly with the knowledge and appro- bation of our Jacobinical government!" Thus we see no political attachments — no gratitude for past favors, can bind this " Cory- pheus of Catholic editors," when the interests of his sect are in anywise involved ! Catho- licism is the all-absorbing idea ! Thus, in his October number, 1852, Brown- son says : " The sorriest sight to us, is a Catholic throwing up his cap and shouting ' all hail Democracy !" ' This, too, at the very time that he was supporting the Democratic party in the Presidential contest ! He would sooner have heard the cry, ' All hail Catholic- ism !' and he was only using Democracy as an instrument to advance his primary wish ! These passages are sufficient to show that the Catholic press and Catholic church have avowed their purpose to enter the political arena, and to make their religion an element in the future party contests of the country. Hear, too, how the " Freeman's Journal" invokes the Catholic Irish in this country to bear themselves : — " Irishmen learn in America to bide their time. Year by year the United States and England touch each other more and more nearly on the seas. Year by year the Irish are becoming more powerful in America. At length the propitious time will come ; — some accidental, sudden collision, and a Presidential campaign at hand. We will use the very pro- fligacy of our politicians for our purposes ! They will want to buy the Irish vote, and we will tell them how they can buy it in a lump, from Maine to California, by declaring war on Great Britain, and wiping off at the same time the stains of concessions and dishonor that our Websters, and men of his kind, have permitted to be heaped upon the American flag by the violence of British agents." Who can wink so hard as not to see that a religious and not a political war was in the mind of the writer — a war not to advance American interests but to promote the cause of Catholicism in Ireland, was the real object in contemplation ! Having thus shown the purpose of the organs of the Catholic church, to become a party to the political contests of the country, with a view to the advancement of its interests let us now see in what way the power thus MADISON LETTERS. 307 gained is to be employed — whether for the promotion of " the cause of civil and religious freedom, or for its overthrow." The first authority which I will cite is the "Freeman's Journal," the mouthpiece of Archbishop Hughes. That journal, in speak- ing of the labors of Mr. Hastings, the Pro- testant chaplain of the American consulate at Rome, amiably remarked, that if he made a single convert " he would be kicked out of Rome, though Mr. Cass (our minister) should bundle up his traps and follow him !" The Pittsburgh Catholic Visiter, referring to the same subject^ said, "For our own part, we take this opportunity of explaining our hearty delight, at the suppression of the Pro- testant Chapel in Rome. This may be thought intolerant — but when, we would ask, did wc ever profess to be tolerant to Protestantism, or to favor the doctrine that. Protestantism ought to be tolerated ? On the contrary we hate Protestantism — we detest it with our whole heart and soul, and we pray that our aversion to it may never decrease. We hold it meet that in the Eternal City, no worship re- pugnant to God should be tolerated, and we are sincerely glad the enemies of truth are no longer permitted to meet together in the capital of the Christian world." There certainly is a strong odor of reli- gious freedom about these most Christian sentiments ! " The Rambler," another Catholic journal, thus expresses itself: — " You ask if he, the Pope, were lord in the land and you were in a minority, if not in number, yet in power, what would he do to you ? That we say would depend entirely on circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism he would tolerate you — if ex- pedient, he would imprison you — banish you — fine you — possibly hang you — but be assured of one thing, he would never tolerate you for the sake of the ' glorious principles' of civil and religious liberty." This is undoubtedly marked by a most con- mendable degree of candor! The Boston Pilot very ingenuously observes : — " No good government can exist without religion; and there can be no religion with- out an Inquisition, which is wisely designed for the promotion and protection of the true faith." Brownson says : — " Protestantism of every form has not, and never can have, any rights where Catholicity is triumphant" — and again — "Let us dare to assert the truth in the face of the world, and instead of pleading for our church at the bar of the state, summon the state itself to plead at the bar of the church — its divinely constituted judge." On the 15th of August, 1852, the Pope ad- dressed to his followers an Encyclical letter, of which the following is an extract : — " The absurd and erroneous doctrine or ravings, in defence of liberty of conscience, is a most pestilential error — a pest of all others, most to be dreaded in a state." The Shepherd of the Valley, a leading pa- per, formerly published at St. Louis, Missouri, said : — " Protestantism of every discription, Catho- licity inserts in her catalogue of moral sins. she endures it when and where she must, bur. she hates it and directs all her energir effect its destruction !" Again, on 23d of Nov., 1851, that paper says : — " The church is of necessity intolerant. Heresy she endures when and where si must, but she hates it, and directs all her energies to its destruction. If Catholics eve:- gain an immense numerical majority, religious freedom in this country is at an end. So our enemies say. So we believe." On the 22d of October, 1853, the same paper says : — "We think the 'masses' were never less happy, less respectable, and less respected, than they have been since the Reformation, and particularly within the last fifty or one hundred years, since Lord Brougham caught the mania of teaching them to read, and com- municated the disease to a large portion of the English nation, of which, in spite of all our talk, we are too often the servile imitators." The Rambler, in 1853, says : — " Religious liberty, in the sense of a liberty possessed by every man to choose, his religion, is one of the most wretched delusions ever foisted on this age hj the father of all deceit." Brownson, in his October number, 1852, page 456, says : — " The liberty of heresy and unbelief is not right. * * * All the rights the sects have, or can have, are derived from the state, and rest on expediency. As they have, in their character of sects hostile to the true religion, no rights under the law of nature or the law of God, they are neither wronged nor deprived of liberty, if the state refuses to grant them any rights at all I" I shall now close with two extracts from the " Paris Universe," which Professor McClintock, in his reply to Mr. Chandler, speaks of us as a leading ultramontane journal. It says : — " A heretic, examined and convicted by the church, used to be delivered over to the secu- lar power, and punished to death. Nothing has ever appeared to us more necessary. More than one hundred thousand persons perished in consequence of the heresy of Wickliffe ; a still greater number for that of John Huss ; and it would not be possible to calculate the bloodshed caused by Luther, and it is not yet over. "As for myself, what I regret, I frankly own, is that they did not burn John Huss sooner, and that they did not likewise burn Luther ; this happened because there was not found some prince sufficiently politic to stir up a crusade against Protestantism." These citations will show which party has manifested the intolerant and aggressive spirit — which party is opposed to the " cause of civil and religious freedom !" 308 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. I offer no comments of my own, hut leave every reader to judge for himself. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. The remark applies to religious as well as to civil liberty. All we ask of the people is to be vigilant. Do not be so engrossed with the ordinary busi- ness of life, as to close your eyes to the im- portant events that are transpiring around you. Watch with jealousy every measure which is calculated to abridge your political or religious freedom, and resist it at the threshold. Prevention is easier than cure. There are some measures that are so mon- strous as to seem incredible ; but history tells us that bloody persecution has, in former times, been the order of the day. Martyrdom has been suffered, and the massacre of St. Bartholomew's did take place, for religious opinion's sake. What has happened once may happen again. Let us, being forewarned, be likewise forearmed. Whilst we make no assaults on the liberty of others, let us not, by a blind sense of security, and a culpable neglect of duty, suffer our own to be put in jeopardy. Such is the position of the Ameri- can party. They feel no disposition to inter- fere with the faith or worship of the ultra- montane Catholics, but they are unwilling, by elevating them to positions of trust and influ- ence, to give them the power to trample upon the rights of Protestants. I have now completed my defence of the American party, against the charge of being hostile to "the cause of civil and religious freedom." It will be for an impartial public to decide how far the vindication has been successful. I propose to close the series by two addi- tional numbers, one of which will be devoted to the examination of the grounds on which Mr. Wise stigmatizes the American ticket as " a mongrel" or " mulatto ticket,"— and the other to the claims of the Democratic party to the title of the "White man's party." No. 11. Having vindicated the principles of the American party from the more serious charges preferred against it by Mr. Wise, this number will be devoted to a commentary upon certain other passages of his letter, and more parti- eularly to the subject of " renegades," " con- scientious Whigs," and the mongrel or mulatto ticket. Mr. Wise, in his letter, says : — " We gladly took them (the Whigs) in ex- change for the renegade Democrats, who sneaked from their former friends, and took a test oath in the secrecy of the culvert, by the light of a dark lantern." It seems to me that Mr. Wise is somewhat harsh upon his old political friends. The term " renegade," to say the least of it, is by no means courteous, and the charge that they " sneaked away," is liable to the same criti- cism. It is true that many independent and upright Democrats, disatisfied with the prin- ciples and policy of the Democratic party, left it, as did many of the Whigs, and joined the American party. But I was not before aware that it was such a heinous offence for a free citizen of this great republic to change his party relations. I did not know that the shackles of party allegiance were not to be thrown off without incurring the odium of being " renegades," and subjecting them- selves to the denunciation of having " sneaked away." I had thought that with all true pa- triots the obligation to country was stronger than that to party. That parties were mere instruments to subserve the best interests of the country, and that it was not only the right but the duty of every patriot to leave his party when he thought it was not ministering to the good of his country. Mr. Rives announced that every man should recollect that " he had a country to serve, as well as a party to obey/' and the whole country applauded the senti- ment as the offspring of a patriotic spirit. The right to change his party relations, is one which has been exercised by Mr. Wise him- self, and by hundreds of others, now high in the confidence of the Democratic party. Where was there a more bold, eloquent, and fearless champion of Whig principles than Mr. Wise himself? His noble sentiment, "the union of the Whigs for the sake of the Union," thrilled the heart of every Whig in the nation ; and yet Mr. Wise left the Whig party, and is now the accredited champion of the party which he once so vehemently opposed. Surely Mr. AVise ought to extend the same toleration and charity to others, who have thought proper to change their political relations, which he claims for himself. He would hardly fancy the epithet of "renegade," or the charge of having " sneaked away from his former friends," if applied to himself, and he should therefore abstain from applying them to others. But it seems to me the Democrats who left their party, and joined the Americans, have at least given the strongest evidence that they did not, like the brethren of Joseph, " go down into Egypt" after " corn !" They could not have been influenced by selfish motives, or the hope of advancement. They left a power- ful party, flushed with a triumph unparalleled in the history of our country, and attached themselves to a new one, which could hold out them no hopes of promotion. Surely this is the highest evidence of disinterested- ness, and should at least protect them from imputations of improper motives. If the case had been reversed,— if they had left a party whose fortunes were on the wane, to join one in the zenith of its prosperity,— able to confer high offices and rich rewards, then suspicion might have attached to their motives. But such not being the fact, justice and charity alike concur in according to them the credit of being influenced by high and patriotic principles. . "Whether these Whigs can be reclaimed by the new nomination at Philadelphia, sayu MADISON LETTERS. 309 Mr. Wise, time will show. I think they can- not be." And why not ? Did not Mr. Wise himself, in the canvass of 1852, contend that the failure of the Whig National Convention, to nominate Mr. Fillmore, was such an outrage on the party as to absolve its members from their allegiance? AVas not Mr. Fillmore t/ien the choice of the Whigs of Virginia ? Was he not universally conceded to be a conservative, — constitution-loving, law-abiding, and law-en- forcing chief magistrate ? Did he not fulfil every requisition of the Jeffersonian test? — was he not honest and capable, and faithful to the Constitution ? Did he not perform all his duties to the South and to the North with strict fidelity and impartiality? Did he not restore harmony to a distracted country ? Did he not see that the laws were faithfully exe- cuted ? Did he not maintain the honor of our country inviolate at home and abroad ? Did he pander to sectional prejudices, or seek by duplicity — looking one way and rowing an- other — to conciliate popularity for himself? Was he not bold, straight-forward, manly, and true? And what has he done since to forfeit the confidence of the Union-loving Whigs and De- mocrats ? Has he intrigued or manoeuvred for a nomination ? Has he written letters or made promises to commend himself to popular favor and regard ? None of these things has he done, for he has been absent from the country for the greater part of a year. Why then, I repeat, should not Union and conservative Whigs sup- port him ? The Democracy profess to regard the slavery question as the great question of the day. Has not Mr. Fillmore proved him- self sound on that? Where is the Democrat who has given as strong evidence as Mr. Fill- more of his determination to uphold the guar- antees and compromises of the Constitution ? And can any one doubt that, if elected, he will do the same thing again ? Why then not sup- port the man who safely guided the ship of state through the storms and tempests of 1850? Is the fact that Mr. Fillmore is in favor of a modification of the naturalization laws — that he is an American in heart and sentimentr— that he loves his own country and his own countrymen better than foreign countries and foreign men — sufficient to cancel the debt of gratitude which Virginia owes him, and to obliterate from the hearts of her sons the re- cord of his virtues and his patriotic devotion to the national welfare ? Oh no ! It cannot be ! The hearts of the Whigs of Virginia will leap toward him. They will remember his ability, and fidelity, and truth, and although they may 3ven differ with him on some of these questions, they w?'l make them secondary to the great object of securing domestic tran- quillity, and placing in the chair of Washing- ton a man whose administration, in times of peculiar peril, was pronounced, if not by Mr- Wise, at least by the concurrent voice of the nation, " Washington-like I" But Mr. Wise says, " Mr. Fillmore is no longer a Whig; he has been changed by the hocus-pocus of the necromancy of Sam." When the Whig party, after the defeat of 1852, retired from the field, Mr. Fillmore had to choose between the American party, whose principles he had approved as early as 1844 (as appears by his letter to Mr. Clay in that year), and the Democracy. I have no doubt that Mr. Fillmore was attached to the Whig party. He had been nurtured in its lap ; he had been reared in its conservative principles ; he had proudly borne its banner both in vic- tory and defeat ; he had learned wisdom at the feet of its great sages, Webster and Clay. Mr. Fillmore's opposition to Democracy was a matter of principle, not of expediency. It was not a thing that he could pick up, or lay down, as interest or caprice might prompt. He had denounced its tyranny, its misrule, its disregard of the Constitution — its reckless extravagance — from the conviction that his denunciations were just. He could not, there- fore, when the old adversely of th.%t party retired from the conflict, eat his own word? ; retract his own charges, and falsify Lis Tvho'e life, by affiliating with a party which he had contended to be unworthy of trust. Inieres". might have dictated such a course, but dutv- and patriotism forbade it. Mr. Fillmore san the Democracy, in violation of all its pledges renewing the agitation of the slavery question which he had composed — opening the flood gates of sectional strife, and endangering tht peace and security of the Union. Knowing that the only available power to stay the tor- rent which threatened to overwhelm the country, was the American party, with the energy and promptness which distinguish him, he extended the right hand of fellowship to it, and sought to aid it in the fulfilment of its great mission of peace. And does Mr. Wise suppose that the Whigs of Virginia, who, for more than twenty years, have been doing battle man- fully "against the Democracy ; crying aloud and sparing not ; denouncing its harsh tyran- ny, its vindictive proscription, its reckless pro- digality, its gross usurpations of authority not conferred by the Constitution, its official cor- ruptions — will now consent to impliedly ad- mit that all their charges were false, that all their clamors were mere idle words, and tamely put on the Democratic yoke, in order that they may, perchance, pick up a, crumb as it falls from the rich man's table ! If ht cherishes any such hope, I think he sadly mistakes the metal of which Whigs are made. They are bold, gallant, and true. Majorities have no peculiar charms for them. They have been long used to defeat. Principle, not suc- cess and its incidents, has been the object for which they struggled. They are not now pre- pared to admit that their whole career has been one of falsehood and unfounded calumny 310 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. They are not prepared, and cannot be per- suaded to admit that they have all the time been slandering the Democracy, and that it is in truth pure and immaculate. No ! the old line Whigs — the conservative, Union-loving Whigs — may have been deterred by the faults and follies of the original organization of the American party, from co-operating with it. They may have been misled by the secrecy which prevailed [and which was justly ob- noxious] to fear that there was some unhal- lowed purpose entertained by the American party, and therefore were opposed to it. But now, that the veil of secrecy is thrown off; now, that everything is revealed to their view ; now, that a sure guarantee is given to them, by a presentation of their own trusted favorite Fillmore, as its standard-bearer, the Whigs can no longer doubt that the ends and aims of that party must be patriotic and national, whose battle-cry is "Americans must rule America," and who rally their hosts beneath the banner of Millard Fillmore ! Conservatism of principle, pride of con- sistency, and sympathy of old associations, will conspire to induce the Whigs of Virginia, either collectively or as individuals, to yield to Mr. Fillmore a cordial support in the com- ing contest, and to win for him a glorious triumph in the Old Dominion. But Mr. Wise says there will be new issues presented in the next Presidential canvass, by three parties — " the white man's party, the Democratic ; the black man's party, the Black Republicans ; the cross of Northern and Southern Know-Nothings, the ticket of Messrs. Fillmore and Donelson." That there will be important issues pre- sented in the coming election is unquestion- ably true ; but I am not aware that they will be new issues. They are pretty much the same, though presented in a new phase, which have distracted the country in times past, and more especially since 1848. They still involve the slavery question ; the same questions which convulsed the country in 1850 ; the same questions which Mr. Fillmore grappled with and put to rest from 1850 to 1853 ; the same questions which the Democratic party, by their solemn pledge given at Baltimore in 1852, promised not to agitate again, but which, in violation of their pledge of faith to the country, they have re-opened and re-agitated with tenfold more bitterness than ever, and which they have been unable to adjust. The first inquiry which naturally suggests itself to the reflecting mind is, how is the sountry to be extricated from the difficulties which now environ it ? And the reply comes up at once, by invoking the aid of the man who settled similar difficulties before. Com- mon sense would seem to indicate the pro- priety of such a course. If a physician, by skilful treatment, had brought you through a severe spell of illness, and you were attacked a second time with the same disease, would you not call him to your relief again ? If a pilot had steered' you safely through a danger- ous storm, and you were again beset by tem- pests, would you not a second time call him to the helm ? Why then should not the people of the United States again avail themsehes of the services of the statesman whose wis- dom and patriotism guided them in 1850 through perils like those that now threaten their safety ? Madison. Maine. The state of Massachusetts having, by act of the 19th of June, 1819, given its consent that the people of that part of Massachusetts, theretofore known as the District of Maine, should form themselves into an independent state ; in pursuance thereof, they formed a state constitution agreeably to the provisions of the said act. Accordingly Congress, by act of March 3, 1820, admitted Maine as a state into this Union, on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever. The proceedings on the admission of Maine, complicated as they were with those on th** admission of Missouri, can be seen by refer- ence to the history of the latter. Matteson, Gilbert, Edwards, and Welch. Alleged corrupt Congressional Combina tions. On the 9th of January, 1857, Mr. William H. Kelsey, a member of the House of Represen- tatives from the state of New York, rose in his place, and after causing to be read an edito- rial article in the New York Daily Times of the 6th January, 1857, introduced the follow- ing resolution : — Whereas certain statements have been published, charg- ing that members of this House bare entered into corrupt combinations for the purpose of passing and of preventing the passage of certain measures now pending before Con- gress : Therefore Resolved, That a committee, consisting of five members, be appointed by the Speaker, with power to send for per- sons and papers, to investigate said charges; and that suiii committee report the evidence taken, and what action, in their judgment, is necessary on the part of the House, with- out any unnecessary delay. Mr. Paine. I scarcely know, Mr. Speaker, whether to say anything in relation to this matter or not. I know nothing about the edi- tor of that journal, or of the journal itself. I know nothing about any communication which has been made to that paper. I know not how its editor got his information. I know not whether what he says is true or false. But this I do know, that there has been a pro- position made in this House, by a mem- ber of this House, upon this very subject. ["Name! name f"} I shall not name the gentleman at this time. It was with feel- ings of indignation that I heard the propo- sition. The reason I did not resent it was because it would have been a violation of tho rules of this House. The reason I did not de- nounce it to the House was because, during the pendency of the struggle for the organiza- tion of this House, when a member rose in his place and stated to the House that a direct effort had been made to tamper with him in reference to the election of Speaker, the only MATTESON, GILBERT, EDWARDS, AND WELCH. 311 credit he received for divulging the fact was that of being laughed at, and of being charged that he did not accept of the bribe merely be- cause there was no such place as was offered to him. I say now distinctly upon this floor, that there is not an entire want of truth in the allega- tions contained in that article ; that a distinct proposition has been made by a member of this House, and in regard to the Minnesota land bill, that $1500 would be guarantied to a mem- ber for his vote for that bill ; and when the committee is raised and I am called upon, I will give my evidence before the committee. After some farther debate the resolution was adopted. The Speaker appointed the committee the next dav, to consist of Messrs. Kelsev of N. Y., Orr of " S. C, Davis of Md., Ritchie of Pa., and Warner of Ga. On the 19th of February, 1857, the com- mittee reported the following resolutions through the members of the committee re- spectively under whose name the resolutions appear. The committee were unanimous in their con- clusions upon all the cases, with the exception of the chairman, who declined to unite with the committee in their recommendations with reference to the guilty members. The following are the resolutiona. By Mr. Warner of Geo. : — Resolved. That Orsamus B. Matteson, a member of this House from the state of New York, did incite parties deeply interested in the passage of a joint resolution for construing the Des Moines grant to have here and to use a large sum of money and other valuable considerations cor- ruptly, for the purpose of procuring the passage of said joint resolution through this House. Resolved. That Orsamus B. Matteson, in declaring that a large number of the members of this House had asso- ciated themselves together, and pledged themselves each to the other not to vote for any law or resolution granting money or lands, unless they were paid for it, has falsely aud wilfully assailed and defamed the character of this House, and has proved himself unworthy to be a member thereof. Resolved, That Orsamus B. Matteson, a member of this House from the state of New York, be, and is hereby ex- pelled therefrom. By Mr. Davis of Md. :— Resolved, 1. That William A. Gilbert, a member of this House from New York, did agree with F. F. C. Triplett to procure the passage of a resolution or bill through the present Congress for the purchase by Congress of certain copies of the book of the said Triplett on the pension and bounty land laws, in consideration that the said Triplett should allow him to receive a certain sum of money out of the appropriation for the purchase of the book. Resolved, 2. That William A. Gilbert did cast his vote on the Iowa land bill, depending heretofore before this Congress, for a corrupt consideration, consisting of seven square miles of laud and some stock given or to be given to him. Resolved, 3. That William A. Gilbert, a member of this II luse from New York, be forthwith expelled from this House. By Mr. Ritchie of Pa. : — Resolved, That Francis S. Edwards, a member of this House from the state of New York, did, on the 23d day of December last, attempt to induce Robert T. Paine, a mem- ber of this House from the state of North Carolina, to vote, contrary to the dictates of his judgment and conscience, on a bill making a grant of lands to aid in the construction of a railroad in the territory of Minnesota, by holding out a pecuniary consideration to the said Paine for his support of the said bill. Resolved, That the said Francis S. Edwards be, and he is hereby expelled from this House. By Mr. Davis of Md. : — Resolved. That William W. Welch did corruptly com- bine with William A. Gilbert, a member of this House from New York, to procure the passage of a resolution or bill through this House for the purchase of certain copies of the work of F. F. C. Triplett. on the pension and bounty land laws, for a share in the money to be paid to the said William A. Gilbert on its passage. 2. Resolved. That William W. Welch did attempt to pro- cure money from James R. Sweeney for reporting favor- ably on the claim of Roxana Kimball from the Committee on invalid Pensions, at this Congress. 3. Resolved, That William W. Welch, a member of this House from Connecticut, be forthwith expelled from this House. Messrs. Matteson, Gilbert, and Edwards re- signed. On the 27th of February, 1857, the question was taken on the resolutions relative to Mr. Matteson. The first resolution was adopted by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Aiken, Akers, Allen, Allison, Ball, HendUy S. Bennett, Bishop. Bliss, Bowie, Bnyce. Bradshaw, Branch, Brenton, Broom. Buffinton, Burnett. Cadwalader. James H. Campbell, John P. Campbell, Carlile. Caruthers,Caskie, Claw- son, Ctingman. Williamson B. W. Cbfcb.Comins. Covode,Cox, Craige. Crawford, Cullen, Damrell. Davidson, Henry Winter Davis. Jacob C. Davis, Day. Denver, De Witt, Doivdell, Dunn, Durfee, Mmtmdsm. Elliott. Emrie, Edstis, Faulkner. Flag- ler, Florence, Foster, Henry M. Fuller. Thomas J. D. Fuller, Galloway, Garnett, Goude, Greenvwc*!. Augustus Hall, Harlan, J. Morrison Harris, Sampson W. Harris. Thomas L. Harris, Harrison, Haven, Herbert, Hoffman. Thomas R. Horton, Valentine B. Horton. Houston. Jewett, George W. Jones. Keiit, Kelly, Kennett, Kidwell, Knapp, Knight, Knox, Kun- kel, Lake, Letcher, Lindlf.t, Lumpkin, Alexander K. Mar- shall, Samuel S. Marshall, Maxwell, McMidlin, McQueen, Smith Miller, Millson, Mill ward, Moore, Morrill, Morrison. Mott, Orr, Packer, Paine, Parker, Peck, Pennington, Perry. Pike, Porter. Powell, Purviance, Puryear. Quitman, Reads, Ready, Rica ur>, Ritchie. Robbins, lloberts,Ruffin,Rust, Sabin, Sandidge, Sapp, Savage, Scott, Seivard, Shorter, William Smith. William R. Smith, Spinner, Stanton, Stewart, Strana- han. Talbott, Taylor, Todd, Trafton, Tyson, Underwood, Vail, Valk, Walker. Warner, Cadwalader C. Washburne.iraM.-tns, Wheeler, Winslow, Wood, Daniel B. Wright, John V. Wrigld, ZOLLICOFFER. — 145. Nays.— Messrs. Albright, Henry Bennett, Burhngame. Lewis D. Campbell. Chaffee. Bayard Clarke. Colfax, Tim- othy Davis, Dickson, Gramrer. Holloway, Killian, Miller. Morgan, Murray, Andrew Oliver, Walbridge, Woodruff.— 17. The second resolution was adopted unani- mously. The" third one was laid on the table. The resolutions relative to Messrs. Gilbert and Edwards were laid on the table after their resignations. The resolution relative to Mr. Welch coming up on the 27th of January, 1857, Mr. Smith of Va., offered the following substitute for the same : — Resolved. That there has been no sufficient evidence eli cited by the committee having charge of the subject, and reported to this House in the case of William \\ . \\ elch. a member thereof, and that no further proceedings shall be had against such member. Which was agreed to by the following vote :— Yeas.— Messrs. Akers, Albright, Ball, Barbour, Henry Bennett, Benson, Billiughuist. Bingham, Bishop. Bliss. Bradshaw, Brenton, Broom, Bufnngton. Burlingame. Gad* walader, James H. Campbell. Lewis D. Campbell, Chaffee, Bayard Clark, Ezra Clark. Clawson. Colfax. Comins. Oo- vode, Cragin, Cumback. Timothy Davis. Dean. De T\ itt, Dickson, Dodd, Durfee, Edie. Emrie, Etheridge. Flagler, IIsn- ry M. Fuller. Galloway. Granger, Robert B. Hall, Harlan, J. Morrison Harris, Herbert, Hodges, Holloway, Thomas R. Horton, Valentine B. Horton, Howard. Hnghston. Keliy, Kelsey, Kiug, Knapp. Knight, Knowlton, Knox. Kunkel. Leiter. Letcher, Lindley, Alexander K. Marshall. Hum- phrey Marshall, McCarty, Killian Miller, Millson. M-llward, MOORE. Morgan. Morrill, Mott, Murray. Nichols. Norton, Paine, Parker, Peck, Pelton, Pennington, Peiry, l'ettit. Pike. Poetjer, Pringle, Purviance, Robbins, Roberts, Sabin, sage, S12 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Sandidge, Sapp, Scott, Seward, Sherman, Simmons, Samuel A. Smith, William Smith, William R. Smith, Spinner, Stan- ton, Stranahan, Tappan, Thorington, Thurstou, Todd. Traf- ton, Underwood, Wade, Wakeman, Waldron, Cadwalader C. Washburne, Elihu B. Washburne, Israel Washburne, Watson, Wells, Williams, Wood, Woodruff, Woodwortb — 119. Nats.— Messrs. Allen, Hendle.y S. Bennett, Bowie, Burnett, Tohn P. Campbell, Caruthers, Cask-it, Williamson R. W. Cobb, Cox, Crawford. Cullen, Henry Winter Davis, Dowdell, Dunn, Edmundson, Elliott, Florence, Foster, Goode, Augustus Hall, Sampson W. Harris, Thomas L. Harris. Haven, Hoffman, Houston, Jewett. George W. Jones, Kidwell, Lake, Lumpkin, McQueen. Orr, Packer, Reade. Ready, Ricaud, Jiuffm, Shorter, Stewart, Walker, Warner, Wheeler. — 42. The committee reported the following hill: — A Bill to protect the people against corrupt and secret in- fluence in matters of legislation. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no person shall, directly or indirectly, offer or agree to give any money or other valuable thing, or security for any money or other valuable thing, to any person for the service of such person, or of any other person, in aiding, or advocating, or procuring, the passage or defeat of any mea- sure before either House of Congress, or any committee of either House, to be paid or delivered on the contingency of the passage or defeat of any measure before either House of Congress, or before any committee of either House: and that no person shall agree to accept or receive, or shall ac- cept or receive, any money or other valuable thing for aid- ing, or advocating, or procuring, the passage or defeat of any measure before either House of Congress, or before any sommittee of either House; and that every bargain, eon- tract, or security for any such compensation on any such contingency, and all shifts and contrivances to cover or con- ceal such bargain, are hereby declared null and void; and the parties to any such bargain, contract, agreement, or understanding, as well the party to pay as the party to re- ceive the money or other valuable thing, or security there- for, on any such contingency as is above indicated, are hereby declared guilty of a misdemeanor; and on conviction thereof before any court of the United States having juris- diction of the said offence, shall suffer imprisonment in the common jail for not less than six months, nor more than one year, and be subject to a fine of not less than one hun- dred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars. Sec. 2. That no person having any interest in the passage or defeat of any measure before either House of Congress, and no agent or person acting for or representing any other person as agent or attorney, iu law or in fact, for procuring, aiding, or advocating the passage or defeat of any measure before either House of Congress, or before any committee of either House, shall approach, converse with, or explain to, or in any manner attempt to influence, any member of either House relative to such measure, without first dis- tinctly disclosing to such member whether he is interested personally in bis own right or as agent for any other person in the passage or defeat of such measure ; and any person who shall violate the provisions of this section is hereby declared guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, before any court of the United States, be punished by im- prisonment for not less than one month nor more than one year, and by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars. The hill was passed on the 28th of Feb., 1857, by the following vote : — Yeas. — Messrs. Aiken, Allison, Hendley S. Bennett, Benson, Bingham, Burnett, Cadwalader, James H. Campbell, John P. Campbell, Lewis D. Campbell, Carlisle, Garuthers, Caskie, Ezra Clark, Clingman, Williamson R. W. Cobb, Cox, Craw- ford. Cullen, Cumback, Davidson, Henry Winter Davis, Day, Dean, Dick, Dowdell, Dunn, Durfee, Edmundson, Elliott, Emrie, Eostis, Evans, Faulkner, Florence, Foster, Garnett, Goode, Greenwood, J. Morrison Harris, Sampson W. Harris, Thomas L. Harris, Haven, Hoffman, Valentine B. Horton, Houston. Jewett, George W. Jones, Kelly, Kid well. Knight, Knowlton, Knox, Letcher, Lumpkin, Humphrey Marshall, Samuel S. Marshall, Maxwell, McQueen. Killian Miller, Smith Miller, Moore, Morrison, Mott, Norton, Orr, Packer, Peck, Perry, Dike, Powell, Puuviance, Pcryear, Ready, Ritchie, Ruffin. Sundiilgi; Si rage, Scott, Seward, Sherman, Samuel A. Smith. William Smith. William R. Smith, Spinner. Strana- han, Talbott, Tii//lor. Underwood, Valk, Wade, Wakeman, Walker, Warner, (Vatkins, Welch, Wheeler, Williams. Wood, Woodruff, Wood worth, Daniel B. Wright, John V. Wright. ZOLLIC'OFFER. — l(j4. Nays. — Messrs. Albright, Allen, Ball, Barbour. Barclay, Henry Bennett, Billiughurst, Bishop, Bliss, Boaoclc, Bowie, Bradshaw. Brenton, Broom. Bufhnton, Burlingame, Chaf- fee, Clawson. Colfax, Coming, Covode, Oraige. Damrell. Jacob ('. Davis, Denver, De Witt. Dickson, Dodd, Kdle, ETHERIDQE, Flagler, Henry M Fuller,, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Galloway, Granger, Harlan, Herbert. Hodges, Holloway, Thomas R. Horton, Howard, Hughston, Kennett. King, Knapp, Kur> kel, Leiter, Lindley, Mace, Alexander K. Marshalli, Mill- so7i, Millward, Morgan, Morrill, Nichols, Andrew Olivsr. Parker, Pelton, Pennington, Pettit, Porter, Pringle, Quit- man, Ricaud, Robbins, Roberts, Robinson, Sabin, Sage, Sapp, Simmons, Stanton, Stewart. Swope, Tappan, Thoring- ton, Thurston. Todd, Trafton, Vail, Walbridge, Waldron, Cadwalader C. Washburne, Elihu B. Washburne, Watson, Wells, Whitney, Winslow. — 88. Democrats in italics, Fillmore Americans in small capitals, Republicans in roman. Before the resolutions relating to Messrs. Matteson and others had passed, the state of New York had elected representatives to the next, or the 35th Congress. Amongst the representatives elected, Mr. Matteson was re- turned as a member of the 35th Congress. On the first day of the Congress Mr. Matte- son answered to his name and was sworn in. On the 25th February, 1858, Mr. Harris, of Illinois, introduced the following resolutions : Whereas, at the last session of Congress, a select committee of this House reported the following resolutions, to wit: (Here the resolutions on the preceding page relative to Mr. Matteson, were repeated.) And said committee also reported the facts upon which said resolutions were predicated, which are published with the reports 'of the House ; and whereas the first of said resolu- tions was adopted by the House of Represen- tatives on the 27th of February last by a vote of 145 ayes to 17 noes, and the said second re- solution was adopted by the House on the same day without a division ; and whereas the said Matteson had, prior to any vote being taken on the last resolution, resigned his seat in this House, and thus avoided the effect of the same, had it been passed ; and whereas the said Matteson is a member of this House, with the imputations conveyed by the passage of the first two of the foregoing resolutions still upon him, and without having been subsequently re-elected by his constituents : Therefore — Resolved, That Orsamus B. Matteson, a mem- ber of this House from the state of New York, be, and is hereby, expelled from this House. The same having been read, After debate, The resolutions were, on motion of Mr. Sew- ard of Georgia, referred to a select committee On the22d of March, 1858, Mr. Seward, from the select committee, consisting of bimself, Messrs. Grow of Pennsylvania, Iluyler of New Jersey, and Curtis of Iowa, made a report. The committee, after detailing the facts it! the case, discussed the power of the House as follows : — With the expiration of the 34th Congress its power ended. Its judgment had been pro- nounced. Mr. Matteson, if .»uy other respon- sibility attached to him, was amenable to the people of his district. The fact of Mr. Matte- son's election to the 35th Congress was known to the House of Representatives of the 34th Congress, and if the House has the right to declare a disqualification excluding the mem- ber accused from his seat, it is not easy to conceive, upon any fair principle of reasoning, matteson.— Mckinley, john. 313 why the House of the 34th Congress did not possess the power to prescribe the disqualifi- cation ; and if so, why it was not exercised, that the people might have resumed their right to choose another representative. The powers and privileges of this House are defined by the Constitution formed by the people. The exercise of other powers would be a violation of their rights. The assertion of power in this case is but entering upon a fearful contest with the American people to deprive them of their rights and privileges. To exert it would be a flagrant usurpation of powers never granted to this body, and would ultimately annihilate the power of the people in the choice of their representatives. It is a question of usurpation upon the one side, and American freedom upon the other. While this House should scrupulously guard and protect its own privileges and purity, it should be equally cautious not to invade the privileges of the people. Can any reasonable doubt be entertained as to the power claimed, it should be permitted to remain with the peo- ple, who, wisely under our system of govern- ment, are confided with the duty of selecting their representatives every two years. The cpmmittee, while they are not prepared to admit the jurisdiction of the House over the question as now presented, yet, as the resolu- tion referred to them proposes the expulsion of the member from New York, and seeks to go beyond the resolutions of censure of the House of Representatives of the 34th Congress, it became necessary, in view of the diversity of opinion upon the subject of jurisdiction as to its rights and privileges, to look for the facts upon which the House is to act. If this House holds that it has jurisdiction, then the record of the last House becomes important in the proper determination of the case. Hence, the committee felt it due to principle and to the accused to give him the privilege of appearing before the committee, that he might be heard if he desired. Mr. Matteson accordingly ap- peared and submitted his statement, which is presented to the consideration of the House. The propriety of this view of the subject will at once be admitted, as this House seeks to punish the member to the full extent known to the Constitution upon a bare resolution, without providing for any trial, or affording to the accused any means of defence. Whatever arguments may be deduced from the resolution of the last House contemplating the expulsion of Mr. Matteson, still no decision was had thereon, and the resolution was laid upon the table. Whether, upon a direct vote, two- thirds of the members would have voted for his expulsion, is not for your committee to de- termine. The mode of proceeding, should the jurisdiction be assumed, will be for the House to determine, looking to the great principle in- volved and the member to be affected thereby. All of which is respectfully submitted. James L. Seward. Chairman. Galusiia A. Grow, John Huyler. Resolved, That it is inexpedient for this House to take any further action in regard to the resolutions proposing to expel 0. B. Mat- teson. Mr. Curtis, of Iowa, dissented from these views, but submitted no resolutions for the action of the House. The whole subject was laid on the table in the House. McKinley, John, late Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, On the Constitutionality of the Passenger Laws of New York. In the cases of Smith v. Turner, and Norris v. City of Boston, in which the constitutional- ity of the passenger laws of New York and Massachusetts came under consideration, and were declared void, Justice McKinley deliver- ed the following opinion : The first clause of the ninth section and first article of the Constitution provides, " that the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think pro- per to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress, prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding S10 for each person." On the last argument of this clause no reference was made to this clause of the Constitution ; nor have I ever heard a full and satisfactory ar- gument on the subject. Yet, on a full exami- nation of this clause connected with other provisions of the Constitution, it has had a controlling influence on my mind in the deter- mination of the case before us. Some of my brethren have insisted that the clause here quoted applies exclusively to the importation of slaves. If the phrase " the migration or importation of such persons" was intended by the convention to mean slaves only, why, in the assertion of the taxing power, did they, in the same clause, separate migration from importation, and use the following language? " But a tax or duty may be imposed on such persons, not exceeding $10 for each person." All will admit, that if the word migration were excluded from the clause, it would ap- ply to slaves only. An unsuccessful attempt was made in the convention to amend this clause, by striking out the word migration, and thereby to make it apply to slaves exclu- sively. In the face of this fact, the debates' in the convention, certain numbers of the Federalist, together with Mr. Madison's re- port to the legislature of Virginia in 1799 — eleven years after the adoption of the Consti- tution — are relied on to prove that the words migration and importation are synonymous, within the true intent and meaning of this clause. The acknowledged accuracy of lan- guage and clearness of diction in the Constitu- tion would seem to forbid the imputation of so gross an error to the distinguished authors of that instrument. I have been unable to find anything in the debates of the conven- 314 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tion, in the Federalist, or the report of Mr. Madison, inconsistent with the construction here given. Were they, however, directly opposed to it, they could not, by any known rule of construction, control or modify the plain and unambiguous language of the clause in question. The conclusion, to my mind, is therefore irresistible that there are two sepa- rate and distinct classes of persons intended to be provided for by thio clause. Although they are both subjects of commerce, the latter cla^s only is the subject of trade and importa- tion. The slaves are not immigrants, and had no exercise of volition in their transportation from Africa to the United States. The owner was bound to enter them at the custom-house, as any other article of commerce or importa- tion, and to pay the duty imposed by law ; whilst the persons of the first class, although subjects of commerce, had the free exercise of volition, and could remove at pleasure from one place to another ; and when they deter- mined to migrate or remove from any Euro- pean government to the United States, they voluntarily dissolved the bond of allegiance to their sovereign, with the intention to con- tract a temporary or permanent allegiance to the government of the United States, and if transported in an American ship, that allegi- ance commenced the moment they got on board. They were subject to, protected by, the laws of the United States to the end of their voyage. Having thus shown that there are two separate and distinct classes included in, and provided by, the clause of the Consti- tution referred to, the question arises, how far the persons of the first class are protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States from the operation of the statute of New York now under consideration? The power was conferred on Congress to prohibit migration or importation of such persons into all the new states, from and after the time of their admission into the Union, because the exemp- tion from the prohibition of Congress was confined exclusively to the states then exist- ing, and left the power to operate upon all the new states admitted into the Union prior to 1808. Four new states having been thus admitted within that time, it follows, beyond controversy, the power of Congress over the whole subject of migration and importation was complete throughout the United States after 1808. The power to prohibit the admission of " all such persons," includes necessarily, the power to admit them on such conditions as Congress may think proper to impose ; and, therefore, as a condition, Congress has the unlimited power of taxing them. If this reasoning be correct, the whole power over the subject be- longs exclusively to Congress, and connects itself indissolubly with the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. How far, then, are these immigrants protected, upon their arrival in the United States, against the power of state statutes ? The ship, the cargo, the master, the crew, and the passengers are all under the protection of the laws of the United States to the final termination of the voyage ; and the passengers have a right to be landed and go on shore under the protection of and subject to these laws only, except so far as they may be subject to the quarantine laws of the place where they are landed ; which laws are not drawn in question in this controversy. The great question here is, where does the power of the United States over this subject end, and where does the state power begin ? This is, perhaps, one of the most perplexing questions ever submitted to the consideration of this court. A similar question arose in the case of Brown v. The State of Maryland (12 Wheat. 419), in which the court carried out the power of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, upon the subject then under conside- ration, to the line which separates it from the reserved powers of the states, and plainly established the power of the states over the same subject-matter beyond that line. The clause of the Constitution already re- ferred to in this case, taken in connexion with the provision which confers on Congress the power to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying into effect the enumerated and all other powers granted by the Constitution, seem necessarily to include the whole power over this subject ; and the Constitution and laws of the United States being the supreme law of the land, state power cannot be extended over the same subject. It therefore follows that passengers can never be subject to state laws until they become a portion of the popu- lation of the state, temporarily or permanently ; and this view of the subject seems to be fully sustained by the case above referred to. Were it even admitted that the state of New York had power to pass the statute under conside- ration, in the absence of legislation by Con- gress on this subject, it would avail nothing in this case, because the whole ground had been occupied by Congress before that act was passed, as has been fully shown by the pre- ceding opinion of my brother Catron. The laws referred to in that opinion show conclu- sively that the passengers, their moneys, their clothing, their baggage, their tools, their im- plements, &c, are permitted to land in the United States without tax, duty, or impost, I therefore concur in the opinion, that the judg- ment of the court below should be reversed. McLean, John, Justice. Opinion of, in same case. Justice McLean thus distinctly recognised the internal police power of the states : — " The acknowledged police power of a state extends often to the destruction of property. A nuisance may be abated. Everything pre- judicial to the health or morals of a city may be removed. Merchandise from a port where a contagious disease prevails, being liable to communicate the disease, may be excluded ; and, in extreme cases, it may be thrown into McLEAN, JOHN.— MEXICAN WAR. 315 the sea. This comes in direct conflict with the regulations of commerce, and yet no one doubts the local power. It is a power essen- tial to self-preservation, and exists, necessarily, in every organized community. It is, indeed, the law of nature, and is possessed by man in his individual capacity. He may resist that which does harm him, whether he be assailed by an assassin, or approached by poison. And it is the settled construction of every regula- tion of commerce, that, under the sanction of its general laws, no person can introduce into a community malignant diseases, or anything which contaminates its morals, or endangers its safety. And this is an acknowledged prin- ciple applicable to all general regulations. Individuals, in the enjoyment of their own rights, must be careful not to injure the rights of others. " From the explosive nature of gunpowder, a city may exclude it. Now this is an article of commerce, and is not known to carry infec- tious disease ; yet, to guard against a contin- gent injury, a city may prohibit its introduc- tion. These exceptions are always implied in commercial regulations, where the general government is admitted to have the exclusive power. They are not regulations of commerce, but acts of self preservation. And although they affect commerce to some extent, yet such effect is the result of the exercise of an un- doubted power in the state. * * # * " In all matters of government, and espe- cially of police, a wide discretion is necessary. It is not susceptible of an exact limitation, but must be exercised under the changing; exig-en- cies of society. In the progress of popula- tion, of wealth, and of civilization, new and vicious indulgencies spring up, which require restraints that can only be imposed by the le- gislative power. When this power shall be ex- erted, how far it shall be carried and where it shall cease, must mainly depend upon the evil to be remedied. Under the pretence of a po- lice regulation, a state cannot counteract the commercial power of Congress. And yet, as has been shown, to guard the health, morals, and safety of the community, the laws of a state may prohibit an importer from landing his goods, and may sometimes authorize their destruction. But this exception to the opera- tion of the general commercial law is limited to the existing exigency. * * # # " The police power of a state and the for- eign commercial power of Congress must stand together. Neither of them can be so exercised as materially to affect the other. The sources, and objects of these powers are exclusive, dis- tinct, and independent, and are essential to both governments." Mexican War. On the 13th of October, 1845, an inquiry was made by the United States government of the government of Mexico, whether it would receive an envoy from the United States, in- trusted with full powers to adjust all ques- tions in dispute between the two governments, with the assurance that, if an affirmative an- swer should be received, such an envoy would be immediately despatched to Mexico. An affirmative answer was received, with a request that the American naval force at Vera Cruz might be withdrawn, lest its presence might have the appearance of menace and coercion pending the negotiations. The naval force was withdrawn, and Mr. John Slidell of Louisiana was appointed envoy, with full power to adjust both the questions of the Texan boundary and of indemnification to our citizens. Mr. Slidell reached Mexico on the 30th of November, but the government of General Ilerrera refused to receive him. That govern- ment giving place shortly to the government of General Paredes which succeeded it, he presented himself to it ; but it likewise refused to receive him, when he returned home and reported the facts to his government. A movement of American troops under General Taylor to the banks of the Del Norte opposite Matamoras, caused the Mexican forces to assume a belligerent attitude. On the 12th of April, 1846, General Ampudia, then in command of the Mexican forces, notified Gen- eral Taylor to break up his camp and retire beyond the Nueces river. General Taylor not complying with this request, was on the 24th of April informed by the Mexican commander that hostilities had commenced, and that be should prosecute them. On the same day a party of American troops, who had been sent up the Rio del Norte to discover whether the Mexican troops had crossed the river, became engaged with a large body of them, and after a short battle, were surrounded and compelled to surrender. These facts were all communi- cated to Congress by President Polk, on the 11th day of May, 1846, who asked for sup- plies of men and money wherewith to carry on hostilities with Mexico. He said in his message : — "As war exists, and, notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, exists by the act of Mexico herself, we are called upon by every considera- tion of duty and patriotism to vindicate with decision the honor, the rights, and the interests of our country." On the same day a bill was reported in the House of Representatives, responding to the request of the President. Mr. Boyd of Ky. moved the following as a substitute for the first section : — "Whereas, by the act of the Republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that government and the United States: Therefore '■ Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That, for the purpose of enabling the government of the United States to prosecute said war to a speedy and successful ter- mination, the President be and he is hereby authorized to employ the militia, naval, and military forces of the United States, and to call for and accept the services of any number of volunteers, not exceeding fifty thousand, who may offer their services as cavalry, artillery, infantry, or riflemen, to serve six or twelve months after they shall have arrived at the place of rendezvous, or to the end of the war, unless sooner discharged. 316 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. "That the sum of ten millions of dollars, he and the same is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury or to come into the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this act into effect." Mr. Holmes of S. C, denounced the pre- amble as base, fraudulent and false. Mr. Bayly of Virginia was unwilling at that time to vote a declaration of war, but consid- ered withholding the supplies under the cir- cumstances a greater evil. Mr. Albert Smith declared the preamble to be " false in facts, and operating as a fraud upon the nation." The vote was taken, and here it is : — The first question was on striking out the first section and inserting in lieu thereof the section moved by Mr. Boyd, hereinbefore re- recited. On this question Mr. Rockwell of Con. de- manded the yeas and nays. Mr. Winthrop wished the question divided, and put last on what he contended was a pre- amble. After an argument on the question of order, the chair ruled that the amendment was one, and could not be divided. The question being put, the amendment was adopted by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Stephen Adams. Anderson. Arnold. Atkin- son. Baker. Bell, Benton. Biggs, James Black, .las. A. Black, Bowlin. Boyd. Briukerhoff. Brockenbrough, Brodhead, Mil- ton Brown. William G. Brown, John II. Campbell, Cathcart, John G. Chapman, Reuben Chapman, Chase. Chipman, Clarke, Cobb. Cocke. Colliu, Cullom, Cummins, Daniel, Darragh, Jefferson Davis, De Mott, Dillingham, Dobbin, Douglas, Dromgoole, Edsall, Elsworth, Erdman. Faran, Ficklin, Fries, Garvin, Gentry, Goodyear, Gordon, Graham. Grover. Haralson. Harmauson, Henley, Hoge, Hopkins. Hough, George S. Houston, Hungerford, Jas. B. Hunt, Charles J. Ingersoll. Joseph R. Ingersoll, Joseph Johnson, Andrew Johnson, Geo. W. Jones, Kennedy, Preston King, Leib, Da Sere, Levin, Ligon, Lumpkin, Maclay. McClean, McClelland. McClernandrMcConnell, Joseph J. McDowell, James McDowell. McKay, John P. Martin, Barclay Martin. Morris, Morse. Moulton, Niven. Norris, Owen, Pariah, Payne. Perrill, Pettit. Phelps, Pollock, Price, Ramsey. Rathbun, Keid, Relfe. Hitter, Roberts, Sawtelle, Sawyer, Scammon, Leonard H. Sims. Thos. Smith, Robert Smith, Stanton, Starkweather. St. John. Strong. Thibodeaux.Thomasson, Jacob Thompson, Thurman, Tibbats. Towns, Tredway, Trumbo, Wentworth, Wheaton, Wick, Woodruff, Yell, Young.— 123. N A y S . — Messrs. Abbott. John Q. Adams. Ashmun, Bar- ringer, Bayly, Bediuger, Blanchard, Bufflugton, Burt, Wm. W. Campbell, Carroll, Cranston, Crozier. Culver, Garrett Davis, Delano. Dockery. Dunlap, John II. Ewing, Edwin H. Ewing. Font. Giddings, Grider. Grinuell, Hamlin, Hampton, Harper. Herrick. Milliard, E. B. Holmes, I. E. Holmes, Jno. W. Houston, E. W. Hubard, Sam. D. Hubbard, Hudson, Hunter, Daniel P. King. Thomas B. King, Lewis, MeGaughey, Mcllenry, Mcllvaine. Marsh, Miller. Moseley, Pendleton, Khett, John A. Rockwell, Root, Schenck, Seddon, Severance, Alexander D. Sims, Simpson, Truman Smith, Albert Smith, Stephens. Stewart. Strohm, Benjamin Thompson, Tilden, Toombs, Vance, Vinton, Winthrop, Woodward, Yancey.— 67. The bill as amended, on motion of Mr. Boyd, passed by a vote of 122 yeas to 14 nays. The negative vote being as follows : — Messrs. John Quincy Adams and Ashmun of Mass., Cran- ston of R. I., Culver of N. Y., Delany and Giddings of 0., Grinuell, Hudson and King of Mass., Root of 0., Severance of Me., Strohm of Pa., Tilden and Vance of 0. In the Senate a war was made upon the pre- amble of the bill. A motion to strike it out was lost by the fol- lowing vote : — Yeas. — Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Berrien, Calhoun, Thomas Clayton, John M. Clayton, Corwin, Crittenden, Davis. Day- ton, Evans, Huntington, McDuffle, Manguw, Morehead, Simmons, Upham, Woodbridge. — 18. Nats. — Me->srs. Allen, Ashley, Atchison. Atherton, Bagby, Benton, Breese, Bright, Cameron, Cass, Colquitt, Dix, Hous- ton, Jarnagin, Jenness, Johnson of Md., Johnson of La., Lewis. Miles, Penuybaeker, Rusk, Semple, Sevier, Speight^ Sturgeon, Turney, Westcott, Yulee. — 28. The bill finally passed the Senate, there being only two negative votes — Messrs. Thos. Clayton of Del., and John Davis of Mass. Messrs. Calhoun, Berrien, and Evans re- fused to vote at all on account of the pream- ble. Senators Crittenden and Upham answered " ay, except the preamble." Messrs. Mangum, Clayton, and Dayton en- tered their protest against the preamble. As passed by the Senate it was amended, which amendments were concurred in by the House, and the bill became a law on the 13th of May, 1846. On that day the President issued his pro- clamation declaring war to exist between the United States and Mexico. The Thirtieth Congress assembled on the 6th of Dec, 1847, with a Whig majority of 8 opposed to the administration of Mr. Polk, the remarkable gain of 71 Whig or opposition members upon the preceding Congress. On the 15th of Dec, 1847, Mr. Calhoun in- troduced a resolution declaring — " That to conquer and hold Mexico either as a province, or incorporating it into the Union, is inconsistent with the avowed object of the war, contrary to the settled policy of the gov- ernment, in conflict with its character and ge- nius, and in the end must be subversive of all our free and popular institutions." " Resolved, That no line of policy in the farther prosecution of the war should be adopted, which may tend to consequences so disastrous." Various resolutions were introduced in the House of Representatives, by different mem- bers, relative to the war. A series by Mr. Holmes of S. C, entitled a project for peace and free trade with Mexico, agreeing to re-cede all the territory taken from Mexico beyond the Rio Grande in considera- tion of free ingress and egress for our citizens in New Mexico and Upper California, and of carrying on trade as fully as any of the Mexi- can citizens of these provinces. Mr. Richardson of 111. introduced resolu- tions advocating a prosecution of hostilities vigorously. Mr. Stephens of Ga. introduced an amend- ment, that the present war with Mexico should not be waged with a view to conquest, either by the subjugation or dismemberment of that republic, and expressive of the desire of the United States to terminate _ hostilities upon terms honorable to both parties. Mr. Botts of Va. offered as a substitute, resolutions to the following effect :— " That a preservation of the national integ- rity, a strict observance of the limitations of the Constitution, and a resistance to executive encroachment, is the highest duty of the rep- resentatives of the people ; that a war of con- MEXICAN WAR. 317 quest is violative of the Constitution and ge- , nius and spirit of our institutions ; that the present war was not brought on by the act of Mexico ; that it was the unauthorized act of the" President ; that we have no right to claim indemnity for the expenses of the war ; that the honor of this nation does not consist in exacting territory from Mexico to whicli we have no claim, and yielding to Great Britain territory the title to which was declared to be clear and unquestionable, and that to pursue the weak and evade the strong does not pre- sent the honor, courage, or greatness of our people in their true light : That to exact indemnity from Mexico would involve us in the sustenance of a principle in all future wars which would cause us either to surrender the same or be engaged in inter- minable conflict ; that no new territory can be annexed to the United States by virtue of a war, without involving the agitation of do- mestic difficulties, begetting sectional animosi- ties, and weakening the ties which bind us together. The resolutions continued in very much the same spirit in opposition to the war, and are too long to be afforded space in these columns. Mr. Thompson of Ind. gave notice of a pro- position which he should submit, when in order, pointing out the terms to Mexico upon which peace might be established. The previous question not being seconded, the discussion of these resolutions was laid over to a future day. On the 22d of Dec, Mr. Lincoln, of 111., in- troduced a resolution calling upon the Presi- dent to inform Congress whether the spot on which the first blood was shed, was American soil or not. Mr. Toombs offered a resolution that the dismemberment of Mexico, as an indispensable condition of the restoration of peace, was neither required by the honor or interest of the republic. Mr. Vandyke of N. J. offered a resolution that the order stationing General Taylor on the banks of the Rio Grande was an act of aggression in itself, and the immediate cause of the conflict between the two nations ; that the war should not be prosecuted any further ; that our forces should be withdrawn from Mexico, &c, &c. On the 3d of January, 1848, Mr. Hudson moved the following resolution : — Resolved, That the committee on military affairs be directed to inquire into the expedi- ency of requesting the President of the United States to withdraw to the east bank of the Rio Grande our armies now in Mexico ; and to propose to the Mexican government forthwith a treaty of peace on the following bases, namely : That we relinquish all claim to in- demnity for the expenses of the war, and that the boundary between the United States and Mexico shall be established at or near the desert between the Nueces and the Rio Grande ; that Mexico shall be held to pay all just claims due to our citizens at the commencement of the war ; and that a convention shall be en- tered into by the two nations to provide foi the liquidation of those claims and the mode of payment. Mr". Hudson called for the previous question on the resolution. After much discussion about disposing of the resolution, movements to lay it on the table, &c, the resolution was disagreed to by 41 yeas, 137 nays. Mr. Dickey of Pa. moved a preamble and resolutions deprecating the present war with Mexico, and to appoint a joint committee of five from the Houses to confer with the Presi- dent and to report to each House, in secret or open session as it may be proper, the best mode of terminating the same. Mr. Hampton of Pa. introduced a preamble and resolutions providing for the admission into our Union of such Mexican territories whose people may apply therefor. Mr. Houston of Del., previous notice having been given, introduced the following joint re- solution of thanks to Major Gen. Taylor : — Resolved by the Senate and House of Re- presentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the thanks of Congress are due, and they are hereby ten- dered to Major General Zachary Taylor, and through him to the officers and soldiers of the regular army and of the volunteers under his command, for their indomitable valor, skill, and good conduct conspicuously displayed on the 22d and 23d days of February last, in the battle of Buena Yista, in defeating a numerous Mexican army, consisting of four times their number, and composed of chosen troops under their favorite commander, Gen. Santa Anna, and thereby obtaining a victory over the ene- my which, for its signal and brilliant charac- ter, is unsurpassed in the military annals of the world. Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be struck a gold medal with devices emblematical of this splendid achievement, and presented to Major Gen. Taylor, as a testimony of the high sense entertained of his services on that memorable occasion. Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause the foregoing re- solutions to be communicated to Major General Taylor in such manner as he may deem best calculated to effect the objects thereof. Mr. Evans intimated his desire to offer the following amendment : — Resolved, That the capitulation of Monterey meets with the entire sanction and approba- tion of this Congress ; and that the terms of that capitulation were as creditable to the humanity and skill of the gallant Taylor as the achievement of the victory of Monterey was glorious to our arms. Some conversation ensued between the Speaker, Mr. Schenck, Mr. Evans, and others. Mr. Houston of Del., to obviate all difficul- ties, moved the previous question on the original resolution. 318 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. The previous question was not seconded. The speaker again announced the question to be on a motion by Mr. Jamison to refer to the committee on military affairs. Mr. Henloy moved to amend, by adding an instruction to the committee to add the words " engaged as they were in defending the rights aud honor of the nation." On this he asked for the yeas and nays. Mr. Ashmun moved to amend the amend- ment by adding the words " in a war unneces- sarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States." Mr. McLane said before he recorded his vote he desired — The Speaker interposed, and informed the gentleman from Maryland that debate was not in order — if it became the subject of debate, it would go over until to-morrow. Mr. McLane said he had an amendment to offer. The Speaker said no amendment was in order at present. After some conversation the yeas and nays were ordered on Mr. Ashmun's amendment to the amendment ; and, being taken, they re- sulted as follows : — Teas. — Messrs. John Q. Adams, Ashmun. Barringer, Bar- row, Belcher, Botts, Brady, Buckner, Canby, Clingman, Coeke, Coliamer, Conger, Cranston, Crowell, Crozier, Dickey, Dixon, Donnell, Duer, Daniel Duncan, Garnett Duncan, Dunn, Eckert, Edwards, Alexander Evans, Nathan Evans, Fisher, Fulton, Gayle, Gentry, Giddings, Goggin, Grinnell, Hale, Nathan K. Hall, Jas. G. Hampton, Haskell, Henry, JohnW. Houston, Hubbard, Hudson, Irvin, Kellogg, Thos, B. King, D. P. King, Lincoln, Mcllvaine, Marsh, Marvin, Mullin, Nes, Newall, Preston, Putnam, Keynolds, Julius Kockwell, John A. Rockwell, Root, Rumsey, St. John, Schenck, Shepperd, Sherrill, Slingerland, Caleb B. Smith, Truman Smith, Stephens, Andrew Stewart, Strohm, Sylves- ter, Taylor, Thibodeaux, Tompkins, Richard W. Thompson, John B. Thompson, Toombs, Tuck, Van Dyke, Vinton, War- ren, Wilson. — 85. Nays. — Messrs. Beale, Bedinger, Birdshall, Backl, Bowdon, Brodhead, Wm. G. Brown, Charles Brown, Cathcart, Chase, Beverly L. Clark, Howell Cobb, Williamson R. W. Cobb, Cummins, Dauiel, Dickinson, Faran, Featherston, Ficklin, Fries, French, Green, Willard P. Hall, Moses Hampton, Harmanson, Harris, Henley, Hill, G. S. Houston, Inge, Charles J. Ingersoll, Jamieson, Jenkins, Andrew Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, George W. Jones. Kaufman, Kennon, Laum, La Sere, Sidney, Lawrence, Leffler, Lord. Lumpkin, M'Clelland, M'Clernand, McDowell, McLane, Mann, Meade, Miller, Morris, Morce, Murphy, Peaslee, Peek, Phelps, Pils- bury, Rhett, Richardson, Richey, Robinson, Roekhill, Saw- yer, Sims, Smart, Robert Smith, Stanton, Starkweather, C. E. Stuart. Strong, Thomas. Jas. Thompson, Jacob Thompson, William Thompson, Thurston, Turner, Venable, Wick, Wil- liams. — SI. The war ended on the 30th of May, 1848, the date of the treaty of peace. Michigan. The act of January 11, 1805, constituted the northern portion of Indiana Territory the Territory of Michigan. By the act of June 15, 1836, entitled an act to establish the northern boundary-line of the state of Ohio, and to provide for the admission of the state of Michigan into the Union upon the terms therein expressed, the constitution which the people of Michigan had formed for themselves was ratified, and it was provided that when the boundaries set forth in the said act should receive the assent of a convention of delegates of said state, she should become a state on an equal footing with the other states, without any further action by Congress. It was further conditioned that the jurisdiction of said state should only extend over the terri- tory embraced within the limits set forth in said bill. The law prescribed that the con- vention to give the assent of the state to the boundaries set forth, should be elected for that purpose. A convention elected in pursuance of an act of the state legislature (though it had not yet become a state), held on the 26th of Dec, 1836, rejected the fundamental condition of admission prescribed by Congress. A convention held on the 14th of Dec, 1836, of delegates elected in all the counties of the state except two without the virtue of any act of the state or territorial legislature, but merely in pursuance of resolutions adopted by the people themselves in primary meeting, gave its assent to the fundamental conditions prescribed by Congress. Here were two conventions pursuing direct- ly an opposite course of action, and reaching opposite conclusions. Under the law the President was required to issue his proclamation recognising Michi- gan to be one of the states of the Union when she complied with the requirements of the same. Had this condition of things arisen in the recess of Congress, President Jackson said he would have recognised the action of the convention which had originated from the people themselves. But as Congress was then in session, he deemed it proper to lay the sub- ject before it for its decision. The subject was referred in the Senate to the Committee on the Judiciary. That committee reported a bill admitting Michigan into the Union upon an equal foot- ing with the other states. The bill passed the Senate on the 4th of Jan., 1836, by a vote of yeas 27 ; nays 4. The nays were Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Davis, and Prentiss. The bill passed the House on the 25th of Jan., 1836. On the 27 th of Jan., 1836, Mr. Crary, member elect from Michigan, presented himself to be sworn in. Mr. Robertson objected, upon the ground that Michigan was not a state when Mr. Crary was elected. The House decided by a vote of 150 ayes to 32 nays that he should be qualified as a mem- ber of the House. Military Approriation Hill of 1856. Last Day of the Called Session. Saturday, August 30, 1856, in the House of Representatives, Mr. Campbell of Ohio, by leave, reported from the Ways and Means Committee another Army Appropriation Bill, with the proviso, that no part of the military of the United States, for the support of which appropriations are made by this act, shall be employed in aid of the enforcement of any MILITARY APPROPRIATION BILL OF 1856.— MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL. 319 enactment of the body claiming to be the ter- ritorial legislature of Kansas. The previous question was seconded, and under the operation thereof, the bill was read a third time and passed, by the following vote : — Yeas. — Messrs. Albright, Allison, Barbour. Barclay, Ilenry Benuett, Benson. Billinghurst, Bingham, Bliss, Bradshaw, Brenton, Buffington. James H. Campbell, Lewis D. Camp- bell. ChaJTee, Ezra Clark. Clawson, Colfax, Comins, CoYode, Cragin, Cumbaek, Damrell, Henry Winter Davis. Timothy Davis. Dean, De Witt, Dick, Dickson. Dodd, Durfee, Ivlie, Edwards. Emrie, Flagler, Galloway, Giddings. Gilbert. Gran- ger. Grow, Harlan, Haven, Holloway, Thomas R. Horton, Howard, Hughston, Kelsey, King, Knapp, Knight, Kuowl- ton, Knox, Kunkel, Leiter, Matteson, McCarty, Morgan, Morrill, Mott, Murray, Norton, Andrew Oliver, Parker, Peltou. Pettit, Pike, Pringle, Purviance. Ritchie. Robbing, Roberts, Robison, Sabiu, Sage, Sapp, Scott, Sherman, Sim- mons, Spinner. Stranahan, Tappan, Thorington, Thurston. Todd, Trafton. Tyson, Wade.Wakeman, Walbridge, Waldron, Cadwalader C. Washburne. Elihu B. Washburne, Israel Washburue, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wood, Woodruff, Wood- worth.— 99. Nats.— Messrs. Ail-en, Akers, Barksdale, Bell, Hendky S. Bennett, Bocock, Bowie. Boyce, Branch. Burnett, Cadwaladtr, John P. Campbell, Carlile, Caskie, Clingman, HoivM Cobb, Williamson K. W. Cobb, Cox', Craige, Crawford, Cullen. Dow- dell. Dunn, Edmundson, Elliott, Etiieridge, Florence. Thomas J. D. Fuller, Goode. Greenwood. Augustus Hall, J. Morrison Harris, Sampson W. Harris. Thomas L. Harris. Harrison, Hickman, Hoffman, Houston. Jewett, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones. Kennett, Kidwell. Lake, Letcher, Lumpkin, Mace, Alexander K.Marshall. Humphrey Marshall. Max- well. McMullen, McQueen. Smith, Miller, Millson, Mordecai Olivet: Orr, Pennington, Phelps. Powell. Puryear, Quitman, Ricaud, Rivers, Buffin. Bust. Shorter. William Smith. Wil- liam R.Smith, Stanton, Stewart, Talbott, Vail. Walker, War- ner, Wheekr, Dankl B. Wright, John V. Wright.—''. In the Senate, the bill having been taken up for consideration, Mr. Hunter moved that the Kansas proviso be stricken out of the bill, which was agreed to by the following vote : — Yeas. — Messrs. Adams, Allen, Bayard, Bell of Tenn., Brigltt, Brodhead, Brown. Butler, Cass. Clay, Crittenden, Douglas, Geyer, Houston, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of Tenn., Mason, Pratt, Pugh, Beid, Thompson of Ky., Toucey, Weller, Wright.— 26. Nays.— Messrs. Durkee, Foot, Foster, Harlan, Trumbull, Wade, Wilson. — 7. The vote in the Senate on the passage of the bill as amended, was the same as the last except one less in the affirmative, Mr. Bell of Tennessee, who voted on the previous vote being absent. In the House, a message having been re- ceived from the Senate, announcing that that body had passed the Army Appropriation Bill with an amendment striking out the Kansas proviso, the House proceeded to consider the amendment ; when it was agreed to by the following vote : — Yeas. — Messrs. Aiken, Akers, Barksdale, Bell, Bennett of Miss., Bocock, Bowie, Boyce, Branch, Burnett, Cadwalader, Campbell of Ky., Carlile, Caskie, Clingman, Cobb of Ga., Cobb of Ala., Cox, Craige, Crawford, Cullen. Davidson, Davis of Md., Denver, Dowdell, Edmundson, Elliot, Etheridqe, Rustis, Evans, Faulkner, Florence, Fuller of Me., Goode, Greenwood. Hall of la., Harris of Md., Harris of Ala.. Harris of 111., Harrison, Haven, Hickman, Hoffman, Houston, Jewett, Jones of Tenn., Jones of Pa., Keitt. Kelly, Kennett, Kidwell. Lake, Letcher. Lumpkin, A. K. Marshall of Ky , H. Marshall of Ky., Marshall of 111., Maxwell, MsMuUen, McQueen. Miller of Ind., Millson, Oliver of Mo.. Orr, Packer, Perl-, Phelps. Porter, Powell. Puryear, Quitman, Ricaud, Rivers, Jtuffm, Bust. Sandidge, Savage, Seward, Shorter, Smith of Trim.. Smith of Va„ Smith of Ala.. Sneed, Stephens. S'ewart, Swope. Talbott, Taylor. Tyson', Underwood. VaU, Walker. Warner, Wells. Whej-icr.VfunsFY, Williams. Winslow, Wright of Miss., Wright of Tenn., Zollicoffer.— 101. Nays. — Messrs. Albright. Allison, Barbour, Barclay, Ben- nett of N. Y., Benson, Billinghurst, Bingham. Bliss. Brnd- Bhaw. Brenton, Buffington, Campbell of Pa., Campbell of 0., Chaffee, Clark of Conn., Clawson, Colfax, Comins, Covode, Ciagiu, Cumbaek, DamreH, Davis of Mass., Dean, De Witt, Dick. Dickson. Dodd, Dunn. Durfee, Edie. Edwards, Emrie, Flagler, Galloway, Giddiugs.Gilbert.Granger. Grow, Harlan, Holloway, Horton of N. Y., Howard, Hughston. Kelsey, King, Knapp. Knight, Knowlton, Knox, Kunkel, Leiter, Mace, Matteson, McCarty, Morgan, Morrill, Mott. Murray, Norton, Oliver of N. Y., Parker, Pelton. Pennington, Pettit, Pike, Pringle, Purviance, Ritchie. Robbing, Roberts. Robin- son. Sabin. Sage, Sapp, Scott, Sherman, Simmons, Spinner, Stanton, Stranahan, Tappan, Thorington. Thurston. Todd, Trafton. Wade. Wakeman, Walbridge, Waldron, Washburne of Wis.. Washburne of 111., Washburue of Me., Welch, Wood, Woodruff, Woodworth. — 98. Democrats in italics, Republicans inroman, Fillmore Americans in small capitals. Ministers of the Gospel. Protest of three thousand and fifty (& New England against the passage of the Nebraska Bill. On the 14th of March, 1854, Mr. Everett of Mass., in the United States Senate, pre- sented the memorial as follows : — To the Honorable the Senate and House cf Representatives in Congress assembled : The undersigned, clergymen of different religious denominations in New England, hereby, in the name of Almighty God, and in his presence, do solemnly protest against the passage of what is known as the Nebraska bill, or any repeal or modification of the exist- ing legal prohibitions of slavery in that part of our national domain which it is proposed to organize into the territories of Nebraska and Kansas. We protest against it as a great moral wrong, as a breach of faith eminently unjust to the moral principles of the commu- nity, and subversive of all confidence in na- tional engagements; as a measure full of danger to the peace and even the existence of our beloved Union, and exposing us to the righteous judgments of the Almighty: and your protestants, as in duty bound, will ever pray. Boston, Mass., March 1, 1854. The memorial, after a long debate, was ordered to lie on the table. On the 8th of May, 1854, Mr. Douglas pre- sented the following memorial, which was ordered to lie on the table : — To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress assembled : The undersigned, clergymen of different religious denominations in the Northwestern states, as citizens and as ministers of the Gos- pel of Jesus Christ, hereby, in the name of Almighty God, and in his presence, do solemnly protest against the passage of what is known as the " Nebraska Bill," or any repeal or modification of existing legal prohi- bitions of slavery in that part of our national domain which it is proposed to organize into the territories of Nebraska and Kansas. We protest against it as a great moral wrong; as a breach of faith eminently inju- rious to the moral principles of the commu- nity, and subversive of all confidence in na- tional engagements ; as a measure full of danger to the peace and even existence of ?ur beloved Union, and exposure to the righteous judgments of the Almighty. 320 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. And your protestants, as in duty bound, will ever pray. A. M. Stewart, I. M. Weed, Henry Klamer, J. Sinclair, A. Kenyon, E. M. Gammon, James E. Wilson, John C. Holbrook, C. Wentz, N. H. Eggleston, George L. Mulfinger, Paul Anderson, Thompson Guyer, Harvey Curtiss, R. H. Richardson, John Clark, S. Bolles, R. F. Shinn, J. V. Watson, Luther Stone, W. A. Nicholas, A. W. Henderson, Joseph H. Leonard, Fitch. J. McNamara, Then the paper continues : — The following resolutions were adopted as expressive of the sentiments entertained by the individuals present : — " 1st. That the ministry is the divinely ap- pointed institution for the declaration and enforcement of God's will upon all points of moral and religious truth, and that as such, it is their duty to reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all authority and doctrine. "2d. That while we disclaim all desire to interfere in questions of war and policy, or to mingle in the conflicts of political parties, it is our duty to recognise the moral bearing of such questions and conflicts, and to proclaim, in reference thereunto no less than to other departments of human interest, the principle of inspired truth and obligation. " 3d. That in our office as ministers, we have lost none of our prerogatives nor escaped our responsibilities as citizens, and that in the relation which we bear to God and the church, we find the highest reasons for fidelity in those which we bear to the state and to our fellow men. " 4th. That in the debate recently held in the Senate of the United States upon the pre- sentation of the memorial of the clergy of New England, we greatly deplore the apparent want of courtesy and reverence toward man and God, manifest especially in the speeches <>f the senators from Illinois and Indiana, and that we regard the whole tone and spirit of that debate on the part of the opponents of said memorial, as an outrage upon the privi- leges of a large and respectable body of citi- zens, upon the dignity of the Senate, and upon the claims of the divine name, word, and institutions, to which we owe our pro- £>undest honor and reverence." These resolutions were passed with but one dissenting voice. It was further resolved that the above pro- test should be published in the religious and secular papers in the Northwest ; and to ac- complish this object, that the editors of our city papers request their exchanges to reprint it. The various ministers who may feel dis- posed to sign the protest, are requested to send their names to Philo Carpenter, Esq., Chicago, Illinois. A. M. Stewart, Chairman. J. McNamara, Secretary. Minnesota. On the 24th of December, 185G, Mr. Rice, of Minnesota, introduced a bill to authorize the people of Minnesota to form a state go- vernment preparatory to their admission into the Union, which was referred to the Commit- tee on Territories. Mr. Grow, of Pennsylvania, from the Com- mittee on Territories, on the 31st of January, 1857, reported back the bill with an amend- ment in the shape of a substitute. Mr. Grow in reporting the bill said : — I do not choose, Mr. Speaker, to discuss this bill. I merely wish to refer to the sub- ject of the boundaries of the proposed state, and this I can do in a few moments. A por- tion of the territory of Minnesota is divided by this bill, north and south, by the Red River, the whole length of that river, thence following the Big Stone lake to its outlet — the head of the Big Stone Lake and Lake Travers being connected by water — thence by a line due south to the boundary line of Iowa. All the territory east of that line is to be formed into a state, making seventy thousand square miles, and leaving west of those boundaries, now in the territory of Minnesota, about ninety thousand square miles, which, if the people of Minnesota shall adopt a state con- stitution, will be left to be organized under the name of Dacotah, as a proper name of In- dian derivation. The general provisions of the bill are the same as those contained in the bill of the old form. I move the previous question. Mr. Phelps. I desire to make one or two inquiries of the gentleman from Pennsylva- nia. Mr. Grow. For that purpose I withdraw the previous question. Mr. Phelps. I do not desire to impede the progress of this bill ; but I desire to know how much of the proposed state of Minnesota lies west of the Mississippi river ? Mr. Grow. About three-fourths of it will be west of the Mississippi river. Mr. Phelps. Very well. Mr. Speaker, I desire also to make another inquiry. I be- lieve, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has frequently advocated on the floor of this House the sanctity of compacts. I believe he has frequently referred to the Missouri restriction of 18120 as a compact made by the Congress of the United States, which ought to have been observed. Mr. Grow. Certainly ; but I did not yield the floor for the purpose of allowing such questions. Mr. Phelps. I desire to know also whether the gentleman does not believe in the sacred- ness of the ordinance of 1787 ? Mr. Grow. Certainly. Mr. Phelps. Very well, sir ; here is the ordinance of 1787. Mr. Phelps here read the fifth and sixth articles of the ordinance of 1787, which says, not less than three nor more than five states shall be formed out of aaid territory. MINNESOTA. 321 These five states, the entire number author- ized by the ordinance of 1787, are already or- ganised ; and now the gentleman, or the Com- mittee on Territories, proposes to embrace within the limits of another state, a portion of territory which it was stipulated by those who framed that ordinance should be em- braced in one of these five states. Mr. Grow. I never knew a question to be SO lung as that which the gentleman asks, but I will answer it — Mr. Phelps, (interrupting.) I am not go- ing to throw any obstacle in the way of the passage of this bill — Mr. Grow. I yielded the floor to permit the gentleman from Missouri to ask a question. Mr. Phelps. I desire to make one addi- tional remark. I understand that the posi- tion of the gentleman is this : that the sixth section of the ordinance of 1787 is a sacred compact ; but that the fifth article of that or- dinance is no compact whatever. I only de- sired to call the attention of the House to the fact that the House is now about to disregard the sacredness of that celebrated ordinance of !7;>7 — an ordinance which I believe has no 1 'lading influence on the country, and which I have never regarded as binding on me. Mr. Grow. It is due to myself, I believe, tii reply to this question. I have no disposi- tion whatever to engage in debate on any bill or question that may come before the House t- i-day. What does the gentleman from Mis- souri propose to do with that part of the ter- ritory which is left outside of the limits of the proposed state ? Would he let it stand forever i;i an unorganized condition? Is that what the gentleman proposes? Or should it be or- ganized into a separate state, so as to make six states out of the Northwest Territory? Will gentleman trample down his own propo- sition ? Five states have been formed out of • Northwest Territory, as required by the or- dinance of 1787, and no one proposes to make any more, but only to take a gore of land left outside of all the organized states, and incor- p >rate it with other territory never under the • dinance of 1787, which of itself would make a larire state. How, then, is the ordinance of 1787 violated? It comes with a bad grace from a member of this House from the state Missouri to raise such a question here to- day, when the Platte country was taken from •rdinance of 1820 and included within the limits of that state. It comes with a bad grace from a gentleman coming from a state which has trampled upon the sacredness of «• impacts, to come here and complain that we take from under the ordinance of 1787 a little strip of territory which was left outside the limits of all organized states. And now, be- cause it is to be included within an organized state, it is, forsooth, a great breach of com- pact! Mr. Phelps. I want to make a correction. Mr. Grow. I will yield for the purpose of allowing the gentleman to make a correction, if it be short. 21 Mr. Phelps. As I understood the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, he was attributing to me that I regarded the ordi- nance of 1787 as a compact which must be observed by this Congress, as well as the Mis- souri restriction of 1820. I stated in my re- marks, when I propounded the interrogatories to him, that I did not regard these acts — the one passed in the Congress of the Confedera- tion, and the other in the Congress under the Constitution — as compacts. I stated that I only desired to call the attention of the coun- try to the fact, that that solemn ordinance of 1787, to which the gentleman had attributed a great deal of sanctity, was now about to be violated and disregarded ; that I did not es- teem it an ordinance of that description ; and that I expected that I should vote with the gentleman from Pennsylvania for this Minne- sota bill. Mr. Garxett. With the permission of the House, I will ask the gentleman from Penn- sylvania what is the difference between the size of Minnesota, as bounded in the original bill, and that of the substitute? The question is a perfectly fair one, and I hope it will be answered. Mr. Grow. The difference is about five or six hundred square miles. The original bill bounds the state on the west by the Red River of the North and the Sioux River. The sub- stitute follows the Red River of the North to Big Stone Lake, as the original bill does, and there it takes a due south line to the state of Iowa, cutting off a triangle. Gentlemen, on looking at the map, can see for themselves. There can be but a few hundred square miles at most. Mr. Boyce. There can be no objection to the admission of Minnesota as a state. The only point is, is there sufficient population ; and the question I desire to ask is, whether the gentleman has any official information as to the population of that portion of Minne- sota which is proposed to be organized into a state ? Mr. Grow. I will answer the gentleman's question. The boundaries of this state in- clude some seventy thousand square miles, being bounded on the east by the organized states, on the west by the Red River of the North, to its source, then by Big Stone Lake to its outlet, and thence by a due south line to the state of Iowa, which will strike that state a little east of its northwest corner ; making a state of about the same size and ex- tent as the state of Missouri. As to its population, so far as the best in- formation can be relied upon, she has from one hundred and seventy-five thousand to two hundred thousand inhabitants. The bill pro- vides for giving her one Representative on this floor, and such other Representatives as a census to be taken under the bill shall show her to be entitled to under the present ratio of representation. As to the land features of the bill, they are the same as are contained in all bills of the 322 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. kind, so far as the forms are concerned. Sec- tions for school purposes are set apart the same as in Iowa. It provides the same restrictions in regard to natural streams in Minnesota, as are contained in bills of this kind heretofore passed. The bill is in the usual form ; and indeed, in drawing it up it was like taking a form-book, and drafting this bill from it, with the exception of the boundaries. Mr. Smith of Tenn. I desire to ask the gen- tleman from Pennsylvania a question. I have had some opportunity to examine the original bill, but have not been able to examine the substitute ; and I desire to know of the gen- tleman from Pennsylvania if the only differ- ence between the original bill and the substi- tute is in reference to the boundaries ? Mr. Grow. The committee made a slight alteration in the boundary as contained in the original bill referred to us. In the original bill the boundary proceeded from the southern extremity of Lake Travers to the juncture of Kampeskee Lake with the Big Sioux River, thence down the main channel of that river to the northwest corner of the state of Iowa. In the substitute we proceed from the south- ern extremity of Lake Travers in a direct line to the head of Big Stone Lake, thence through its centre to the outlet, thence by a due south line to the state of Iowa. That is the only change in the boundaries. Mr. Smith of Ten. Is that the only differ- ence ? Mr. Grow. Then the original bill had no provision guarantying the uninterrupted navi- gation of the common highways that pass through Minnesota and along its borders. We provide that such navigable waters shall be common highways, and for ever free to the inhabitants of that state, and to all the other citizens of the United States. These are the only two material changes vhich we have made in the bill referred to us. All other changes are merely verbal. The original bill was the same bill which was referred to the committee with our amend- ments thereto. As those amendments would require a separate vote, the committee, in order to facilitate business, have reported a substitute containing the amendments which were included in the original bill. Mr. Smith of Tenn. Then I shall vote for the bill. The substitute was then adopted. The bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time ; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time. Mr. Grow moved the previous question upon the passage of the bill. The previous question was seconded ; and the main question ordered to be put. Mr. Florence demanded the yeas and nays upon the passage of the bill. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken ; and it was de- cided in the affirmative — yeas 97, nays 75 ; as follows :— Yeas. — Messrs. Aiken, Albright, Allen. Allison, Ball, Barbour. Benson, Billinghurst, Bliss, Bocock, Brenton, Buf- fintou, Cadwalader, Caruthers, Bayard Clarke, Clingman, Howell Cobb, Colfax, Cragin, Damrell, David>on, Jacob C. Davis, Day, Denver, Dick, Dickson, Dodd, Emrie, English, Florence, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Granger, Grow, Augustus Hall. Harlan, Herbert, Hickman, Hodges, Holloway, Thomas I!. Hortou, Valentine B. Horton, Howard, Hugbston. Jewett, Kelly, Knapp, Knowlton, Knox. Leiter, Mace, Samuel S. Mar- shall, Matteson, McCarty, Killian Miller, Smith Miller, Mor- gan, Morrill, Mott, Murray, Nichols, Parker, Beck, Pelton, Perry, Pettit, Phelps, Pike, Pringle, Quitman, cabin, Sage, Sandidge, Sapp, Scott, Sherman, Simmons, Samuel A. Smith. Spinner. Stanton, Stranahan, Tappan, Thorington, Thurston, Tyson. Wade, Wakeman, Walbridge, Waldron, Cadwalader C. Washburne. Elihu B. Washburne, Isr'l Washburne, Wat- kins, Watson, Wells, Wheeler, Williams, Woodworth. — 97. Nays. — Messrs. Akers, Barksdale, Hendley S. Bennett, Bingham, Bowie, Bradshaw, Burnett, James II. Campbell, Lewis D. Campbell, Carlile, Caskie, Ezra Clark, Williamson K. W. Cobb, Comins, Cox, Crawford, Cullen, Timothy Davis, Dean, Dowdell. Dunn, Durfee, Elliott, Etheridge. Evans, Faulkner, Garnett. Goode, Greenwood, J. Morrison Harris, Harrison, Haven, Houston, George W. Jones, Keu- nett, King, Knight, Kunkel, Lake, Letcher, Lumpkin, Alexander K. Marshall, McMullin. Millson, Millward, Moore, Andrew Oliver, Mordecai Oliver, Paine, Pennington, Powell, Purviance, Puryear, Ready, Rieaud, Robbins, Roberts, Ruffin, Savage, Seward, Shorter, William Smith, William R. Smith, Stephens, Swope, Talbott, Todd. Trafton, Under- wood, Valk, Walker, Whitney, Woodruff, Daniel B. Wright. Zollicoffer. — 75. So the bill was passed. Pending the call, many members changed their votes, and the following explanations were made : — Mr. Colfax stated that Mr. Cumback was confined to his room by illness. Mr. Comins stated that his colleague, Mr. Chaffee, was confined to his room by sickness. Mr. Morgan stated that Mr. Flagler was detained from the House by indisposition. Mr. Harris of Md. Mr. Speaker, as I un- derstand it, this bill reaffirms the doctrine of squatter sovereignty and alien suffrage, and if that be so I cannot vote for it. I ask, sir, if in order now that the section of the bill relating to the qualification of voters in the territory may be read, that the House may know the fact. Mr. Grow. I object. Mr. Puryear. I hope there will be no ob- jection. Mr. Grow. I object. Mr. Puryear. If I can defeat the bill by voting, I shall vote " no ;" but I decline voting at present. Mr. Todd. I vote " no" on this bill on ac- count of the alien clause. Mr. Whitney. I vote " no" upon the alien feature of the bill. Mr. Morrison. I was not in the Hall when my name was called. Had I been, I should have voted in the affirmative. Mr. Broom. Had I been within the bar when my name was called, 1 should have voted " no." Mr. Phelps. 1 desire to inquire of the gen- tleman from Pennsylvania if " Sam" is in this bill ? [Laughter.] Mr. Watkins. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of asking on which side my name is recorded. The Speaker. The gentleman's name is recorded in the affirmative. Mr. Watkins. I voted in the affirmative, and designed so to vote. I did so with a fuLl MINNESOTA. cw knowledge and appreciation of all the points involved in the pending measure. If I were not aware that it is not in order to do so, I should like to explain the reasons why I so voted, and why I was strictly consistent in principle, policy, and upon the record in cast- ing that vote. Mr. Smith of Tenn. stated that his colleague, Mr. Wright, was detained from the House by illness. The vote, as above recorded, was then an- nounced. Mr. Grow moved that the vote by which the bill was passed be reconsidered ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to. Mr. Jones of Tenn. I move to amend the title by adding the words " and for other pur- poses." I wish to say that the title should be altered, because the bill is for other pur- poses besides the admission of a state. One provision of the bill is that five per cent, of the proceeds of the public lands sold within that state, after deducting the expenses, shall be paid over to the state of Minnesota. I am perfectly willing that that should be done. But it goes further. Mr. Grow. I rise to a question of order. The merits of the bill are not in question on a motion to amend the title. The Speaker. That is undoubtedly cor- rect ; but it is competent for the gentleman from Tennessee to speak of a provision of a bill which is not mentioned in its title. Mr. Jones of Tenn. The bill goes on to provide that the state shall vest or appro- priate that five per cent, in the construction of internal improvements. That is not the admission of the state. I am willing to give the people of Minnesota the five per cent., but it is to be in consideration that they do not tax the public lands. If that had been provided in the bill, I should have voted for it. Mr. Grow. I have only a word to say. The title of the bill corresponds with its pro- visions. I call the previous question. The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered ; and under its operation the amendment of the title was not agreed to. _ In the Senate the objection to the bill con- sisted in the clause permitting alien suffrage. By reference to the part of this work under the head of "Alien Suffrage," the proceedings in the Senate in detail will be seen. The bill having passed with that clause stricken out, it was reconsidered on motion of Mr. Hale, and the clause retained. It finally passed the Senate on the 25th of February, 1857, by yeas and nays as follows : — ^ Yeas.— Messrs. Allen, Bell of N. H., Bigler, Bright, Taps. Collamer, Dodge, Douglas. Durkee, Fessenden, Fish, Fitch, Foot, Foster, Green. Hale, Harlan, James, John- son. Jones of la., Nourse, Pugh, Sebastian. Seward, Stuart, Toombs, Toueey, Trumbull, Wade, Weller and Wilson.— 31. Nays.— Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs. Brod- head. Brown, Butler, Clay, Crittenden. Fitzpalrick, Cover, Houston, Hunter, Iverson, Jones of Tennessee, Mason, Pratt, Keid, Rusk, Slidell, Thompson of Ky., Yulee.— 22. The history of affairs connected with the action of Minnesota under the enabling act cannot better be described than by a quo- tation from Judge Douglas's report to the Senate of the 26th of January, 1858: — "On the 2Gth day of February, 1857, Con- gress passed an act entitled 'An act to autho- rize the people of the Territory of Minnesota to form a Constitution and State Government preparatory to their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.' By the third section of said act it was provided ' that on the first Monday of June next (1857), the legal voters in each representative district then existing within the limits of the .proposed state, are hereby authorized to elect two delegates for each representative to which said district may be entitled according to the apportionment for representatives to the terri- torial legislature, which election for delegates shall be held and conducted, and returns made, in all respects, in conformity with the laws of said territory regulating the election of representatives ; and the delegates so elect- ed shall assemble at the capitol of said terri- tory on the second Monday in July next (1857), and first determine, by a vote, whe- ther it is the wish of the people of the proposed state to be admitted into the Union at that time, and if so, shall proceed to form a con- stitution and take all necessary steps for the establishment of a state government in con- formity with the Federal Constitution, subject to the approval and ratification of the people of the proposed state.' The construction placed on this act by the people of Minnesota was, that the term 'representatives' embraced the mem- bers of both branches of the territorial legisla- ture, and hence that the said convention might be composed of one hundred and eight, instead of seventy-eight delegates, to which it would be limited if the word representatives re- ferred only to the members of the House of Representatives of said legislature. Under this construction of the enabling act, one hundred and eight delegates were elected, and assembled at the capitol of the territory in pursuance of its provisions, when a disagree- ment arose in respect to the legality of the election of certain delegates who held certifi- cates of election, which resulted in the orga- nization of two separate bodies, each claiming to be the duly constituted convention in pur- suance of the said act of Congress, the one holding its sessions in the hall of representa- tives with fifty-eight members, and the other in the council chamber with fifty-five mem- bers. Each convention proceeded to form a constitution, but before either had concluded its labors, wiser and more conciliatory coun- sels prevailed so far as to induce the appoint- ment of ti joint committee of conference, com- posed of ten delegates, five of whom were se- lected by each convention, which committee agreed upon a constitution and made dupli- cate copies of the same, and reported one of said duplicates to each of said conventions, respectively. The copy of the constitution 324 THE TOLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. thus reported to both conventions was adopt- ed by each of them." MATERIAL EXTRACTS FROM CONSTITUTION OF MINNESOTA. Bill of Eights.— Sec. 2. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the state otherwise than in the punishment of crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. Art. VII. — Elective Franchise. Sec. 1. Every male person of the age of twenty-one years or upwards, belonging to either of the following classes, who shall have resided in the United States one year, and in this state for four months next preceding any election, shall be entitled to vote at such elec- tion, in the election district of which he shall at the time have been for ten days a resident, for all officers that now are or hereafter may be elective by the people : 1st. White citizens of the United States. 2d. White persons of foreign birth, who shall have declared their intention to become citizens, conformably to the laws of the United States upon the subject of naturalization. 3d. Persons of mixed white and Indian blood, who have adopted the customs and habits of civilization. 4th. Persons of Indian blood residing in this state, who have adopted the language, cus- toms, and habits of civilization, after an ex- amination before any district court of the state, in such manner as may be provided by law, and shall have been pronounced by said court capable of enjoying the rights of* citizenship within the state. Sec. 2. No person not belonging to one of the classes specified in the preceding section ; no person who has been convicted of treason or any felony, unless restored to civil rights ; and no person under guardianship, or who may be non compos mentis, or insane, shall be entitled or permitted to vote at any election in this state. Sec. 3. For the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have lost a residence by reason of his absence while employed in the service of the United States, nor while engaged upon the waters of this state or of the United States, nor while a student of any seminary of learning, nor while kept at any almshouse or other asylum, nor while confined in any public prison. Sec. 4. No soldier, seaman, or marine in the army or navy of the United States shall be deemed a resident of this state in consequence of being stationed within the same. Art. XIV. — Amendments to the Constitution. Sec. 1. Whenever a majority of both houses of the legislature shall deem" it necessary to alter or amend this constitution, they may propose such alterations or amendments, which proposed amendments shall be published with the laws which have been passed at the same session, and said amendments shall be sub- mitted to the people for their approval or re jection ; and if it shall appear in a manner to be provided by law that a majority of the voters present, and voting, shall have ratified such alterations or amendments, the same shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of this constitution. If two or more alter- ations or amendments shall be submitted at the same time, it shall be so regulated that the voters shall vote for or against each sepa- rately. Sec. 2. Whenever two-thirds of the members elected to each branch of the legislature shall think it necessary to call a convention to re- vise this constitution, they shall recommend to the electors to vote at the next election for members of the legislature, for or against a convention ; and if a majority of all the elect- ors voting at said election shall have voted for a convention, the legislature shall, at their next session, provide by law for calling the same. The convention shall consist of as many members as the House of Representa- tives, who shall be chosen in the same man- ner, and shall meet within three months after their election for the purpose aforesaid. Submission of the Constitution to the People. Sec. 18. In voting for or against the adop- tion of this constitution, the words " for consti- tution" or " against constitution" may be writ- ten or printed on the ticket of each voter ; but no voter shall vote for or against this constitu- tion on a separate ballot from that cast by him for officers to be elected at said election under this constitution ; and if, upon the canvass of the votes so polled, it shall appear that there was a greater number of votes polled for than against said constitution, then this constitu- tion shall be deemed to be adopted as the con- stitution of the state of Minnesota ; and all the provisions and obligations of this constitu- tion, and of the schedule hereunto attached, shall thereafter be valid, to all intents and purposes, as the constitution of said state. On the 2Gth of January, 1858, Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Territories, reported a bill, which was amended and passed on the 7th April, 1858, in the following shape: — An Act for the admission of the State of Minnesota into the Union. Whereas an act of Congress was passed February twenty-six, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, entitled "An Act to authorize the people of the Territory of Minnesota to form a Constitution and State Government prepa- ratory to their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States ;" and whereas the people of said territory did, on the tAventy-ninth day of August, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, by delegates elected for that purpose, form for themselves a con stitution and state government, which is re» MINNESOTA. 325 publican in form, and was ratified and adopted by the people, at an election held on the thirteenth day of October, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, for that purpose ■ Therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Ameri- ca, in Congress assembled, That the State of Minnesota shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal foot- ing with the original states in all respects whatever. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That said state shall be entitled to two representatives in Congress until the next apportionment for representatives amongst the several states. Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That from and after the admission of the State of Min- nesota, as hereinbefore provided, all the laws of the United States, which are not locally in- applicable, shall have the same force and effect within that State as in other States of the Union, and the said State is hereby con- stituted a judicial district of the United States, within which a district court, with the like pow- ers as the district court of the United States for the district of Iowa, shall be established. The judge, attorney, and marshal of the United States, for the said district of Minne- sota, shall reside within the same, and shall be entitled to the same compensation as the judge, attorney, and marshal of the district of Iowa ; and in all cases of appeal or writ of error heretofore prosecuted, and now pending in the Supreme Court of the United States, upon any record from the Supreme Court of Minnesota Territory, the mandate of execu- tion or order of further proceedings shall be directed by the Supreme Court of the United States to the District Court of the United States for the district of Minnesota, or to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota, as the nature of such appeal or writ of error may require ; and each of those courts shall be the successor of the Supreme Court of Min- nesota Territory as to all such cases, with full power to hear and determine the same, and to award mesne or final process therein. Passed the Senate April 7, 1858. Attest: Asbury Dickens, Secretary. By W. Hickey, Chief Clerk. This bill passed the Senate by yeas and nays, as follows: Yeas — Messrs. Allen. Bell, Bigler, Biggs, Bright, *Brode- rick. Brown, Cameron. Chandler. Clark, Collamer. Crittkn- Den, Dixon. Doolittle, "Douglas, Viirl.ee, Evans. Fitch, Fita- patrick, Foot, Foster, Green, Gwin, Bale, Hamlin, Ham- mond, Harlan, Houston. Hunter, Johnson of Ark,, Johnson of Tenn.. Jones, King, Mallory, Mason, Polk, Pugh, Sebas- tian, Seward, Simmons, Slidell, "Stuart, Sumner, Thompson of N. J„ Toombs. Trumbull. Wade, Wilson, Wright. Nays — Messrs. Clay, KENNEDY, and Yulee — 3. Democrats in roman ; Republicans in ital- ics ; Americans in small caps; asterisk pre- fixed, Anti-Lecompton Democrats. The bill passed the House, on the 11th of May, 1858, by yeas and nays, as follows : Yeas — Messrs. Abbott, *Adrian, Andrews, Arnold, Atkins, Avery, Barksdale, Bennett, BiHinghurst, Miss, Bocoek, Bowie, Boyce, Branch, Bryan, Buffinton, Burlingame, Burnett, Burns, Campbell, Caruthers, Case. Caskie, Chaffee, *Cbapman, Clark of Missouri, Clay, Cobb. John Cochrane, "Cockerill, < < ■•'- fax, Comins, Covode, Cragin, Craig of Missouri. Craig of N. C, Crawford. Curry, Curtis, Damrell, Davidson, *Davis of Ind , Davis of Miss., Dewart, Dick, Dimmick, Dodd, Dowdell, Ed- mundson, Elliott, "English, Farnsworth, Faulkner, Fenton, Florence, *Foley, Gartrell, Gillis. Oilman. Goode, Goodwin, Greenwood, Gregg, *Groesbeck, Grrtw, Hall of Mass.. Harlan, ♦Harris of 111., *Haskin, Hatch. "Hickman, Hoard, Hopkins, Houston, Howard, Huyler, Jackson, Jenkins, Jewett, < Jeo. W. Joucs, J. Glancy Jones, *Owen Jones, Kellogg. Kelly, KiU gore, Knapp. Laudy, "Lawrence, Leach, Leidy, Lett, r, Leteher, Lorejoy, Maclay, McQueen, "Marshall of 111., Mason, Matlesmi, Miller. Millson. Moore. Morrill. *Morris of 111, Morse of N. Y.. Mott. of Ohio, Niblack, Nichols, Palmer, Par- ker, "Pendleton, Pltit. Peyton. Phelps, Phillips, Pike, f%* ter, Powell, Purvionce. Quitman, Reagan, Reilly, llitchk, Russell, Sandidge, Savage, Scales, Scott, *Shaw of 111., Shaw of N. C, Sickles, Singleton, "Smith of 111., Smith of Tenn., Spinner, Stevenson, Stephens, Stewart of Md., Stewart of Pa., Tappan. Taylor of La., Taylor of N. Y.. Thayer. Wade, Wdlbridge, Waldron, Walton, Washburne of Wis., Washburne of Maine, Washburne of 111., WatUins. White, Whitely, Wil- ton, Winsluw, Wood, Wortendyke, Wright of Geo., and Wright of Tenn. — 157. Nays — Messrs. Anderson, Bingham, Blair. Clark of Conn., Clawson. Davis of Md., Timothy Davis of Iowa, Dean, Dodd, Edie, Eustis, Foster, Garnett, Giddings. Gilmer, Granger, Harris of Md., Hill, Hortm, Kclsey, Kunkel of Pa., Mar- shall of Ky., Maynard, Morgan, Morris of Pa., Morse 01 Maine, Olin, Ready, Ricaud, Rabbins, Ruffln, Sherman, Smith of Va.. Stanton, Trippe, Underwood, Woodson, and Z0LLIC0FFER — 38. Democrats in roman ; Republicans in italic ; Americans in small caps ; asterisk prefixed, Anti-Lecompton Democrats. The Hon. Henry M. Rice and Hon. James Shields, Senators elect from Minnesota, were admitted to their seats in the Senate on the 12th day of May, 1858. At the election in Minnesota for three Re- presentatives to Congress, Messrs. W. W. Phelps, James M. Cavanaugh, and George L. Becker, were declared to be elected. The act of admission allowed the state but two mem- bers of the House. Messrs. Phelps and Cavanaugh, the two Representatives receiving the highest number of votes, alone presented themselves to be sworn in, Mr. Becker having abandoned his claim, and gone home. This peculiar condition of things raised a question in the House as to the admission of Messrs. Phelps and Cavanaugh. The question was referred to the Committee on Elections. Mr. Harris, from the Committee on Elections, reported a resolution giving Messrs. Cav- anaugh and Phelps their seats on their prima facie right, but not precluding any subsequent contest of their right to the same. Mr. Washburne, of Maine, from the mi- nority of the Committee on Elections, offered the following amendment : " That Messrs. W. W. Phelps and J. M. Cavanaugh are not entitled to be admitted and sworn as members of this House." Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, demanded the yeas and nays upon the amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken ; and it was decid- ed in the negative — yeas 74, nays 125 ; as follows : 326 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Teas— Messrs. Ahbott, Andrews, Billinghurst, Bingham, Blair, Bujfinton, Burlingame. Burroughs. Case, Chaffee., Ezra Clark, Clawson, Colfax, Cragin, Damn 11, Davis of Maryland, Davis of Massachusetts, Davis of Iowa, Dean, Dick, Dodd, Durfee, Eustis, Mnton, Faster. Oilman, Gilmer, Gooch, Granger, Groio, J. MORRISON Harris, HILL, Hoard, Horton, Howard, Kelsey, Kilgore, Knapp, Lovejoy, Humphrey Mar- shall, Matteson, Millson, Mprgan, Morrill. Freeman H. Morse, Oliver A. Morse, Matt, Murray. Nichols, Palmer. Parker, Petti t. Pike, Potter, RicATJD, Ritchie. Robbins, Roberts, Royce, John'Shermah, Stanton, William Stewart, Tappan, Thayer, Thompson, Tompkins, Trippb, Wade, Walbridge, Walton, Cad- wallader C. Washburne, Elihu E Washburne, Israel Washburne, and Wilson — 74. Nays— Messrs. "Adrain, AM, Anderson, Arnold, Atkins, Avery, Barksdale, Bishop, Bliss, Boeock, Boyce, Burnett, Burns, Caruthers, Caskie. "Chapman, John B. Clark, Clay, Clemens, Cobb, John Cochrane. *Cockerill, Gamins. Corning, *Cox, James Craig, Crawford. Curry. Curtis, Davidson, ♦Davis of Indiana, Davis of Mississippi. Dawes, Dewart, Dimmiek, Dowdel), Kdmundson, Elliott, "English. Faulkner, Florence, *Foley, Gartrell, Gillis, Goode, Greenwood. Gregg, *Groesbeck. * Lawrence W. Hall, Harlan. "Thomas L. Harris, Hawkins, Hopkins, Houston, Hughes, Huyler, Jackson, Jen- kins, Jewett. George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, *Owen Jones, Kellogg, Kelly, Jacob M. Kunkel, John C. Kunkel, Lamar, Landy, "Lawrence, Leiter, Letcher, Maclay, "McKib- bin, McQueen, "Samuel S. Marshall. Mason, M aynard, Miles, Miller, Moore, Edward Joy Morris, "Isaac N. Morris, Niblaok, "Pendleton, Peyton, Phelps, Phillips, JPbt&e, Powell, Purviance, Quitman, Ready, Reagan, Reilly, Kuffiii, Russell, Sandidge, Savage, Scales, Scott, Seward, "Aaron Shaw, Henry M. Shaw, Shorter, Singleton, "Robert Smith, Samuel A. Smith, William Smith, Spinner, Stallworth, Stephens, Stevenson, James A. Stewart, Talbot, George Taylor, Miles Taylor, Underwood, Watkins, White, Whiteley, Winslow, Woodson, Wortendyke, John V. Wright, and Zolucof- »er— 125. So the amendment was not agreed to. Democrats in roman ; Republicans in italics ; Americans in small caps ; asterisk prefixed, Anti-Lecompton Democrats. The original resolution was agreed to by yeas and nays ; as follows : Yeas— Messrs. Adrain, AM, Anderson, Arnold, Atkins, Avery, Barksdale, Bishop, Bliss, Boeock, Boyce, Bryan, Bur- nett, Burns, Campbell, Caruthers, Caskie, *Chapman, John B. Clark, Clay, Clemens, Cobb, John Cochrane, "Cockerill, Comins, Corning, Qivode, *Cox, James Craig, Crawford, Curry, Curtis, Davidson, *Davis of Indiana, Davis of Mis- sissippi. Dawes, Dewart, Dimmiek, Edmundson, Elliott, "English, Faulkner, Florence. "Foley, Gartrell, Gillis, Goode, Greenwood, Gregg, *Groesbeck, "Lawrence W. Hall, Harlan, "Thomas L. Harris, Hawkins. Hopkins, Houston, Hughes, Huyler, Jackson, Jenkins, Jewett, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, "Owen Jones, Kellogg, Kelly, Jacob M. Kunkel, John V. Kunkel, Lamar, Landy, "Lawrence, Leiter, Letcher, Maclay, "McKibbin, McQueen, "Samuel S. Mar- shall, Mason, Miles, Miller, Moore, Edward Joy Morris, *l.-aac N. Morris, Niblack, "Pendleton, Peyton, Phelps, Phillips. Pottle, I'owell, Purviance. Quitman, Ready, Rea- pan. Reilly, Roberts, Ruffin, Russell, Savage, Scales, Scott, •Seward, "Aaron Shaw, Henry M. Shaw, Shorter, Sickles, Singleton, "Robert Smith, Samuel A. Smith, William Smith, Spinner, Stallworth, Stephens, Stevenson, James A. Stewart, Talbot, George Taylor, Miles Taylor, Underwood, Watkins, White, Whiteley, Winslow, Woodson, Wortendyke, John V. Wright, and Zollicofeer— 135. Nays— Messrs. Abbott, Andrews, BUUnghurst. Bingham, Blair, Buffinton, Burlingame, Burroughs, Case, Ezra Clark; Clawson, G/lfax, Damrell, Davis of Maryland, Davis of Massachusetts, Dean, Dick, Dodd, Durfee, Eustis, Fenton, "Foster, Gilmer. Goocli, Granger, Grow, Hill, Horton, Howard, Kelsey, Knapp, Lovejoy, "Humphrey Marshall, Matteson, Millson. Morgan, Morrill, Freeman H. Morse, Oliver A. Morse, Mott, Murray, Nichols, Palmer, Parker, Pettit. Potter, Ricaud, Ritchie, Robbing, John Sherman, Stanton, William Stewart, Thayer, Thompson. Tompkins, Tiiippe, Wade. Wal- bridge, Walton. Cadwalader C. Washburne, Elihu B. Wash- burne, Israel Washburne, and Wilson — 63. So the resolution was agreed to ; and Messrs. Cavanaugh and Phelps were duly sworn in as Representatives from the state of Minnesota. Mississippi. The act of April 7, 1798, provided a go- vernment for Misissippi territory, and for an amicable settlement of the boundary between it and the state of Georgia. " Sec. 3 establishes a government for the Mis- sissippi territory, in all respects similar to that now exercised in the territory northwest of the river Ohio, excepting and excluding the last article of the ordinance made for the govern- ment thereof by the late Congress, on the 13th day of July, 1787, which provides that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary ser- vitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, &c. " Sec. 7 makes it unlawful to bring slaves into Mississippi territory from any place with- out the United States — imposes a penalty of $300 for every slave thus brought into the territory in violation of the provisions of this act, and gives every slave, thus brought in, his or her freedom." The bill from which this act originated passed the Senate on the 2d of March, 1798. In the House a motion made by Mr. Thatcher of Mass. to strike out that part which excepted the slavery provision of the Ordinance of 1787. from extending over the territory, received but 12 votes. Sec. 7 of the law, quoted above, was an amendment carried in the House on motion of Mr. Harper of S. C. Mr. Thatcher endeavored to prohibit the introduction of slaves therein from within the United States. But his motion to that effect did not receive a second. The bill as amended passed the House on the 27th of March, 1798. The Senate con- curred in the amendment of the House on the 29th of March, 1798, and the bill thus became, with the approval of the President, a law. During the last session of the 13th Congress a memorial was presented from the territorial legislature of Mississippi, praying that it? people be authorized to form a state govern- ment, and be admitted into the Union. The petition was acted on at the first session of the 14th Congress — a bill to that effect was brought to a vote in the House on the 30th of March, 1816, when it passed, the yeas being 70, the nays 53. The negative vote was as follows : — Messrs. Alexander of O., Baer of Md., Baker of N. J., Bow? of R. I., Bradbury of Mass., Breckenridge of Va., Brown of Mass., Burnside of Pa., Chipman of Vt., Cilley of N. H., Clayton of Del., Cooper of Del., Culpepper of N. C. Cuthbert of Geo., Davenport of Conn., Edwards of N. C. Gaston ofN. C, Gold of N.Y.,Goldsborough of Md.. Griffen of Pa., Hale of \. II., HawesofVa., Heisterof Pa., Hopkinson of Fa. Hulbert Of Mass., Jewett of Vt., Kent of N. Y., Langdon of Vt.. Law of Conn.. Lewis of Va., Lovet.t of N. Y , Marsh of Vt., Milni ir of Pa., Mosely of Conn., Nelson of Mass., Pickering of Mass., Pitkin of Conn., Randolph of Va.. Roane of Va.. Ruggles of Mass., Southard of N. J.. Stanford of N. C, Stearns of Mas-., Strong of Mass., Sturges of Conn., Taggart of Mass., Telfair of Geo., Tucker of Va., Vose of N. H.. Ward of Mass., Waid of N. J., Daniel Webster of N. H., Wilcox of N. U. In the Senate, on the 25th of April. 1816, the bill was indefinitely postponed on motion of Mr. Barbour of Va. The objection urged against this bill was the vast extent of territory covered by ths limits of the proposed state. MISSISSIPPI.— MISSOURI. 327 At the second session of the 14th Congress a bill was passed and became a law, dividing the territory, and constituting a territorial go- vernment for the eastern portion of the terri- tory of Mississippi, which was called Ala- bama. A bill was then reported in the Senate, au- thorizing the people of the western portion of Mississippi territory to form a constitution and state government, and for the admission of such state into the Union. This bill passed the Senate on the 30th of January, 1817. The negative vote, on its engrossment, was as follows : — ■ Messrs. Ashman of Mass., Daggett of Conn., Goldsborough of Md., Hunter of R. I., King of N. Y., Macon of N. C, Mason of N. H., Smith of S. C, Thompson of N. H., Tickenor of Vt., Varnuni of Mass. The bill passed the House on the 3d of March, 1817, and became a law, by the ap- proval of the President, on the 1st of March, 1817. A joint resolution, consummating her ad- mission, passed the Senate on the 3d of De- cember, 1817. It passed the House on the 8th of December, and was approved by the President on the 10th of December, 1817. Missouri. The act of June 4, 1812, constituted the territory theretofore called Louisiana, Missouri territory. In the House of Representatives, on the 18th of December 1818, the Speaker presented the memorial of the Legislative Council of the ter- ritory of Missouri, praying said territory may be permitted to form a constitution and state government, -which memorial was referred. = In the House of Representatives, February 16, 1819, the " bill to authorize the people of the territory of Missouri to form a constitution and state government, and for the admission of such state into the Union on an equal foot- ing with the original states," being under con- sideration, the question was taken on the fol- lowing amendment submitted by Mr. Tall- madge of New York : — "That the further introduction of slavery, or involuntary servitude, be prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall be duly convicted; and that all children of slaves born within the said state, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be free, but may be held to service until the age of twenty-five years." A division of the question being called for, it was taken ; first, on that part of the amend- ment italicized, which was carried by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Adams of Mass., Allen of Mass., Anderson of Pa.. Barber of 0., Bateman of N. J., Beectaer of 0., Ben- nett of N. J., Boden of Pa., Campbell of 0., Clagett of N. H., Comstock of N Y., Crafts of Vt., Cushman of N. Y., Darling- ton of Pa., Drake of N. Y.. Ellieott of N. Y., Folger of Mass., Fuller of Mass., Gage of Mass.. Gilbert of Conn., Hale of N. H , Hall of Del., Hasbrouck of N. Y., Herrick of 0., Hendricks ot Ind., Herkimer of N. Y., Heister of Pa., Hitchcock of 0., Uopkinson of Pa., Hostetter of Pa., Hubbard of N. Y., Hun- ter of Vt.. Huntington of Conn., Irving of X. Y., Kinsey of N. J., Kirtland of N. Y.. Lawyer of N. Y.. Lincoln of Ma.-s. Linn of N. J., Livermore of N. II.. W. Maclay of Pa.. W. P. Maclay of Pa.. Marchand of Pa.. Mason of it. I.. Men-ill of Vt.. Mills of Mass., R. Moore of Pa., S. Moore of Pa., Morton of Mass., Mosely of Conn., Murray of I 'a.. Nelson of M:iss.. Ogl« of Pa., Orr of Mass., Palmer of N. Y.. Patterson of Pa., Pawl- ing of Pa., Pitkins of Conn., Bice of Mass., Rich of Vt.. Kich- ards of Vt.. Rogers of Pa., Buggies of Mass., Sampson of Muss.. Savageof N. Y.. Schuylerof X. Y.. Scudder of N. Y., Sergeant of Pa., Sherwood. Silsbee of Mass.. Southard #f N. J., Spen- cer of N. Y.. Tallmadge of N. Y., Taylor of N. Y., Terry of Conn., Tompkins of N. Y., Townsend of N. Y , Upham of N. II., Wallace of Pa.. Wendover o/ X. Y., Westerio of N. Y., Whiteside of Pa., Wilkin of N. Y r ., Williams of Conn., Wil- liams of N. Y., Wilson of Mass., and Wilson of N. Y.— 87. Nays— Messrs. Abbott of Geo., Anderson of Ky., Austin of Va., Ball of V'a., Barbour of Va.. Bassett of Va., Bayly of Md., Bloomfield of N. J., Blount of Tenn., Bryan of N. C, Burwell of Va., Butler of La., Cobb of Geo.. Colston of Va., Cook of Geo., Crugerof N. Y., Culbreth of Md , Davidson of N C, Desha of Ky., Edwards of N.C.. Ervin of S. C, Fisher of S. C.,Garnett of Va., Hall of N.C., Harrison of 0.. Holmes of Mass.. Johnson of Va.. Johnson of Ky., Jones of Tenn.. Lewis of Va., Little of Md.. Loundes of S. C, McLane of Del , McLean of 111.. McCoy of Va.. Marr of Tenn., Mason of Mass.. Middleton of S. C, H. Nelson of Va., T. M. Nelson of Va.. Nesbitt of S. C, New of Kv.. Newton of Va., Ogden of N. Y., Owen of N. C, Parrott of N. II., Pegram of Va.. Peter of Md., Pindall of Va.. Pleasants of Va., Poindexterof Miss., Reed of Md., Rhea of Tenn., Biuggold of Md., Robert- son of Ky., Sawyer of N. C. Settle of N. C. Shaw of Mass., Simkins of S. C, Slocumb of N. C, Smith of Md., Smith of Va , Smyth of Va., J. S. Smith of N. C. Speed of Ky., Stewart of N. C. Stewart of Md., Storrs of N. Y., Terrell of Geo., Trimble of Ky., Tucker of Va., Tucker of S. C, Tyler of Va.. Walker of Ky., and Williams of N. C.— 76. The second branch of said amendment, be- ing the part not italicized, was agreed to by a vote of yeas 82, nays 78. The vote in the affirmative on this amend- ment was the same as on the other, less Messrs. Beecher, Campbell, Linn, Mason, Schuyler, and Westerio, the four former of whom voted against this amendment. Mr. S. Smith, who voted no on last amendment, voted ay on this. The negative vote was the same, with the exception of Mr. Smith and Mr. McLean, the latter of whom did not vote at all on this vote, and with the addition of Messrs. Beecher, Campbell, Linn, and Mason. . The bill was ordered to be engrossed, by the following vote : — States. New Hampshire Massachusetts • Rhode Island - Connecticut - Vermont New York - ■ New Jersey ■ Pennsylvania Delaware - • Maryland - ■ Virginia - - 25 . - 5 - - 21 . - 2 Y. N. States. 4 1 North Carolina 15 2 South Caroliua 1 Georgia - - - 7 Kentucky - - 5 Tennessee - - 1 Ohio - - • 1 Indiana Mississippi Louisiana ■ 2 6 1 16 Y. N. 1 10 1 2 1 6 4 5 1 1 1 1 97 56 The said bill passed as engrossed, without a division. In the Senate, February 27, 1819, the bill from the House being under consideration, the vote was taken on striking out the amendment of Mr. Tallmadge. A division of the question being called for, the question was taken on striking out the last branch of said provision, being the part not italicized, and it was decided in the affirma- tive : — Yeas.— Messrs. Barbour of Va., Crittenden of Ky.. Daggett of Conn.. Dana of Conn., Eaton of Tenn., Edwards ot 111., Eppes of Va., Fromentin of La., Gaillard of S. C. Goldsbo- rough of Md., Horsey of Del., Johnson of La., Kiug of X. 328 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. T., Lacock of Pa., Leake of Miss., Macon of N. C, Morrow of 0., Otis of Mass., Palmer of Vt., Roberts of Pa., Sanfbrd • if N. Y., Stokes of N. C, Stover of N. II., Tait of Ga., Talbot .if Ky., Thomas of 111.. Tickenor of Vt., Van Dyke of Del., Williams of Miss., Williams of Tenn.— 30. \^ys.— Messrs. Burrill of R. I., Dickerson of N. J.. Mellen of Mass., Morril of N. H., Noble of Ind., Ruggles of 0., and Wilson of N. J.— 7. On striking out the first branch of the amendment being the part italicized, the vote was yeas 22, nays 16. The vote was, in com- parison with the vote on the last branch of the amendment, as follows : Messrs. Daggett, Dana, King, Morrow, Roberts, Sandford, Sto- ver, Tickenor, who voted for striking out the other, voted against striking out_ this. Mr. Taylor, who did not vote on striking out the last, voted against striking out this. The vote by states was as follows : — States. Y. N. States. Y. N. New Hampshire - - 2 South Carolina - - 1 Massachusetts - - 1 1 Georgia ... - 1 Rhode Island - - - 1 Kentucky - - - - 2 Connecticut - - - 2 Tennessee - - - - 2 Vermont - - - - 1 1 Ohio ------ 2 New York - - - - 2 Louisiana . - - - 2 New Jersey - - - 2 Indiana - - - - 2 Pennsylvania - - 1 1 Missi>sippi - - - 2 Delaware - - - - 2 Illinois 2 Maryland - - - - 1 — — Virginia - - - - 2 22 16 North Carolina - - 2 In the House of Representatives, March 2, 1819. — On the question to concur with the Senate in striking out the aforesaid clause. It was determined in the negative — yeas 76, nays 78. In the Senate, March 2, 1819. — On motion by MrTaitofGa., Resolved, That the Senate adhere. (No di- vision.) In the House of Representatives, March 2, 1819.— On motion by Mr. Taylor of N. Y., Resolved, That the House of Representa- tives adhere. It was determined in the affirmative — yeas 78, nays 66. So the bill was lost. On the 8th of December, 1819, Mr. Holmes of Mass., presented a memorial from the people of Maine, praying to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the origi- nal states, together with a copy of the con- xtitution formed for the state. Referred to a committee of five members. Mr. Scott, delegate from Missouri, presented a memorial from the people of Missouri, pray- ing to be authorized to form a constitution of state government, and to be admitted on an equal footing with the original states. Re- ferred to a select committee. On the 14th of December, Mr. Taylor of N. Y., introduced a resolution proposing an inquiry into the expediency of prohibiting by law the introduction of slaves into the ter- ritories west of the Mississippi. [The com- mittee were afterwards discharged from the further consideration of the subject.] A bill authorizing the people of Missouri to form a state constitution had been previously reported, and the consideration of the subject was fixed for the second Monday in January. On the 28th of December, Mr. Taylor mov- ed another resolution on the subject of pro- hibiting the introduction of slaves into the territories west of the Mississippi. Laid on the table, 82 to 62. In the House of Representatives, Januarv 3, 1820.— The bill for the admission of the state of Maine into the Union, and to extend the laws of the United States to such state, was passed, and sent to the Senate. In the Senate, January 4, 1820, Journal, page 72. — The said bill was read and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, consisting of Messrs. Smith of South Carolina, Leake of Mississippi, Burrill of Rhode Island, Logan of Kentucky, and Otis of Massachusetts. January 6, page 84. — Reported with amend- ments — these amendments provided for the admission also of Missouri into the Union. This form of amendment contained no clause whatever concerning slavery. January 13, page 100. — Considered. Mr. Roberts moved to recommit, and leave out Missouri. January 14, page 102. — Mr. Roberts's mo- tion rejected — yeas 18, nays 25. This bill was debated from day to day until February 2, 1820, when the question was taken on Mr. Roberts's amendment, viz. : (this is the first slavery proposition on this bill,) " Provided, also, that the further introduction into the said state of persons to be held in slavery, or involuntary servitude, within the same shall be absolutely and irrevocably prohibited." And determined in the negative — yeas 16, nays 27, as follows : — States. Y.N. States. Y.N. New Hampshire - - 1 1 South Carolina - - - 2 Massachusetts - - - 2 Georgia ------ 2 Rhode Island - - - 1 1 Kentucky 2 Connecticut - - - - 1 1 Tennessee ----- 2 Vermont 11 Ohio 2 New York - - - - 2 Louisiana ----- 2 New Jersey - - - - 2 Indiana 2 Pennsylvania - - - 2 Mississippi Delaware - - - - - Maryland - - - - - Virginia - - - - - North Carolina - - - Illinois Alabama 16 27 Yeas. — Messrs. Merrill of N. II.. Mellen and Otis of Mass., Dana of Conn., Burrell of R. I., Tichenor of Vt., King and Sanford of N.Y., Dickerson and Wilson of N. J., Lowrie and Roberts of Pa., Ruggles and Trimble of O., Noble and Taylor of Ind — 16. Nats. — Messrs. Parrot of N. H., Hunter of R. I., Lanman of Conn., Palmer of Vt, Van Dyke of Del., Lloyd and Pink- ney of Md.. Barbour and Pleasants of Va.. Macon and Stokes of N. C, Gaillard and Smith of S. C, Elliot and Walker of Ga., Johnson and Logan of Ky., Eaton and Williams of Tenn., Brown and Johnson of La., Leak and Williams of Miss.. Ed- wards and Thomas of 111., King and Walker of Ala. — 27. February 3, 1820,_page 137.— Mr. Thomas submitted the following amendment : — Sec. — . And be it further enacted, That in all that tract of country ceded by France to the United States under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36° 30' north latitude, ex- cepting only such part thereof as is included within the limits of the state contemplated by this act, shall be neither slavery nor involun- tary servitude, otherwise than in the punish- ment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted : Provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in anj MISSOURI. 329 state or territory of the United States, such fugitive may be' lawfully reclaimed and con- veyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid, and — February 7, page 145.— Mr. Thomas with- drew the said amendment. February 16, page 160. — On the question to agree to the amendments reported by the committee on the judiciary (not containing any slavery clause), it was determined in the affirmative — yeas 23, nays 21 ; as follows : — States. Y. N. New Hampshire - - Massachusetts - - - Rhode Island - - - Connecticut - - - - Vermont New York .... New Jersey - - - - Pennsylvania - - • Delaware - - - - - Maryland 2 Virginia ----- 2 North Carolina - - - 2 States. Y. N. South Carolina - - - 2 Georgia ------ 2 Kentucky ----- 2 Tennessee ----- 2 Ohio 2 Louisiana ----- 2 Indiana -----11 Mississippi - - - - 2 Illinois ------ 2 Alabama ----- 2 23 21 So the amendment to include Missouri, without any slavery clause, was agreed to. The bill being still in Committee of the 'Whole, Mr. Thomas proposed the following additional amendment: — Sec. — . And be it further enacted, That the sixth article of compact of the ordinance of Congress, passed on the 13th of July, 1787, for the government of the territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, shall, to all intents and purposes, be, and here- by is. deemed and held applicable to, and shall have full force and effect in and over all that tract of country ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36° 30 / north latitude, excepting only such part thereof as is included within the limits of the state contemplated by this act. On motion by Mr. Elliott, of Georgia, it was agreed to take the question by yeas and nays. Feb. 17, page 164. — Mr. Thomas withdrew the amendment proposed by him yesterday, and offered the following, as a new section : — Sec. — . And be it further enacted, That [in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36° 30' north latitude, excepting only such part thereof as is included within the limits of the state contemplated by this act] slavery and involuntary servitude, other- wise than in the punishment of crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, for ever prohibited : provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any state or territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaim- ed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid. On motion by Mr. Trimble, of Ohio, to amend said amendment by striking out the words within the brackets, and insertingthe fol- lowing : "All that part of Louisiana [as ceded by France to the United States] which lies west of the Mississippi river, except that part which is contained in the state of Louisiana, and except that part of the territory which lies north of the state of Louisiana, and east of the 17th° or 94th° of west longitude, agree- ably to Melish's map, and south of the line which may be established for the northern boundary for the proposed state of Missouri." It was determined in the negative — yeas 20, nays 24 — as follows : — States. Y. N. New Hampshire - • 2 Massachusetts - - - 2 Rhode Island - - - 2 Connecticut - - - - 2 Vermont ----- 2 New York - - - - 2 New Jersey - - - - 2 Pennsylvania - - - 2 Delaware ----- 2 Maryland 2 Virginia ----- 2 North Carolina - - - 2 States. South Carolina Georgia - - Kentucky - - Tennessee Ohio - - Louisiana - - Indiana - - Mississippi Alabama - - Illinois - - - Y. N. •> 2 3 2 - 2 2 2 2 2 2 20 24 This amendment being lost, The question then recurred on the last amendment, proposed by Mr. Thomas, And it was determined in the affirmative — yeas 34, nays 10 — as follows : — Y. N. States. - 2 South Carolina - States. New Hampshire Massachusetts - - - 2 Rhode Island - - - 2 Connecticut - - - - 2 Vermont ----- 2 New York - ... 2 New Jersey - - - - 2 Pennsylvania - - - 2 Delaware ----- 2 Maryland ----- 2 Virginia North Carolina - - - 1 Georgia - - Kentucky Tennessee Ohio - - Louisiana - Indiana Mississippi Illinois Y.N. 2 2 ... 2 ... 2 ... 2 • - - 2 ... 1 ... 2 Alabama 2 34 10 For the Amendment. — Messrs. Brown. Burrill, Dana, Dick- erson, Eaton, Edwards, Horsey, Hunter, Johnson of Ky., Johnsou of La., King of Ala., King of N. Y., Lanman, Leake, Lloyd, Logan, Lowrie. Mellen, Morril, Otis, Palmer, Parrott, Pinknev. Roberts, Ruggles, Sanford, Stokes. Thomas, Tiche- nor, Trimble, Yan Dyke, Walker of Ala., Williams of Teun., Wilson.— 34. Against the Amendment. — Messrs. Barbour. Elliott, Gail- lard, Macon, Noble, Pleasants, Smith, Taylor, Walker of Ga., Williams of Miss. — 10. The bill having been reported to the Senate, and the amendments concurred in, On the question, " Shall the amendments to the bill be engrossed, and the bill read a third time?" it was determined in the affirmative — yeas 24, nays 20 — as follows : — States. Y.N. States. Y.N. New Hampshire - - 1 -■ South Carolina - - - Massachusetts Rhode Island - - - 1 Connecticut - - - - Vermont - - - • - New York New Jersey - - - - Pennsylvania - - - Delaware ----- 2 Maryland ----- 2 Virginia ----- 2 North Carolina - - - 1 Yeas. — Messrs. Barbour Georgia ----- 2 Kentucky - - - - 2 Tennessee - - - - 2 Ohio 2 Louisiana - - - - 2 Indiana ----- 2 Mississippi - - - - 2 Illinois 2 Alabama ----- 2 24 20 Brown, Eaton, Edwards, Elliott, Gaillard, Horsey, Hunter. Johnson of Ky., Johnson of La., King of Ala., Leake, Lloyd, Logan, Parrott, Pinkney, Pleasants, Stokes, Thomas, Van Dyke, Walker of Ala., Walker of Ga., Williams of Miss., Williams of Tenn.— 24. Nays.— Messrs. Burrill, Dana, Dickerson, King of N. Y., Lanman, Lowrie, Macon, Mellen, Morril, Noble, Otis, Palmer, Roberts, Ruggles, Sanford, Smith, Taylor, Tichenor, Trimble, Wilson— 20. So the bill was ordered to be engrossed, and read a third time to-morrow. Feb. 18, 1820, page 170.— The bill passed, with the amendment, without a division. In the House of Representatives, Feb. 19, 330 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 1820, page 229, the House took up the bill and amendments from the Senate. Mr. Taylor of N. Y. moved to disagree to the amendments of the Senate. Mr. Scott delegate from Missouri, moved to refer the bill and amendments to the Commit- tee of the Whole ; which was determined in the negative — yeas 70, nays 107. (See Jour- nal of House of Representatives, page 230.) Mr. Alexander Smyth of Ya. then moved that the amendments lie on the table ; which was rejected. The question then recurred on the motion of Mr. Taylor, and on motion of Mr. Simkins of S. C. was postponed to Tuesday, the 22d February. Feb. 23, page 240. — The question on Mr. Taylor's motion was divided so as to strike out so much of the amendments of the Senate as proposes " to enable the people of Missouri to form a constitution and state government, &c, &c, &c. ; and was determined in the affirma- tive — yeas 93, nays 72. Feb. 23, page 241. — The question was then stated: " Will the House disagree to the resi- due of the amendments of the Senate to the said bill, except the ninth section ?" and it was determined in the affirmative — yeas 102, nays 68. Feb. 23, page 242. — The question was then stated : " Will the House disagree to the said ninth section?" contained in the following words : — Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That in all territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 3.6° 30' north latitude, excepting only such part thereof as is included within the limits of the state contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, other- wise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, for ever prohibited : pro- vided always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is law- fully claimed in any state or territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claim- ing his or her labor or service, as aforesaid. And it was also determined in the affirma- tive — yeas 159, nays 18 — as follows : — Mr. Macon of N. C, called for a division of the question, so to be taken separately on each amendment ; one containing provisions fur the admission of Missouri into the Union, and the other prohibiting the further introduction of slavery into the territories of the United States. The subject was debated in the Senate until Feb. 28, when the question was taken : " To recede from so much of the amendments as provides for the admission of Missouri into the Union," &c. It was determined in the negative — yeas 21, nays 23 ; as follows : — Y. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 States. South Carolina - Georgia --'-'- Kentucky - - - Tennessee - - - Ohio - . - - - Louisiana - - - Indiana - - - Mississippi - - Illinois - - - - Alabama - - - Y. N. 2 1 o 2 t2 2U States. Y. N. New Hampshire - - 6 Massachusetts - - - 18 2 Rhode Island ... 2 Connecticut - - - - 7 Vermont 4 2 New York New Jersey . Pennsylvania Delaware - - Maryland - - Virginia - ' North Carolina 25 3 20 1 5 20 11 States. South Carolina - - Georgia - - - - Kentucky - - - - Tennessee ... Ohio Louisiana - - - - Indiana - • - - Mississippi - - - Illinois - - - - - Alabama - - - - Y.N. 9 159 18 So the House disagreed to all the amend- ments of the Senate to include Missouri in the bill providing for a government in Maine, and notified the Senate thereof. In Senate, February 24, 1820. — On motion by Mr. Burrill of R. I., " That the Senate recede therefrom," States. Y. N. New Hampshire ■ Massachusetts Rhode Island - • Connecticut - • \ ermont - - • New York - - New Jersey Pennsylvania Delaware - - ■ Maryland - - Virginia - - North Carolina So the Senate refused to recede from their amendment for the admission of Missouri. On the question to recede from the residue of the amendments, prohibiting the further in- troduction of slavery into the territories of the United States, north of 36° 30' north latitude, it was determined in the negative — yeas 11, nays 31 ; as follows : — States. Y. N. States. Y. N. New Hampshire - 2 South Carolina - - 2 Massachusetts - - 2 Georgia 2 Rhode Island - - 2 Kentucky - - - - Connecticut - - - 2 Tennessee - - - - 2 Vermont - - - - 2 Ohio 2 New York - - - - 1 1 Louisiana - - - - 2 New Jersey - - - 2 Indiana - - - - 2 Pennsylvania - - 2 Mississippi - - - 1 1 Delaware - - - - 2 Illinois 2 Maryland - - - - 2* Alabama - - - - 2 Virginia - - - - 2 North Carolina - - 1§ 1|| n 33 So the Senate refused to recede from their amendment prohibiting the further introduc- tion of slavery in the territories north of 36° 30'. On motion by Mr. Barbour of Ya., Resolved, That the Senate insist on their amendment for the admission of Missouri. On motion by Mr. Roberts of Pa., Resolved, That the Senate insist on their other amendment prohibiting the further in- troduction of slavery into the territories of the United States. So it was Resolved, That the Senate insist on ail their amendments disagreed to by the House of Representatives. In House of Representatives, February 28, 1820, Mr. Taylor of N. Y. moved to insist on their disagreement to the amendments of the Senate. A division of the question was called for— And, on the question, "Will the House insist on their disagreement to said amendments providing for the admission of Missouri 1" * Pincknev and Lloyd. f William R. King and Walker j Macon. |i Stokes. MISSOURI. 331 It was determined in the affirmative — yeas 97, nays 76; as follows: — States. Y. N. States. Y. N. New Hampshire - - 6 South Carolina - - 9 Massachusetts - - 18 1 Georgia 6 Rhode Island - - 2 Kentucky - - - - 8 Connecticut - - - 7 Tennessee - - - - 6 Vermont - - - - 6 Ohio 6 1 New York - - - - 24 Louisiana - - - - 1 New Jersey - - - 4 1 Indiana .... 1 Pennsylvania - - 21 2 Mississippi - - - 1 Delaware .... Illinois ----- 1 Maryland - - - - % Alabama - - - - Virginia - - - - 1* 22 — — North Carolina - - 11 97 76 So the House of Representatives insisted on their disagreement to the Senate's amendment for the admission of Missouri. The question was then taken: "Will the House insist on their disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, prohibiting the further introduction of slavery into the terri- tories north of 30° 30' ?" And it was determined in the affirmative — yeas 160, nays 14 ; as follows : — States. Y. N. States. Y. N. New Hampshire - - 6 South Carolina - - 9 Massachusetts - - 19 2 Georgia ----- 5 Rhode Island - - 2 Kentucky - - - - 8 Connecticut - - - 7 Tennessee - - - - 5 1 Vermont - - - - 4 1 Ohio - ----51 New York - - - - 25 Louisiana - - - - 1 New Jersey - - - 3 2 Indiana ... - 1 Pennsylvania - - 20 3 Mississippi - - - 1 Delaware - - - - Iliinois 1 Maryland - - - - 6 2 Alabama . - - - Virginia - - - - 22 1 — North Carolina - - 10 1 160 14 So the House of Representatives insisted upon their disagreement to all the amend- ments of the Senate, and notified the Senate thereof. In Senate, Feb. 28, 1820, On motion by Mr. Thomas, Resolved, That the Senate ask a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on said amendments. Ordered, That Mr. Thomas of 111., Mr. Pink- ney of Md., and Mr. Barbour of Va., be the managers at the said conference on the part of the Senate. Ordered, That the secretary notify the House of Representatives accordingly. In House of Representatives, Feb. 29, 1820, Resolved, That this House do agree to the conference, &c, &c. Ordered, That Mr. Holmes of Mass., Mr. Taylor of N. Y., Mr. Lowndes of S. C, Mr. Parker of Mass., and Mr. Kinsey of N. J., be the managers at the said conference on the part of this House. Feb. 29, 1820.— The House took up the amendments made in committee of the whole to the " bill to authorize the people of the Territory of Missouri to form a constitution and state government, and for the admission of such state into the Union on an equal foot- ing with the original states," and concurred therein, with the exception of the following amendment : — " And shall ordain and establish, that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servi- * Nelson. tude in the said state, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted : Provided, always, that any person escaping within the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any other state, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service, as aforesaid : Provided, nevertheless, that the said provision shall not be construed to alter the condition or civil rights of any person now held to service or labor in the said territory." The question was then stated on agreeing to this amendment, when Mr. Storrs of N. Y. moved to strike out these words : " And shall ordain and establish that," and in lieu thereof to insert the follow- ing :— " And be it further enacted, That the follow- ing propositions be, and the same are hereby, ottered to the said convention, for their free acceptance or rejection, to be incorporated into the constitution of the said state as arti- cles of compact between the said state and the United States, viz. : That there be neither slavery," &c, as above. And, on the question to agree to this amend- ment of Mr. Storrs, it was determined in the negative — yeas 82, nays 98. The question was then taken on agreeing to the above amendment made in the committee of the whole, and passed in the affirmative — yeas 94, nays 86. A motion was then made by Mr. Taylor of N. Y. further to amend the said bill by striking out these words : " And the said state, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatever ;" and in lieu thereof to insert, And if the same (that is the constitu- tion) shall be approved by Congress, the said territory shall be admitted into the Union as a state, upon the same footing as the original states. And the question being taken thereon, it was determined in the negative — yeas 49, nays 125. No further amendment being proposed, the question was then taken, " Shall the said bill be engrossed and read a third time ?" and passed in the affirmative — yeas 93, nays 84. In House of Representatives, Mar. 1, 1820. On the question " Shall the bill pass 1" and it passed in the affirmative — yeas 91, nays 82 ; as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Adams of Mass.. Allen of N. Y., Baker of N. Y., Bateman of N. J., Beecher of I >.. Boden of Pa., Brush of 0., Buffum of N. H., Campbell of 0.. Case of N. Y.. Clagett of N. II., Clark of N. Y., Cook of III. Crafts of Vt., Cushman of Mass.. Darlington of Pa., Dennison of Pa., De Witt of N. Y., Dickinson of N. Y.. Dowse of Mass., Eddy of It. I., Ed- wards of Conn., Edwards of Pa.. Fay of N. Y., Folger of Mass., Ford of N. Y.. Forrest of Pa., Fuller of Mass., Gross of N. Y., Gross of Pa.. Guyon of N. Y r .. Hackley of N. Y.. Hall of N. Y., Hazard of K. I., Hemphill of Pa . Hendricks of Ind., Herrick of 0., Hihsham of Pa.. Heister of Pa., Hill of Mass., Hostetter of Pa., Kendall of Mass., Kensey of N. J., Kinsley of Me., Lathrop of Mass.. Lincolu of Mass.. Linn of N. J., Lyman of N. Y.. Maclay of Pa.. Marchand of Pa., Meech of Vt., R. Moore of Pa., S. Moore of Pa., Monell of N. Y., Mor- ton of Mass., Moseley of Conn., Murray of Pa., Nelson of Mass., Parker of Mass., Patterson of Pa., Phelps of Conn., 332 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Fhilson of Pa., ritcher of N. Y.. Plumer of N. H., Rich of | Vt., Richards of Yt. Richmond of N. Y., Rogers of Pa., Ross of 0., Rush of Conn., Sampson of Ma?s., Sergeant of Pa., Bilsbee of Mas.. Sloan of 0., Smith of N. J., Southard, Ste- vens of iv.ira, Street of N. Y., Strong of Yt. Strong of N. Y„ Tarr of Pa., Taylor of N. Y.. Tomlinson of Conn., Tomp- kins of X. Y.. Traeey of N. Y.. Opham of N. H., Van Rens- selaer of N. Y., Wallace of Pa., Weudover of N. Y., Whitman of Mass.. Wood of N. Y.— 91. NAS8.— Messrs. Alexander of Ya., Allen of Tenn., Ander- son of Ky., Archer of Md., Archer of Ya„ Baldwin of Pa., liarhour of Ya.. Bayley of Md.. Bloomfield of N. J., Brevard of S. C, Brown of Ky., Bryan of Tenn., Burton of N. C, Burwell of Va.. Butler of La., Cannon of Tenn., Cobb of Geo., Crowell of Ala.. Culbreth of Md„ Culpepper of N. C, Cuthbert of Ga., Davidson of N. C, Karle of S. C, Edwards ot X. C, Krwin of S. C, Fisher of N. C, Floyd of Ya., Foot of Conn.. Fullerton of Pa., Garnett of Va., Hall of N. ft, Hardin of Ky., Holmes of Mass., Hook of N. C, Johnson of Ya., Jones of Va., Jones of Tenn.. Kent of Md., Little of Md., Lowndes of S. C, McCoy of Va., McCreary of S. C, McLane of Del.. McLean of Ky., Mason of Mass., Meigs of N. Y.. Mer- cer of Va., Metcalf of Ky., Neale of Md., Nelson of Va., New- ton of Va.. Overstreet of S. C. Parker of Va., Pinckney of S., C. Pindall of Va.. Quarles of Ky., Randolph of Va.. Rankin of Miss.. Read of the President of the United States, on or before the fourth Monday in November next, an authentic copy of said act ; upon the receipt whereof the President, by proclamation, shall announce the fact ; whereupon, and without any further proceeding on the part of Congress, the admission of the said state into this Union shall be considered as complete. John YV. Taylor, Speaker of the House of Representatives. Joiin Gaillard, Speaker of the Senate, pro tern Approved, March 2, 1821. James Monroe. This new compromise, the one under which Missouri was admitted into the Union, the one to which Mr. Clay is so justly entitled to the credit, makes no reference whatever to the 8th section of the act of 6th March, 1820 336 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Views of Mr. Jefferson on the Missouri Compromise : — "The question is a mere party trick. The leaders of federalism, defeated iu their schemes of obtaining power by rallying partisans to the principle of monarchism — a principle of personal, not of local division — have changed their tact and thrown out another barrel to the whale. They are taking advantage of the virtuous feeling of the people to effect a divi- sion of parties by a geographical line ; they expect that this will insure them, on local principles, the majority they could never ob- tain on principles of federalism ; but they are still putting their shoulders to the wrong wheel ; they are wasting jeremiads on the miseries of slavery, as if we were advocates of it. Sincerity in their declamations should direct their efforts to the true ooint of diffi- culty, and unite their councils with ours in devising some reasonable and practicable plan of getting rid of it." — Jefferson's Writ- ings, vol. 7. In a letter to Mr. Adams, dated Jan. 22, 1821, he says :— "Our anxieties in this quarter are all con- centrated in the question, What does the holy alliance, in and out of Congress, mean to do with us on the Missouri question ? And this, by the way, is but the name of the case ; it is only the John Doe or Richard Roe of the eject- ment. The real cpiestion, as seen in the states afflicted with this unfortunate population, is, Are our slaves to be presented with freedom and a dagger ? For, if Congress has the power to regulate the conditions of the in- habitants of the states within the states, it will be but another exercise of that power to declare that all shall be free. Are wc, then, to see again Athenian and Lacedaemonian confederacies ? To wage another Peloponne- sian war to settle the ascendancy between them ? Or is this the tocsin of merely a servile war? That remains to be seen; but I hope not by you or me. Surely they will parley awhile and give us time to get out of the way. What a bedlamite is man !" In a letter to Lafayette, dated Nov. 4, 1823, Mr. Jefferson said : — " On the eclipse of federalism with us, although not its extinction, its leaders got up the Missouri question, under the false front of lessening the measure of slavery, but with the real view of producing a geographical division of parties, which might insure them the next President. The people of the North went blindfold into the snare, and followed their leaders for awhile with a zeal truly moral and laudable, until they became sensible that they were injuring instead of aiding the real in- terests of the slaves ; that they had been used merely as tools for electioneering purposes, and that trick of hypocrisy then fell as quickly as it had been got up." In a letter to Mr. Short, dated April 13, 1820, Mr. Jefferson said :— "Although I had laid down as a law to my- self never to write, talk, or even think of poli- tics, to know nothing of public affairs, and had therefore ceased to read newspapers, yet the Missouri question aroused and filled me with alarm. The old schism of Federal and Republican threatened nothing, because it ex- isted in every state, and united them together by the fratemism of party. But the coincidence of a marked principle, moral and political, with a geographical line, once conceived, I feared would never more be obliterated from the mind ; that it would be recurring on every occasion, and renewing irritations, until it would kindle such mutual and mortal hatred as to render separation preferable to eternal discord. I have been among the most san- guine in believing that our Union would be of long duration. I now doubt it much, and see the event at no great distance, and the direct consequence of this question ; not by the line which has been so confidently counted on — the laws of nature control this — but by the Potomac, Ohio, and Missouri, or more probably the Mississippi, upwards to our northern boundary. My only comfort and consolation is, that I shall not live to see it ; and I envy not the present generation the glory of throwing away the fruits of their fathers' sacrifices of life and fortune, and of rendering desperate the experiment which was to decide ultimately whether man is capa- ble of self-government. This treason against human hope will signalize their epoch in fu- ture history as the counterpart of the model of their predecessors." " I thank you, my dear sir, for the copy you have been so kind as to send me of the letter to your constituents on the Missouri question. * * * But this momentous question, like a fire-bell in the night, awakened me and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment; but this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated ; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. * * * If they would but dispassionately weigh the blessings they will throw away, against an abstract principle, more likely to be effected by union than by scission, they would pause before they could perpetrate this act of suicide on themselves and of treason against the hopes of the world." — Letter to Jno. Holmes, dated Monlicello, April 22, 1820. " I am indebted to you for your two letters of February 7th and 19th. The Missouri question, by a geographical line of division, is the most portentous one I ever contemplated. * * * * is ready to risk the Union for any chance of restoring his party to power, and wriggling himself to the head of it ; nor j s * * * * without his hopes, nor sen*- pulous as to the means of fulfilling them." — Letter to Mr. Madison. MISSOURI. 337 " The banks, bankrupt laws, manufactures, Spanish treaty, are nothing. These are occur- rences which, like waves in a storm, will pass under the ship, but the Missouri question is a breaker on which we lose the Missouri country by revolt, and what more, God only knows. From the battle of Bunker's Hill to the treaty of Paris, we never had so ominous a question. It even damps the joy with which I hoar of your high health, and welcomes to me the want of it. I thank God I shall not live to witness its issue." — Letter to John Adams, De- cember 10, 1819. " The line of division lately marked out be- tween different portions of our confederacy, is such as will never, I fear, be obliterated, and we are now trusting to those who are against us in position and principle, to fashion to their own form the minds and affections of our youth. If, as has been estimated, we send three hundred thousand dollars a year to the northern seminaries for the instruction of our own sons, then we must have five hundred of our sons imbibing opinions and principles in discord with those of their own country. This canker is eating on the vitals of our existence, and, if not arrested at once, will be beyond remedy." — Letter to General Breckenridge', Feb. 11, 1821. " The Missouri question is the most porten- tous one which ever yet threatened our Union. In the gloomiest moment of the revolutionary war, I never had any apprehension equal to that I felt from this source." — Letter to Mr. Monroe, March 3, 1820. Views of Mr. Calhoun on the Missouri Compromise. In his speech on the Oregon bill, 1st session 30th Congress, Mr. Calhoun said : — " After an arduous struggle of more than a year, on the question whether Missouri should come into the Union with or without restric- tions prohibiting slavery, a compromise line was adopted between the North and the South ; but it was done unde rcircurnstances which made it nowise obligatory on the latter. It is true, it was moved by one of her distinguish- ed citizens (Mr. Clay) ; but it is equally so, that it was carried by the almost united vote of the North against the almost united vote of the South, and was thus imposed on the latter by superior numbers, in opposition to her strenuous efforts. The South has never given her sanction to it, or assented to the power it asserted. She was voted down, and has simply acquiesced in an arrangement which she has not had the power to reverse, and which she could not attempt to do with- out disturbing the peace and harmony of the Union — to which she has ever been adverse. Acting on this principle, she permitted the territory of Iowa to be formed, and the state to be admitted into the Union, under the com- promise, without objection ; and that is now quoted by the senator from New York to prove her surrender of the power he claims for Congress. 92 " To add to the strength of this claim, the advocates of the power hold up the name of Jef- ferson in its favor, and go so far as to call him the author of the so-called Wilmot proviso, which is but a general expression of a power of which the Missouri compromise is a case of its application. If we may judge by his opinion of that case, what his opinion was of the principle, instead of being the author of the proviso, or being in its favor, no one could be more deadly hostile to it. In a letter addressed to the elder Adams in 1819, in an- swer to one from him, he uses these remark- able expressions in reference to the Missouri question : " ' The banks, bankrupt laws, manufactures. Spanish treaty, are nothing. These are oc- currences which, like waves in a storm, will pass under the ship. But the Missouri ques- tion is a breaker on which we lose the Mis- souri country by revolt, and what more, God only knows.' " To understand the full force of these ex- pressions, it must be borne in mind that the questions enumerated were the great and ex- citing political questions of the day, on which parties divided. The banks and bankrupt law had long been so. Manufactures (or what has since been called the protective tariff) was at the time a subject of great excitement, as was the Spanish treaty ; that is, the treaty by which Florida was ceded to the Union, and by which the western boundary between Mexico and the United States was settled, from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. All these exciting party questions of the day Mr. Jeffer- son regarded as nothing compared to the Mis- souri question. He looked on all of them as, in their nature, fugitive ; and to use his own forcible expression, ' would pass off under the ship of state like waves in a storm.' Not so that fatal question ; it was a breaker on which it was destined to be stranded ; and yet his name is quoted by the incendiaries of the present day in support of, and as the author of, a proviso which would give indefinite and universal extension of this fatal question to all the territories. It was compromised the next year by the adoption of the line to which I have referred. Mr. Holmes of Maine, long a member of this body, who voted for the mea- sure, addressed a letter to Mr. Jefferson, en- closing a copy of his speech on the occasion. It drew out an answer from him which ought to be treasured up in the heart of every man who loves the country and its institutions. It is brief; I will send it to the secretary to be read. The time of the Senate cannot be bet- ter occupied than in listening to it." The secretary here read the letter herein- before contained. " Maisk, said he, Mr. Jefferson's prophetic words ! Mark his profound reasoning ! " ' It, the question, is hushed for the mo- ment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry pas- 338 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. sions of men, will never be obliterated, and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper.' " Twenty-eight years have passed since these remarkable words were penned, and there is not a thought which time has not thus far verified, and it is to be feared Avill continue to verify until the whole will be fulfilled. Cer- tain it is that he regarded the compromise line as utterly inadequate to arrest that fatal course of events which his keen sagacity anti- cipated from the question. It was but a ' re- prieve.' " " Mark, said Mr. Calhoun, the deeply mel- ancholy impression which it made on Mr. Jef- ferson's mind: — " ' I regret that I am to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness for themselves, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is 1xj be that I live not to weep over it.' " Can any one believe, after listening to this letter, tha Jefferson is the author of the so- called Wilmot proviso, or ever favored it ? And yet there are at this time strenuous efforts making in the North to form a purely sectional party on it, and that, too, under the sanction of those who profess the highest veneration for his character and principles ! But I must speak the truth, while I vindicate the memory of Jefferson from so foul a charge. I hold he is not blameless in reference to this subject. He committed a great error in inserting the provision he did in the plan he reported for the government of the territory, as much mo- dified as it was. It was the first blow, the first essay ' to draw a geographical line coin- ciding with a marked principle, moral and political.' It originated with him in philan- thropic but mistaken views of the most dan- gerous character, as I shall show in the sequel. Others, with very different feelings and views, followed, and have given to it a direction and impetus which, if not promptly and efficiently arrested, will end in the dissolution of the Union and the destruction of our political in- stitutions." " I have, I trust, established beyond con- troversy, that neither the Ordinance of 1787, nor the Missouri Compromise, nor the prece- dents growing out of them, nor the authority of Mr. Jefferson, furnishes any evidence what- ever to prove that Congress possesses the power over the territory claimed by those who advo- cate the twelfth section of this bill. But ad- mit, for the sake of argument, that I am mis- taken, and that the objections I have urged against them are groundless — give them all the force which can be claimed for precedents — and they would not have the weight of a feather against the strong presumption which I, at the outset of my remarks, showed to be opposed to the existence of the power. Pre- cedents, even in a court of justice, can have but little weight, except where the law is doubtful, and should have little in a delibera- tive body, in any case, on a constitutional question, and none where the power to which it has been attempted to trace it does not exist, as I have shown, I trust, to be the case in this instance." On the 19th of February, 1847, Mr. Calhoun thus declared his opposition to the Missouri Compromise : — " Sir, here let me say a word as to the com- promise line. I have always considered it as a great error — highly injurious to the South, because it surrendered, for mere temporary purposes, those high principles of the Consti- tution upon which I think we ought to stand. I am against any compromise line. Yet I would have been willing to acquiesce in a continuance of the Missouri Compromise, in order to preserve, under the present trying circumstances, the peace of the Union. One of the resolutions in the House, to that effect, was offered at my suggestion. I said to a friend there, ' Let us not be disturbers of this Union. Abhorrent to my feelings as is that compromise line, let it be adhered to in good faith ; and if the other portions of the Union are willing to stand by it, let us not refuse to stand by it. It has kept peace for some time, and in the present circumstances perhaps it would be better to be continued as it is.' But it was voted down by an overwhelming majo- rity. It was renewed by a gentleman from a non-slaveholding state, and again voted down by an overwhelming majority. " I see my way in the Constitution ; I can- not in a compromise. A compromise is but an act of Congress. It may be overruled at any time. It gives us no security. But the Constitution is stable. It is a rock. On it we can stand. It is a firm and stable ground, on which we can better stand in opposition to fanaticism, than on the shifting sands of com- promise. " Let us be done with compromises. Let us go back and stand upon the Constitution !" Congress Hall, March 2, 1820, 3 o'clock at night. Dear Sir : I hasten to inform you that this moment we have carried the question to admit Missouri and all Louisiana to the southward of 36 deg. 30 min. free of the restriction of slavery, and give the South, in a short time, an addition of six, and perhaps eight, mem- bers to the Senate of the United States. It is considered here by the slaveholding states as a great triumph. The votes were close — ninety to eighty-six (the vote was so first de- clared) — produced by the seceding and ab- sence of a few moderate men from the North. To the north of 36 deg. 30 min. there is to be, by the present law, a restriction, which you will see by the votes I voted against. But it is at present of no moment ; it is a vast track, uninhabited only by savages and wild beasts, in which not a foot of the Indian claim to soil is extinguished, and in Avhich, according to the ideas prevalent, no land-office will be open for a great length of time. With respect, your obedient servant, Charles Pinck.net. MISSOURI. 3S0 Judge Douglas on the Missouri Compro- mise. Extract from his speech in the Senate, March 13, 1850 : — The next in the series of aggressions com- plained of by the Senator from South Caro- lina is the Missouri compromise. The Mis- souri compromise an act of Northern injustice, designed to deprive the South of her due share of the territories ! Why, sir, it was only on this very day that the Senator from Mississippi despaired of any peaceable adjustment of ex- isting difficulties, because the Missouri com- promise line could not be extended to the Pacific! That measure was originally adopted in the bill for the admission of Missouri by the union of Northern and Southern votes. The South has always professed to be willing to abide by it, and even to continue it as a fair and honorable adjustment of a vexed and dif- ficult question. In 1845 it was adopted in the resolutions for the annexation of Texas, by Southern as well as Northern votes, without the slightest complaint that it was unfair to any section of the country. In 1846 it received the support of every Southern member of the House of Representatives, Whig and Demo- crat, without exception, as an alternative mea- sure to the Wilmot proviso. And again, in 1848, as an amendment to the Oregon bill, on my motion, it received the vote, if I recollect right, and I do not think that I can possibly be mistaken, of every Southern Senator, Whig and Democrat, even including the Senator from South Carolina himself (Mr. Calhoun). And yet we are now told that this is only second to the ordinance of '87, in the series of aggres- sions on the South. Mr. Butler. I think you are mistaken about it. I don't think my colleague (Mr. Calhoun) voted for it. Mr. Douglas. I do not think that I can be mistaken upon this point — that Mr. Calhoun voted for my motion to insert the Missouri com- promise in the Oregon bill. He voted for my amendment, and then did not vote at all, or voted against the bill on its passage. I can- not be mistaken on the material point, which was upon the adoption of my amendment. For, having offered this amendment, first in the House of Representatives and subsequently in this body, I was denounced in certain sec- tions as a slavery exactionist, a dough-face — and many other kind and polite terms of simi- lar import were applied to me, and my name was published in certain newspapers with black marks drawn around it, with the view of concentrating popular odium upon me and the party to which it is my pride and pleasure to belong. And now, sir, the very measure which drew all these anathemas and denuncia- tions upon my devoted head, is now represented by the Senator from South Carolina as a mea- sure of deadly hostility to Southern interests ; a measure calculated to limit and diminish the area of slavery more than any act of the go- vernment during its whole history. Be this is it may, I think that Southern gentlemen should not complain of the measure after having given it their united vote on several occasions. Mr. Butler. Will the gentleman allow me a single word ? Will he do justice to the Si an !;- ern gentlemen by saying that they voted f ir the Missouri compromise as a peace offering, after they had found the country brought into jeopardy by the Wilmot proviso ? They a - quiesced in it as a peace offering — asaV promise — and not as giving up their rights. Mr. Douglas. I so understand it. Mr. Butler. One word concerning my col- league (Mr. Calhoun). I think the Senati ; from Illinois (Mr. Douglas) is right in Baying that my colleague voted for the amendment to the Oregon bill, but throughout the whole dis- cussion I think he took occasion to say that, though he acquiesced in it, he did not approve of it. Mr. Douglas. I take great pleasure in say- ing that I believe the Southern gentlemen did vote for the Missouri compromise as a peace offering and a compromise. It was offered by me and received by them in that spirit. But I must be permitted to say that it seems some- what extraordinary that that which they all voted for as a compromise and a peace offering should now be denounced as an act of North- ern aggression. Because it was tendered and received as a peace offering, it should never be called an act of aggression. In regard to the effects of the Missouri compromise upon the question of slavery I have but a few words to say. I do not think that it did have any prac- tical effect on that question, one way or the other. Missouri was admitted into the Union with slavery. This must necessarily have been done, whether the compromise had been effected or not, for there was no rightful mode of preventing it. The Louisiana treaty, under which Missouri was purchased from France, stipulated for the admission into the Union ac- cording to the Constitution of the United States. The faith of the nation was pledged, and must have been redeemed. Their right to come into the Union as a state being con- ceded, it is very clear that they possessed the right to form for themselves just such a consti- tution as they pleased, provided it did not conflict with the Constitution of the United States. Arkansas was then a slave territory, and no one seriously thought of changing its character in that respect, except by a vote of the people interested. The substance of the Missouri compromise line, therefore, was that west of Missouri and Arkansas slavery should be prohibited north of 36° 30 / . Thus slavery was prohibited by the positive enactment of law in all that region of country extending from thirty-six degrees thirty minutes to the forty- ninth degree of north latitude. But, while this was the express provision of the statute, slavery was as effectually excluded from the whole of that country, by the laws of nature, of climate, and production, before, as it is now by act of Congress. The Missouri compro- mise, therefore, had no practical bearing upon 840 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. the question of slavery — it neither curtailed nor extended it one incn. Like the ordinance of '87, it did the South no harm — the North no good — except that it had the effect to calm and allay an unfortunate excitement which was alienating the affections of different portions of the Union. Gen. Cass on the Missouri Compromise. From a speech made on the 20th of Febru- ary, 1854. Mr. President : T have not withheld the expression of my regret elsewhere, nor shall I withhold it here, that this question of repeal of the Missouri compromise, which opens all the disputed points connected with the subject of Congressional action upon slavery in the Ter- ritories of the United States, has been brought before us. I do not think the practical advan- tages to result from the measure will outweigh the injury which the ill-feeling, fated to ac- company the discussion of this subject through the country, is sure to produce. And I was confirmed in this impression from what was said by the Senator from Tennessee, (Mr. Jones,) by the Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Dixon,) and from North Carolina, (Mr. Bad- ger,) and also by the remarks which fell from the Senator from Virginia, (Mr. Hunter,) and in which I fully concur, that the South will never receive any benefit from this measure, so far as respects the extension of slavery ; for, legislate as we may, no human power can es- tablish it in the regions defined by these bills. And such were the sentiments of two eminent patriots, to whose exertions we are greatly in- debted for the satisfactory termination of the difficulties of 1850, and who since passed from their labors, and, I trust, to their reward. Thus believing, I should have been better content had the whole subject been left as it was by the bill when first introduced by the Senator from Illinois, without any provision regarding the Missouri compromise. I am aware that it was reported that I intended to propose the re- peal of that measure, but it was an error. My intentions were wholly misunderstood. I had no design whatever to take such a step,, and thus resuscitate a deed of conciliation which had done its work, and done it well, and which was hallowed by patriotism, by success, and by its association with great names, now trans- ferred to history. It belonged to a past gene- ration ; and in the midst of a political tempest which appalled the wisest and firmest in the land, it had said to the waves of agitation, Peace, be still, and they became still. It would have been better, in my opinion, not to disturb its slumber, as all useful and practical objects could have been attained without it. But the question is here without my agency. Extension of the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific. On the 10th of August, 1848, in the Senate of the United States, the Oregon bill being under consideration, the question was taken on the amendment extending the Missouri compromise line to the Pacific ; and it was decided in the affirmative, as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Borland, Bright, Butler, Calboun, Cameron, Davis of Miss., Dickinson, Douglas, Downs, Fitzgerald, Foote, Hanntgan, Houston, Johnson of Md., Johnson of La., Johnson of Ga., King, Lewis, Mangum, Mason, Metcalf, Pearce, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon., Turney, Underwood. — 33. Nays. — Messrs. Allen, Atherton, Baldwin, Bradbury, Breese, Clarke, Corwin, Davis of Mass.. Dayton, Dix, Dodge, Fetch, Greene, Half.. Hamlin, Miller, Niles, Phelps, Upham, Walker, Webster, Westcott.— 22. The bill, with this amendment, came before the House on the next day ; and the amend- ment of the Senate extending the Missouri line to the Pacific was non-concurred in by the following vote : — Yeas. — Messrs. Adams, Atkinson, Barringer, Barrow, Bayly, Beale, Bedinger, Birdsall, Bocock. Botts, Bowdon, Bowlin, Boyd, Boydon, Brodhead, Charles Brown, A. (». Brown, Buckner, Burt. Cabell, Chapman, Chase, Beverly L. Clarke, Clingman, Howell Cobb, Williamson R. W. Cobb, Cocke, Crozier, Daniel, Donnell, Garnett Duncan, Alexander Evans, Featherston, Flournoy, French, Fulton, Gayle, Gog- gin, Greene, Willard P. Hall, Haralson, Harmanson. Harris, Haskell, Hill. Hilliard, Isaac E. Holmes, George S. Houston, Charles J. IngersoU, Iverson, Andrew Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, George W. Jones, John W. Jones, Kaufman, Thomas Butler King, Ligon, Lumpkin, McDowell, McKay, McLane, Meade, Morehead, Outlaw, Pendleton, Phelps, PSlsbury, Preston, Ithett, Roman, Sheppard, Stanton, Stephens, Thomas, Jacob Thompson, J. B. Thompson, Robert A. Thompson, Tompkins, Toombs, Veuable, Wallace, Wood- ward.— 82. Nats. — Messrs. Abbott, Ashmun, Bingham, Blanchard, Brady, Butler, Canby, Cathcart, F. Clark, CoUamer, Collins, Conger, Cranston, Crowell, Cummins, Darling, Dickey. Dick- inson, Dixon, Duer, Daniel Duncan, Dunn, Fckert, Edsall, Edwards, Embree, Nathan Evans, Faran, Farelly, Ficklin, Fisher, Freedly, Fries, Gott,, Gregory, Grinnell, Hale, Nathan K. Hall, Hammons, James G. Hampton, Moses Hampton, Henly, Henry, Elias B. Holmes, John W. Houston, Hubbard, Hudson, Hunt, Joseph R. IngersoU, Irvin, Jenkins. Kellogg, Kennon, D. P. King, W. T. Lawrence, Sydney Lawrence, Lincoln, Lord, Lynde, Maclay, McClelland. MeClernand, Mcllvaine, Job Mann, Horace Mann, Marsh, Marvin, Miller, Morris, Mullen, Murphy, Nelson, Nes, Newell, Nicoll, Palfrey, Peaslee, Peck, Petrie, Pettit, Pollock, Putnam, Reynolds, Richey, Robinson, Rockhill, John, A . Rockwell, Boot, Base, Ritniscy, St. John, Sawyer, Schenck, Sherrill, Sylvester, Slin- gerland, Smart, Caleb B. Smith, Robert Smith. Truman Smith, Starkweather, Andrew Stewart. CluirUs E. Stuart, Strohm, Strong, Tallmadge, Taylor, James Thompson, Richard W. Thompson, William Thompson, Thurston; Tuck, Turner, Van Dyke. Vinton, Warren, Wentworth, White, Wick, Wil- liams, Wilmot. — 121. The House having thus non-concurred with the Senate, the question was decided in the Senate on the 12th of August, 1848, in favor of receding from its amendment, running the Missouri line to the Pacific, by yeas and nays, as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Allen. Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Breese, Bright, Cameron, Clarke. Corwin, Davis of Mass.. Dayton, Dickinson, Dix, Dodge, Douglas, Fetch, Fitzgerald, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Hanne.gan, Houston, Miller, Miles, Phelps, Spruance, Upham, Walker, Webster. — 29. Nats. — Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Berrien, Borland, Butler, Calhoun, Davis of Miss., Downs, Foote, Hunter, Johnson of Md., Johnson of La., Johnson of Ga., Lewis, Man- gum, Mason, Metcalfe, Pearce, Rusk, Sebastian, Turney, Underwood, Westcott, Yulee. — 25. [Northern men in small capitals ; Southern men in roman.] The bill for the admission of California being before the Senate, Mr. Turney moved to strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert as follows : — " When it shall be made to appear to the President of the United States, by satisfactory evidence, that the people inhabiting the ter> MISSOURI.— MONROE DOCTRINE. 841 ritory of California (or so much of said terri- tory as is comprised within the limits proposed by this bill, as the boundaries of the state of California), assembled in Convention, have agreed to a line not further south than the parallel of 36° 30' north latitude, as the southern boundary of said state, and limited the representation of said state to one repre- sentative until after the next census of the inhabitants of the United States, the said state of California may be admitted into the Union, upon the proclamation of the President, upon an equal footing with the original states. "Sec. — . And be it further enacted, That the line of 36° 3(K of north latitude, known as the Missouri Compromise Line, as denned by the eighth section of an act, entitled ' An act to authorize the people of the Missouri Terri- tory to form a constitution and state govern- ment, and for the admission of such state into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, and to prohibit slavery in certain terri- tories,' approved March 6, 1820, be, and the same is hereby declared to extend to the Pacific ocean : and the said eighth section, together with the compromise therein effected, is hereby revived, and declared to be in full force and binding for the future organization of the territories of the United States, in the same sense and with the same understanding with which it was originally adopted." The question was stated to be upon the amendment of Mr. Turney, and, being taken by yeas and nays, was rejected by the follow- ing vote : Yeas.— Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Barnwell, Bell, Berrien, Butler, Clemens, Davis of Miss., Dawson, Downs, Foote, Houston, Sumter, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Pratt, Busk, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, Tulee. — 24. Nats. — Messrs. Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Clarke, Cooper, Davis of Mass., Dayton. Dickinson, Dodge of Wis., Dodge of la., Douglas. Ewing, Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Jones, Norris, Phelps, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Upham, Wales, Walker, Whiteouib, and Winthrop. — 32. Southern men in italics, Northern men in roman. Monroe Doctrine. From President Monroe's Seventh Annual Message, December 2d, 1823. " It was stated, at the commencement of the last session, that a great effort was then mak- ing in Spain and Portugal to improve the con- dition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extra- ordinary moderation. It need scarcely be re- marked that the result has been, so far, very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse, and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citi- zens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when rights areinvaded or seriously menaced, that we resent injuries, or make preparation for our defence. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The poli- tical system of the allied powers is essentia 1 ly different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments. And to the defence of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlight- ened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is de- voted. We owe it, therefore, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers, to declare, that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or depend- encies of any European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their inde- pendence, and maintained it, and whose inde- pendence we have, on great consideration, and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new govern- ments and Spain, we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgment of the competent authorities of this government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensabl i to their security. The late events in Spain and Portugal show that Europe is still unsettled. Of this import- ant fact no stronger proof can be adduced, than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on a principle satisfactory to them- selves, to have interposed by force in the inter- 342 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. nal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same prin- ciple, is a question to which all independent powers, whose governments differ from theirs, are interested ; even those most remote, and surely none more so than the United States. Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers ; to consider the government, de facto, as the legitimate government for us : to culti- vate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy ; meeting, in all instances, the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to these continents, circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied pow- ers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endanger- ing our peace and happiness ; nor can any one believe, that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition, in any form, with indifference. If we look to the compara- tive strength and resources of Spain and those new governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in the hope that other powers will pursue the same course." Nat u ralization. Laws of the United States relative THERETO : The first act of Congress " to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," in accordance with the power conferred by the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States, was approved March 26, 1790. On the 29th of January, 1795, this act was repealed and new regulations were established by another act ; and to the latter act were added still further regulations by an act June 18, 1798. On the 14th of April, 1802, all regulations upon naturalization hitherto made and in force were abolished, and new ones created by the following law : — An Act to establish an uniform rule of na- turalization, and to repeal the acts hereto- fore passed on the subject. Be it enacted, &c, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not other- wise : — 1st. That he shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, dis- trict, or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territorial disticts of the United States, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years at least before his admission, that it was, bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sov- erignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at the time, be a citi- zen or subject. 2dly. That he shall, at the time of his ap- plication to be admitted, declare, on oath or affirmation, before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he will support the Constitu- tion of the United States, and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty what- ever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which pro- ceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court. 3dly. That the court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held one year at least ; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the princi- ples of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happi ness of the same : Provided, That the oath of the applicant shall, in no case, be allowed to prove his residence. 4thly. That in case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above re- quisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility in the court to whit-'h his application shall be made ; which renuncia- tion shall be recorded in the said court : Pro- vided, That no alien who shall be a native citizen, denizen, or subject of any country, state, or sovereign with whom the United States shall be at war at the time of his ap- plication, shall be then admitted to be a citi- zen of the United States: Provided, also, That any alien who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States before the twenty-ninth day of January, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, may be admitted to become a citizen, on due proof, made to some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the United States, and one year, at least, immediately preceding his application, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held ; and oa NATURALIZATION. 343 Ais declaring, on oath or affirmation, that he ■will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he doth absolutely and en- tirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sove- reignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject; and, moreover, on its appearing, to the satisfaction of the court, that during the s-iid term of two years he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the • Constitution of the United States, and well- disposed to the good order and happiness of the same ; and where the alien applying for admission to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission ; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof: And provided, also, That any alien who was resid- ing within the limits and under the jurisdic- tion of the United States at any time between the said twenty-ninth day of January, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, and the eighteenth day of June, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, may, within two years after the passing of this act, be admitted to become a citizen without a com- pliance with the first condition above specified. Sec. 2. Provided, also, That, in addition to the directions aforesaid, all free white per- sons, being aliens, who may arrive in the United States after the passing of this act, shall, in order to become citizens of the United States, make registry and obtain cer- tificates in the following manner, to wit : every person desirous of being naturalized shall, if of the age of twenty-one years, make report of himself, or, if under the age of twenty-one years, or held in service, shall be reported by his parent, guardian, master, or mistress, to the clerk of the district court of the district where such alien or aliens shall Arrive, or to some other court of record of the United States, of either of the territorial dis- tricts of the same, or of a particular state ; and such report shall ascertain the name, birthplace, age, nation, and allegiance of each alien, together with the country whence he or she migrated, and the place of his or her in- tended settlement : and it shall be the duty of such clerk, on receiving such report, to re- cord the same in his office, and to grant to the person making such report, and to each indi- vidual concerned therein, whenever he shall be required, a certificate, under his hand and seal of office, of such report and registry ; and for receiving and registering each report of an individual or family, he shall receive fifty cents, and for each certificate granted pursu- ant to this act to an individual or family, fifty cents ; and such certificate shall be exhibited to the court by every alien who may arrive in the United States after the passing of this act, on his application to be naturalized, as evi- dence of the time of his arrival within the United States. Sec. 3. And whereas doubts have arisen whether certain courts of record in some of the states are included within the description of district or circuit courts : Be it further en- acted, That every court of record in any indi- vidual state having common law jurisdiction, and a seal and clerk or prothonotary, shall be considered as a district court within the mean- ing of this act ; and every alien who may have been naturalized in any such court shall enjoy, from and after the passing of the act, the same rights and privileges as if he had been naturalized in a district or circuit court of the United States. Sec. 4. That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of tb% United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States, may have become citi- zens of any one of the said states, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty- one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States ; and the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and juris- diction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States : Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States: Provided, also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citi- zen as aforesaid without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed. Sec. 5. That all acts heretofore passed respecting naturalization be, and the same are hereby, repealed. Approved, April 14, 1802. An act in addition to an act intituled " An act to establish an uniform rule of naturali- zation, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject." Be it enacted, &c, That any alien, being a free white person, who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States at any time between the eighteenth day of June, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, and the fourteenth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and two, and who has continued to reside within the same, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States without a compliance with the first condition specified in the first section.of the act, intituled " An act to estab- lish an uniform rule of naturalization, and v> repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject." 344 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Sec. 2.. That when any alien who shall have complied with the first condition specified in the first section of the said original act, and who shall have pursued the directions pre- scribed in the second section of the said act, may die before he is actually naturalized, the widow and the children of such alien shall be considered as citizens of the United States, and shall be entitled to all rights and privi- leges as such, upon taking the oaths prescribed by law. Approved, March 26, 1804. An act for the regulation of seamen on board the public and private vessels of the United States. Sec. 12. That no person who shall arrive in the United States from and after the time when this act shall, take effect, shall be ad- mitted to become a citizen of the United States who shall not for the continued term of five years next preceding his admission as aforesaid, have resided within the United States, without being at any time during the said five years out of the territory of the Uni- ted States. Approved, March 3, 1813. An act supplementary to the acts heretofore passed on the subject of an uniform rule of naturalization. Be it enacted, &c, That persons resident within the United States, or the territories thereof, on the eighteenth day of June, in the year one thousand eight hundred and twelve, who had before that day made a declaration, according to law, of their intentions to become eitizens of the United States, or who, by the existing laws of the United States, were on that day entitled to become citizens without making such declaration, may be admitted to become citizens thereof, notwithstanding they shall be alien enemies at the times and in the man- ner prescribed by the laws heretofore passed on that subject: Provided, That nothing here- in contained shall be taken or construed to interfere with or prevent the apprehension and removal, agreeably to law, of any alien enemy at any time previous to the actual na- turalization of such alien. Approved, July 30, 1813. An act relative to evidence in cases of natura- lization. Be it enacted, &c, That the certificate of report and registry required as evidence of the time of arrival in the United States, according to the second section of the act of the fourteenth of April, one thousand eight hundred and two, entitled " An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts here- tofore passed on that subject," and also a cer- tificate from the proper clerk or prothonotary of the declaration of intention, made before a court of record, and required as the first condi- tion, according to the first section of said act, shall be exhibited by every alien, on his applica- tion to be admitted acitizen of the United States in pursuance of said act, who shall have ar- rived within the limits and under the jurisdic- tion of the United States since the eighteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and twelve, and shall each be recited at full length in the record of the court admitting such alien : otherwise he shall not be deemed to have complied with the conditions requisite for becoming a citizen of the Unitod States ; and any pretended admission of an alien who shall have arrived within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States since the • said eighteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and twelve, to be a citizen, after the promulgation of this act, without such recital of each certificate at full length, shall be of no validity or effect under the act aforesaid. Sec. 2. Provided, That nothing herein con- tained shall be construed to exclude from admission to citizenship any free white per- son who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States at any time between the eighteenth day of June, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, and the fourteenth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and two, and who, having con- tinued to reside therein without having made any declaration of intention before a court of record, as aforesaid, may be entitled to become a citizen of the United States according to the act of the 26th of March, one thousand eight hundred and four, entitled " An act in addi- tion to an act entitled ' An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject.' " Whenever any person without a certificate of such declaration of intention as aforesaid shall make application to be admitted a citizen of the United States, it shall be proved, to the satisfaction of the court, that the applicant was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States before the fourteenth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and two, and has continued to reside within the same, or he shall not be so admitted. And the residence of the applicant within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for at least five years immediately pre- ceding the time of such application shall be proved by the oath or affirmation of citizens of the United States ; which citizens shall be named in the record as witnesses. And such continued residence within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, when satisfactorily proved, and the place or places where the applicant has resided for at least five years, as aforesaid, shall be stated and set forth, together with the names of such citizens, in the record of the court admitting the applicant: otherwise the same shall not entitle him to be considered and deemed a citizen of the United States. Approved March 22, 1816. An Act in further addition to " An act to es- tablish an uniform rule of naturalization, NATURALIZATION. 345 and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject." Be it enacted, &c, That any alien, being a free white person, and a minor, under theage of twenty-one years, who shall have resided in the United States three years next preceding his arriving at the age of twenty-one years, and who shall have continued to reside there- in to the time he may make application to be admitted a citizen thereof, may, after he ar- rives at the age of twenty-one years, and after he shall have resided five years within the •United States, including the three years of his minority, be admitted a citizen of the United States without having made the decla- ration required in the first condition of the first section of the act to which this is an ad- dition three years previous to his admission: Provided, Such alien shall make the declara- tion required therein at the time of his or her admission ; and shall further declare, on oath, and prove, to the satisfaction of the court, that for three years nest preceding it has been the bona fide intention of such alien to become a citizen of the United States, and shall in all other respects comply with the laws in regard to naturalization. Sec. 2. That no certificates of citizenship or naturalization heretofore obtained from any court of record within the United States shall be deemed invalid in consequence of an omis- sion to comply with the requisition of the first section of the act entitled " An act relative to evidence in cases of naturalization/' passed the twenty-second day of "March, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen. Sec. 3. That the declaration required by the first condition specified 'in the first section of the act to which this is an addition shall, if the same has been bona fide made before the clerk of either of the courts in the said condition named, be as valid as if it had been made before the said courts respectively. Sec. 4. That a declaration by any alien, being a free white person, of his intendedap- plication to be admitted a citizen of the United States, made, in the manner and form pre- scribed in the first condition specified in the first section of the act to which this is an ad- dition, two years before his admission, shall be a sufficient compliance with said condition, any- thing in the said act, or in any subsequent act, to the contrary notwithstanding. Approved May 26, 1824. An act to amend the acts concerning naturali- zation. Be it enacted, &c, That the second section of the act entitled " An act to establish an uni- form rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject," which was passed on the fourteenth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and two, and the first section of the act entitled " An act relative to evidence in cases of naturalization," passed on the twenty-second day of March, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen, be, and the same are hereby, repealed. Sec. 2. That any alien, being a free white person, who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States be- tween the fourteenth day of April, one thou- sand eight hundred andtwo, and the eighteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and twelve, and who has continued to reside with- in the same, may be admitted to become a citi- zen of the United States without having made any previous declaration of his intention to become a'citizen: Provided, That whenever any person without a certificate of such declaration of intention shall make application to be ad- mitted a citizen of the United States, it shall be proved, to the satisfaction of the court, that the applicant was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States before the eighteenth day of June, one thou- sand eight hundred and twelve, and has con- tinued to reside within the same, or he shall not be so admitted ; and the residence of the applicant within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for at least five years immediately preceding the time of such application shall be proved by the oath or affirmation of citizens of the United States, which citizens shall be named in the record as witnesses ; and such continued residence with- in the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, when satisfactorily proved, and the place or places where the applicant has resided for at least five years, as aforesaid, shall be stated and set forth, together with the names of such citizens, in the record of the court admitting the applicant : otherwise the same shall not entitle him to be considered and deemed a citizen of the United States. Approved, May 24, 1828. An act to amend the act entitled "An act for the regulation of seamen on board the public and private vessels of the United States," passed the third of March, eighteen hundred and thirteen. Be it enacted, &c, That the last clause of the twelfth section of the act hereby amended, consisting of the following words, to wit, " without being at any time during the said five years out of the territory of the United States," be, and the same is hereby, repealed. Approved, June 26, 1848. Views favorable to naturalization expressed in the Convention which formed the Consti- tution. Mr. Governeur Morris (Federalist) moved to insert fourteen years, instead of four years' citizenship, as a qualification for senators. Mr. Madison (Republican) was not adverse to some restrictions on this subject, but could never agree to the proposed amendment. Should the Constitution have the intended effect of giving stability and reputation to our government, great numbers of respectable Europeans, men who loved liberty and wished to partake its blessings, will be ready to trans- fer their fortunes hither. All such would feel 346 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. the mortification of being marked with sus- picious incapacities, though they should not covet the public honors. He was not appre- hensive that any dangerous number of stran- gers would be appointed by the state legisla- tures, if they were left at liberty to do so ; nor that foreign powers would make use of strangers as instruments for their purposes. Dr. Franklin (Republican) was not against a reasonable time, but should be very sorry to see anything like illiberality inserted in the Constitution. The people in Europe are friendly to this country. We found, in the course of the Revolution, that many strangers served us faithfully, and that many natives took part against their country. When for- eigners, after looking about for some other country in which they can obtain more happi- ness, give preference to ours, it is a proof of attachment which ought to excite our confi- dence and affection. Mr. Randolph (Republican) never could agree to the motion for disabling foreigners for fourteen years from participating in the public honors. He reminded the Convention of the language held by our patriots during the revolution, and the principles laid down in all the American constitutions. He would go as far as seven years, but no farther. Mr. Wilson (Republican) said he rose with feelings which were perhaps peculiar, men- tioning the circumstance of his not being a native, and the possibility, if the ideas of some gentlemen should be pursued, of his being incapacitated from holding a place under the very Constitution which he had shared the trust of making. He remarked the illiberal complexion which the motion would give the whole system, and the effect which a good system would have in inviting meritorious foreigners among us, and the discouragement and mortification they must feel from the de- grading discrimination now proposed. 3 On the motion of Mr. Morris, the vote stood: New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, Georgia — Ayes, 4. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Mary- land, Virginia, North Carolina — Noes, 7. Mr. Rutledge. Seven years citizenship having been required for the House of Repre- sentatives, surely a longer time is requisite for the Senate, which will have more power. On the question for nine years : New Hamp- shire, New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia — Ayes, 6. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland — Noes, 4. North Carolina divided. On the 13th August, 1787, the question again came up on a motion to strike out seven, and insert four years, as the required term for citizenship of a member of the House of Rep- resentatives. Mr. Madison (Republican) wished to main- tain the character of liberality which had been professed in all the constitutions and publications of America. He wished to invite foreigners of merit and republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigra- tion for her settlement and prosperity. Mr. AVilson (Republican) remarked that almost all the general officers of the Pennsyl- vania line, of the late army, were foreigners, and no complaint had ever been made against their fidelity or merit. Three of her deputies to the Convention, Morris, Fitzsimmons, and himself were also not natives. On the motion to make the term four years instead of seven, the vote stood : Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia — Ayes, 3. New Hamp- shire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsyl- vania, Delaware, North Carolina, South Caro- lina, and Georgia — Noes, 8. The adverse views of the early fathers of the republic, who were opposed to naturaliza- tion, will be found under the head of " Madi- son Letters." Nebraska and Kansas. The whole region comprised within the boundaries of the territories of Nebraska and Kansas (excepting that portion on its south- west border which formerly belonged to Texas), originally constituted the upper part of the province of Louisiana.* The section ceded by Texas, not incorporated into the ter- ritory of New Mexico, consists of the tract extending from the north boundary of Texas (lat. 36° 30') to the Arkansas River, between 100° and 103° of longitude ; and also of that narrow strip between the 38th parallel and the Arkansas river, stretching north towards the 42d parallel ; which together are roughly estimated to contain about 30,000 square miles. France acquired its claim to the entire Val- ley of the Mississippi from the discoveries of Joliet and Marquette, in June, 1G73 ; of La Salle, about the same time, who gave the name of Louisiana to all the region between the so-called Illinois country (afterwards called East Louisiana) and the Gulf of Mexico, and declared it to be an appendage of France ; from the settlements made on the shores of Louisiana Proper, in 1699, by Iberville and Bienville ; and from undisputed possession held from 1712 to 1732, under the charter _ of Louis XIV. Adventurous traders, advancing from both north and south into the interior, established their posts throughout the Valley, until they possessed a chain of forts extend- ing from the Great Lakes to the Gulf; among which was Fort Orleans, built in 1719, on the Missouri River, near the mouth of the Osage, and the present town of Jefferson City. In 1760, when the war broke out between Great Britain and France, the latter com- menced negotiating with Spain a secret treaty (ratified Nov. 3, 1762), conveying to Spain all of the Louisiana Province west of the Missis- sippi river, with New Orleans, &c. This was * The beginning of this chapter is from a historical narra- tive by Charles Colby, A. M. NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 34; not published until 1764, after the general " Treaty of Paris," made in 1763, by Great Britain, France, and Spain, when France ceded Canada to Great Britain, with all of the Louisiana Province east of the Mississippi. Thus France disposed of all her territory in North America. In 1764, the settlement of St. Louis was commenced ; and by this event a new impulse was given to the foundation of trading posts and small settlements in the lower part of the valley of the Missouri river. By the treaty of 1783, at the close of the revolutionary war, the United States ac- quired from Great Britain all of East Louisi- ana; and Spain, retaining her previous pos- sessions, received in addition the whole of Florida. Settlements now rapidly increased along the banks of the great rivers, and trade nourished. The United States obtained (Oct. 20, 1795) the free navigation of the Missis- sippi, which had become an urgent public want; but Spain afterwards threw so many obstacles in the way of trade, that it is proba- ble hostilities with that nation were only pre- vented by its ceding Louisiana to France, March 21, 1801, in accordance with the treaty of San Ildefonso, on Oct. 1, 1800. About this period general attention was drawn, by many circumstances, to a consider- ation of "the probable destiny of the Great Mississippi Valley ; and the earnest sentiment of our people began to be generally manifest in the public press, which, with great unani- mity, called on Congress to make arrange- ments for purchasing the entire province. Mr. Jefferson, deeming it desirable that the country should at once be explored, addressed Congress Jan. 18, 1803, recommending that means for such purpose be taken without delay ; and, his suggestions having been ap- proved, he commissioned Captains Lewis and Clarke to explore the Missouri and its princi- pal branches to their sources. Negotiations were commenced with France ; and the con- dition of her affairs so favored the projected purchase, that it was soon consummated. The treaty of Paris, signed April 13, 1803, and perfected on the 30th of that month, trans- ferred Louisiana, with all its rights, &c, to the United States, for the sum of 60,000,000 francs, and the country was surrendered in December following. By the act of March 20, 1804, the coun- try was divided into two sections : the first consisting of the territory of Orleans, or the present state of Louisiana; while the rest was constituted a district of the United States, under the name of the district of Louisiana ; over which the American authority was insti- tuted on the 19th October ensuing, by Gen. W. H. Harrison, then Governor of Indiana. The territory of Missouri was established (July 4, 1805), though under the name of Territory of Louisiana, and thus called until July 4, 1812. The territory of Missouri increased so rapidly in Dopulation, that as early as 1818 its admission as a state was considered in Congress. From 1819 to the present time, the proceed- ings of Congress relative to Nebraska and Kansas, with the events directly resulting therefrom, form the main parts of their his- tory. In 1819, the territory of Arkansas was established ; and the application of the terri- tory of Missouri for permission to form a state constitution was taken into considera- tion. Then (1819, and 2d session 15th Con- gress), the House of Representatives passed the latter bill, with its amendment, restricting slavery, which was struck out by the Senate. Each House persisted in adhering to its ac- tion; and in consequence of this disagree- ment the bill was lost. Sixteenth Congress— 1819-1821.— In Dec. 1819, a bill was reported, authorizing the formation of a state constitution for Missouri, which was finally passed, embracing the cele- brated Missouri compromise. Mr. Douglas of 111. gave notice in the House of Representatives, on December 11, 1844, of a motion for leave to introduce a bill to esta- blish the territory of Nebraska. On Decem- ber 17 he introduced said bill, which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Territories. The committee reported (January 7, 1845), an amendatory bill, and this was committed to the Committee of the Whole ; but no further action was taken on it during the session. Mr. Douglas (January, 1845), also introduced a bill to establish military posts in Nebraska ; which was read, referred, reported, and referred to the Committee of the Whole, but was not further acted upon. Thirtieth Congress — 1847-9.— At the first session was presented the memorials of the legislature of Missouri, praying the establish- ment of a territorial government in Nebraska, and in strict adherence to the principles of the 8th sec. of Act of March 6, 1820. On March 15, 1848, Mr. Douglas introduced a bill to establish the territory of Nebraska, which was read twice and referred. It was reported on April 20, and made the special order of the 26th succeeding ; but it was neither taken up on that day, nor again referred to during the session. A bill of Mr. Borland's, attaching Nebraska to the surveying district of Arkan- sas, was also referred and not afterwards con- sidered. At the second session (1848-9), the Senate commenced the consideration of the bill, but ordered its re-commitment to the Committee on Territories, and nothing afterwards was done. Second Session— 1852-53.— In the Senate, Mr. Dodge, of Iowa, early introduced a reso- lution, which was passed, instructing the Com- mittee on Territories to inquire into the expe- diency of organizing the territory ; but no further action was taken until the House of Representatives had passed its bill for that purpose. The proceedings of the House on this subject were as follows : — On the first day of the session, Mr. Hall gave notice of a 348 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. bill for " organizing the territory of Platte," (or Nebraska), and presented it on the ensu- ing Monday. On December 17, the peti- tion of Mr. Guthrie, for a seat as a delegate from Nebraska, was received and referred. The Committee on Territories reported their bill for organizing Nebraska, February 2, 1853; and the next week it was debated in Committee of the Whole. Having been con- sidered for three days (February 8, 9, and 10), it was passed on the latter day. The Senate received it next day (Feb. 11), and at once referred it to the Committee on Territo- ries, which reported it on the 17th without amendment. Further proceedings were not taken until March 2 ; when efforts were made by Mr. Douglas and its friends to get its con- sideration, though without avail. On March 3, it was again pressed ; but the Senate laid it on the table. [See next column on this page for vote and details of these proceedings.] ACTION OF INHABITANTS OF NEBRASKA, IN 1853. The citizens of Nebraska, and of the states bordering that territory, were much disap- pointed by the Senate's neglecting to pass the bill organizing the territory. Consultations were frequently held during the summer of 1853, at the various settlements; and at length it was proposed to hold a general con- vention of the inhabitants of the territory, as a united demonstration in favor of its organi- zation. This was held at the Wyandotte Mis- sion, July 26, 1853, when resolutions were adopted in favor of electing a delegate to Con- gress, and provisional officers were chosen. These officers, on August 1 ensuing, an- nounced that an election for such purpose would be held at Be lleview and other places, on the 11th October. Before the election, a general notice was published of a preliminary convention at Kickapoo, on September 20 : and the following is a copy of this call. The notes in brackets, here appended to the names of its signers, AVere not of course, on the ori- ginal notice, but were furnished to the author by a member of Congress : — CONVENTION AND BARBECUE. The citizens of Nebraska, including the chiefs and leading men of its Indian tribes, are invited to attend a Grand Barbecue and Meeting in Mass Convention, at Kickapoo, near Fort Leavenworth, on Tuesday, Septem- ber 20, 1853. The object of this call is to secure the adop- tion of proper rules for the proposed elec- tion of a delegate in October next, and such interest in it as shall make the election the fair expression of the wishes and preferences of the entire resident population who are al- ready citizens, or desire to become such ; and to prepare such instructions to said delegate, as to the measures to be adopted for expedit- ing the organization of the territory and its ■A c settlement by the whites, without detriment to the rights of the Indians. H. Rich, Fort Leavenworth, [Sutler at Fort L.l W. F. Dyer, [Licensed Trader.] Rev. Joel Grover, [Missionary.] II. Dawson, Kickapoo, [Farmer.] Rev. Thomas Johnson, Shawnee Mission, [one of the Nebraska delegates.] " R. C. Miller, [Trader,] John Pate, [Clerk,] Peter Dessout, [Half-breed,] Lewis Vieaux, do., Chas. Vieaux, do., Fred. Sloyce, do., Soldier's Creek, George Dyer, [Clerk for Trader.] _ Joseph Lorton, [has an Indian wife.] Joseph La Frombois, [Half-breed.] Joseph Kennedy, Pleasant-Ridge, [Indian wife.] A. S. Smith, do. H. Weld, do. John Ogee, [Baptist Mission.] Dr. Bowton, [at the Union Mission.] J. Preston, Union Town, [Clerk for Trader.] E. G. Booth, [Clerk for Trader.] Dr. Palmer. A. Higbee, [Indian family.] J. Wilson, [St, Mary's Catholic Mission.] Robert W. Wilson, Fort Riley," [Sutler, Clerk for H. Rich.] A provisional government was the result of this. 32d Congress. — 2d session. — A bill provid- ing a territorial government for Nebraska, embracing all of what is now the territories of Nebraska and Kansas, was introduced in the House by Mr. Richardson of 111., and passed that body on the 8th of Feb. 1853. It was silent on the subject of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The vote in the House on its passage was as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Charles Allen of Mass., Willis Allen of 111., Allison of Pa.. Babeock of N. Y.. Barrere of 0., Bell of 0., Bibighaus of Pa., Busby of 0.. Jos. Cable of 0., Lewis D, Campbell of 0., Thompson Campbell of 111,. Cartter of 0., Clark of la.. Cleveland of Conn.. Clingman of N. C. Darby of Mo., John G. Davis of Ind., Dawson of La., Dean of N. Y., Dimick of Pa.. Doty of Wis., Duncan of Mass., Durkee of Wis., Eastman of Wis.. Edgerton of 0., Evans of Md., Fick- lin of 111.. Fitch of Ind., Florence of Pa., Gamble of Pa., Gaylord of 0., Giddings of 0., Gilmore of Pa., Goodrich of Mass.. Gorman of Ind., Green of 0., Grey of Ky., Grow of Pa., Hall of Mo.. Harper of 0., Hart of N, Y., Hendricks of Ind.. Hibbard of N. H., Holladay of Va., John W. Howe of Pa., Thomas Y. How of N. Y„ Ingersoll of Conn.. Ives of N. V . Jenkins of N. Y., Andrew Johnson of Tenn.. Johnson of 0., J. Glancy Jones of Pa., Preston King of N. Y.. Landry of La.. Little of Mass.. Lockhart of Ind.. Mace of Ind., Mann of Mass., McDonald of Me.. McMullin of Va., McNair of Pa., Miller of Mo., Molony of 111., Henry D. Moore of Pa., Morn son of Pa., Murray of N. Y., Newton of 0.. Andrew Parker of Pa., Penniman of Mich., Perkins of N. H.. Porter of Mo., Powell of Va., Price of N. J.. Reed of Me., Ricbardsoti of Hi., Robbing of Pa., Robie of N. Y., Sabin of Vi., Origen S. Sey- mour of Conn., Skelton of N. J., Smart of Me.. Smith of Ala., Benjamin Stanton of 0., Stone of Ky.. St. Martin of La., Stratton of N. J.. Stuart of Mich., Taylor of 0., Thurston of K. I.. Townshend of 0., WaJbridge of \. V.. Ward of Ky., Washburne of Me., Watkins of Tenn.. Welch of 0., 'Wells of N. Y., Williams of Tenn.. Yates of HI — '.is. Nays. Messrs. Abercrombie of Ala.. William Appleton of Mass., Averett of Va., Bocoek of Va.. Bowie of Md.. Brooks of N. Y., Albert G. Brown of Miss.. CasKie of Va., Chastaln of Ga.. Cobb of Ga., Colcock of S. C, Cottman of Md.. Daniel of N. C, Dockery of N. C, Dunham of lud., Edmundson of NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 349 Va.. Samson W. Harris of Ala., Haws of X. Y., Haven of X. V.. Ilenn of la., Hereford of X. Y., Houston of Ala.. Howard of Tex.. Thomas M. Howe of Pa., Jaekson of Ga., George W. Jones of Tenn., Letcher of Va.. McQueen of S. C, Meacham of Vt.. Millson of Va.. Morehead of N. C. Orr of S. C, Outlaw of X. C, Ross of Pa.. Stanley of X. C. Abraham P. Stephens of X. V.. Strother of Va., Sutherland of X. Y., Venable of X. C. Wallace of S. C, Walsh of Md., Wildrick of X. J., Woodward of S. C— 43. During the debate on this bill on the 8th of Feb., 1853, the following dialogue took place : Mr. Johx W. Howe. I wish to inquire of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.Giddings],whom I see in his seat now, and who I believe is a member of the Committee on Territories, why the Ordinance of 1787 is not incorporated in this bill ? [Laughter.] I should like to know whether he or the committee were intimidated on account of the platforms of 1852. [Laugh- ter.] The gentleman pretends to be something of an Anti-Slavery man ; at least I have under- stood so. Mr. Giddixgs. With the permission of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Richardson], I will say to my friend that the south line of this territory is 36 deg. 30 min. The law authorizing the people of Missouri to form a state government, enacted in 1820, provides in express language — " That in all that territory ceded by France to the United .States, under the name of Loui- siana, which lies north of 36 deg. 30 min. north latitude, not included within the limits if the state contemplated by that act (Mis- souri), slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than for crimes whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby for ever prohibited." This law (said Mr. Giddings) stands perpe- tually, and I did not think that this act would receive any increased validity by a re-enact- ment. There I leave the matter. It is very clear that the territory included in that treaty must be for ever free, unless that law be repealed. Mr. Johx W. Howe. I should like to know from the gentleman from Ohio, if he has not some recollection of a compromise made since that time ? Mr. Giddixgs. That does not affect the question. In the Senate, on the 3d of March, 1853, Mr. Douglas having reported the House Bill hark, without amendment, it was laid on the table, on motion of Mr. Weller, by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Adams of Miss.. Bayard of Del., Bell or JVx.. Borland of Ark., Brodhead of Pa., Butler of S. C. Da- m- of Mass.. Dawson of Ga., De Saussure of S. C, Downs of La., Fish of X. Y., Fitzpatrick of Ala., Houston of Tex., Hunter of Va., Mallory of Fla., Morton of Fla., Phelps of Vt., Husk of Tex., Sebastian of Ark., Smith of Conn., Soule of La.. Spruance of Del., Underwood of Ky. — 23. Xats. — Messrs. Atchison of Mo., Bright of Ind., Cooper of Pa., Dodge of Wis., Dodge of la., Douglas of 111., Felch of Mich., Foot of Vt.. Geyer of Mo., Hamlin of Me., Jones of la.. Norris of X. H, Shields of III.. Toucey of Conn., Wade 'if 0., Walker of Wis., Weller of Cal.— 17. During the debate on this question the fol- lowing remarks were made : — Mr. Atchisox. (Mr. Foot in the chair.) I did not expect opposition to this measure from the quarter from which it comes — from Texas and from Mississippi. I had thought that Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa, were more particularly interested in this question. Mr. President, I will now state to the Senate the views which induced me to oppose this pro- position in the early part of the session. I had two objections to it. One was that the Indian title in that territory had not been extinguished, or at least a very small portion of it had been. Another was the Missouri compromise, or, as it is commonly called, the slavery restriction. It was my opinion at that time — and I am not now very clear on that subject — that the law of Congress, when the state of Missouri was admitted into the Union, excluding slavery from the territory of Louisi- ana north of 36 deg. 30 min., would be en- forced in that territory unless it was specially rescinded ; and, whether that law was in ac- cordance with the Constitution of the United States or not, it would do its work, and that work would be to preclude slaveholders from going into that territory. But when I came to look into that question, I found that there was no prospect, no hope of a repeal of the Missouri Compromise, excluding slavery from that ter- ritory. Now, sir, I am free to admit that at this moment, at this hour, and for all time to come, I should oppose the organization or the settlement of that territory unless my consti- tuents and the constituents of the whole South, of the slave states of the Union, could go into it upon the same footing, with equal rights and equal privileges, carrying that species of pro- perty with them as other people of this Union. Yes, sir, I acknowledge that that would have governed me, but I have no hope that the re- striction will ever be repealed. I have always been of opinion that the first great error committed in the political history of this country was the ordinance of 1787, rendering the Northwest Territory free terri- tory. The next great error was the Missouri compromise. But they are both irremediable. There is no remedy for them. We must sub- mit to them. I am prepared to do it. It is evident that the Missouri compromise cannot be repealed. So far as that question is con- cerned, we might as well agree to the admis- sion of this territory now as next year, or five or ten years hence. In the Senate of the United States, January 4, 1856, Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Territories,* to whom had been referred a bill introduced by Mr. Dodge of Iowa, to organize the Territory of Nebraska, reported back the same with amendments accompanied by a re- port, as follows : — The principal amendments which your com- mittee deem it their duty to commend to the favorable action of the Senate, in a special re- port, are those in which the principles estab- lished by the compromise measures of 1850, so far as they are applicable to territorial organi- zations, are proposed to be affirmed and carried * The c< mmittee on territories of the Senate consisted of Messrs. Douglas of 111.. Houston of Tex., Johnson of Ark, Bell of Tenn., Jones of la., and Kverett of Mass. 350 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. into practical operation within the limits of the new territory. The wisdom of those measures is attested, not less by their salutary and beneficial effects, in allaying sectional agitation and restoring peace and harmony to an irritated and dis- tracted people, than by the cordial and almost universal approbation with which they have been received and sanctioned by the whole country. In the judgment of your committee, those measures were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of Mexican terri- tory. They were designed to establish certain great principles, which would not only furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, but, in all time to come, avoid the perils of a similar agi- tation, by withdrawing the question of slavery from the halls of Congress and the political arena, and committing it to the arbitrament of those who were immediately interested in, and alone responsible for its consequences. With the view of conforming their action to what they regard the settled policy of the govern- ment, sanctioned by the approving voice of the American people, your committee have deemed it their duty to incorporate and perpetuate, in their territorial bill, the principles and spirit of those measures. If any other consideration were necessary, to render the propriety of this course imperative upon the committee, they may be found in the fact, that the Nebraska country occupies the same relative position to the slavery question, as did New Mexico and Utah, when those territories were organized. It was a disputed point, whether slavery was prohibited by law in the country acquired from Mexico. On the one hand it was contended, as a legal proposition, that slavery having been prohibited by the enactments of Mexico, ac- cording to the laws of nations, we received the country with all its local laws and domestic institutions attached to the soil, so far as they did not conflict with the Constitution of the United States ; and that a law, either protect- ing or prohibiting slavery, was not repugnant to that instrument, as was evidenced by the fact, that one-half of the states of the Union tolerated, while the other half prohibited, the institution of slavery. On the other hand it was insisted, that by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, every citizen had a right to remove to any territory of the Union, and carry his property with him under the protec- tion of law, whether that property consisted in persons or things. The difficulties arising from this diversity of opinion were greatly aggra- vated by the fact, that there were many per- sons on both sides of the legal controversy who were unwilling to abide the decision of the courts on the legal matters in dispute ; thus, among those who claimed that the Mexican laws were still in force, and consequently that slavery was already prohibited in those terri- tories by valid enactment, there were many who insisted upon Congress making the matter certain, by enacting another prohibition. In like manner, some of those who argued that the Mexican laws had ceased to have any bind- ing force, and that the Constitution tolerated and protected slave property in those territo- ries, were unwilling to trust the decision of the courts upon that point, and insisted that Con- gress should, by direct enactment, remove all legal obstacles to the introduction of slaves into those territories. Such being the character of the controversy, in respect to the territory acquired from Mex- ico, a similar question has arisen in regard to the right to hold slaves in the proposed terri- tory of Nebraska when the Indian laws shall be withdrawn, and the country thrown open to emigration and settlement. By the 8th sec- tion of " an act to authorize the people of the Missouri territory to form a constitution and state government, and for the admission of such state into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, and to prohibit slave- ry in certain territories," approved March 6, 1820, it was provided : " That, in all that ter- ritory ceded by France to the United States under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, not included within the limits of the state contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is here- by, forever prohibited: Provided always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any state or territory of the United States, such fugi- tive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or ser- vice, as aforesaid." Under this section, as in the case of the Mexican law in New Mexico and Utah, it is a disputed point whether slavery is prohibited in the Nebraska country by valid enactment. The decision of this question involves the constitu- tional power of Congress to pass laws preseri 1 1- ing and regulating the domestic institutions of the various territories of the Union. In the opinion of those eminent statesmen, who hold that Congress is invested with no rightful au- thority to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the territories, the 8th section of the act pre- paratory to the admission of Missouri is null and void ; while the prevailing sentiment in large portions of the Union sustains the doc- trine that the Constitution of the United States secures to every citizen an inalienable right to move into any of the territories with his pro- perty, of whatever kind and description, and to hold and enjoy the same under the sanction of law. Your committee do not feel themselves called upon to enter into the discussion of these controverted questions. They involve the same grave issues which produced the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1851 K As Congress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from deciding the matters in contro- versy then, either by affirming or repealing the Mexican laws, or by an act declaratory of the true intent of the Constitution and the extent NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 351 of the protection afforded by it to slave proper- ty in the territories, so your committee are not prepared now to recommend a departure from the course pursued on that memorable occa- sion, either by affirming or repealing the 8th section of the Missouri act, or by any act de- claratory of the meaning of the Constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute. Your committee deem it fortunate for the peace of the country and the security of the Union, that the controversy then resulted in the adoption of the compromise measures, which the two great political parties, with sin- gular unanimity, have affirmed as a cardinal article of their faith, and proclaimed to the world, as a final settlement of the controversy and an end of the agitation. A due respect, therefore, for the avowed opinions of senators, as well as a propensense of patriotic dut} T , enjoins upon your committee the propriety and neces- sity of a strict adherence to the principles, and even a literal adoption of the enactments of that adjustment in all their territorial bills, so far as the same are not locally inapplicable. Those enactments embrace, among other things less material to the matters under considera- tion, the following provisions : "When admitted as a state, the said terri- tory, or any portion of the same, shall be re- ceived into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission." " That the legislative power and authority of said territory shall be vested in the gov- ernor and a legislative assembly." " That the legislative power of said terri- tory shall extend to all rightful subjects of le- gislation, consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act ; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil ; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the Uni- ted States ; nor shall the lands or other pro- perty of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents." " Writs of error and appeals from the final decisions of said supreme court shall be al- lowed, and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States in the same man- ner and under the same regulations as from the Circuit Courts of the United States, where the value of the property or the amount in controversy, to be ascertained by the oath or affirmation of either party, or other competent witness, shall exceed one thousand dollars, except only that, in all cases involving title to slaves, the said writs of error or appeals shall be allowed and decided by the said supreme court, without regard to the value of the mat- ter, property, or title in controversy ; and except, also, that a writ of error or appeal shall also be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, from the decisions of the said supreme court created by this act, or of any judge thereof, or of the district courts crea- ted by this act, or of any judge thereof, upon any writ of habeas corpus involving the ques- tion of personal freedom; and each of the said district courts shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Con- stitution and laws of the United States as is vested in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States ; and the said supreme and dis- trict courts of the said territory, and the re- spective judges thereof, shall and may grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases in which the same are granted by the judges of the United States in the District of Columbia." To which may be added the following pro- position affirmed by the act of 1850, known ae the fugitive slave law : — That the provisions of the " act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters," approved February 12, 1793, and the provisions of the " act to amend and supplementary to the afore- said act, approved September 18, 1850, shall extend to, and be in force, in all the organized territories," as well as in the various states of the Union. From these provisions it is apparent that the compromise measures of 1850 affirm and rest upon the following propositions : — First : That all questions pertaining to slavery in the territories, and in the new states to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them for that purpose. Second : That " all cases involving title to slaves" and " questions of personal freedom," are referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the Su- preme Court of the United States. Third : That the provisions of the Constitu- tion of the United States, in respect to fugi- tives from service, is to be carried into faithful execution in all "the organized territories" the same as in the states. The substitute for the bill which your committee have prepared, and which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry these propositions and principles into practical ope- ration, in the precise language of the compro- mise measures of 1850. Mr. Dodge's bill, for which Judge Douglas reported a substitute, was silent on the subject of slavery. The substitute of the Committee on Terri- tories, accompanying the foregoing report, contained the following provision : — Be it enacted, &c, that all that part of the United States included within the following limits, except such portions thereof as are hereinafter expressly exempted from the ope- rations of this act, to wit : Beginning at the southwest corner of the state of Missouri, thence running west on the line of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes of north latitude, until it intersects the one hundred and third meridian of longitude west of Greenwich ; thence north, on the said meridian, until it intersects the thirty-eighth parallel of north latitude ; thence west, on the said parallel of latitude to the summit of the Rocky Moun- tains ; thence northward along and upon the 352 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. summit of said range of mountains to the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude ; thence eastward on said parallel to the western bound- ary of the territory of Minnesota ; thence southward, on and with said boundary, to the Missouri river ; thence down the centre of the main channel of said river to the state of Mis- souri ; thence south, on and with the western boundary of said state, to the place of begin- ning, be and the same is hereby created into a temporary government by the name of the territory of Nebraska, and when admitted as a state or states, the said territory, or any por- tion of the same, shall be received into the tin ion with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission. On the 16th of Jan., 1854, Mr. Dixon of Ky. gave notice to the Senate that when the bill to establish a territorial government for the territory of Nebraska should come up, he would offer the following amendment : — "That so much of the 8th section of an act approved March 6, 1820, entitled ' An act to authorize the people of Missouri territory, &c, &c, as declares that, in all that terri- tory ceded by France to the United States under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, slavery ard involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be for ever pro- hibited,' shall not be so construed as to apply to the terri- tory contemplated by this act, or to any other territory of the United States; but that the citizens of the several states or territories shall be at liberty to take and hold their slaves within any of the territories of the United States, or of the states to be formed therefrom, as if the said act enti- tled as aforesaid, and approved as aforesaid, had never been passed." On the 17th of Jan. Mr. Sumner gave notice of an amendment, providing that the Missouri compromise should remain in full force. On the 23 d of Jan. Mr. Douglas stated, that the Committee on Territories had deter- mined to offer amendments to the bill, so as to divide it into two territories (Nebraska and Kansas) instead of one, amending the same by declaring that the Missouri compromise act was superseded by the principles of the compromise measures of 1850, and is hereby declared inoperative. On the 30th of Jan. Mr. Douglas addressed the Senate in favor of his bill. On the 3d of Feb. Mr. Chase proposed an amendment to strike out the words, " was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures," so that the clause would then directly declare the Missouri restriction in- operative. Mr. Chase then addressed the Senate in opposition to the repeal of the Mis- souri compromise. On the 4th of Feb. Mr. Dixon of Ky. replied to Mr. Chase. On the 6th of Feb. Mr. Wade of Ohio, spoke in favor of the amendment of Mr. Chase, and was followed by Mr. Jones of Tenn. in defence of the bill. The motion to adopt this amendment was then voted upon, and negatived ; after which Mr. Douglas stated his intention to propose some change in the phraseology of that por- tion of the bill relating to the compromise measures of 1850, &c, and further considera- tion was postponed. Feb. 7, Tuesday. — Mr. Douglas presented his proposed amendment to section 14, viz., striking out the words — "which [the Missouri Compromise Act] was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise measures, and is hereby declared inopera- tive ;" and inserting — "which, being inconsistent with the principles of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the states and territories, as recognised by the legislation of 1850, com- monly called the Compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or state. nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institu- tions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States;" which was ordered to be printed. On motion of Mr. Sebastian, the 19th, 20th, 39th, and 40th sections were struck out, and an additional section inserted, which provides for the continuance of the present policy of the government towards the Indians. On mo- tion of Mr. Douglas, all appropriations were stricken out. Feb. 8, Wednesday. — Mr. Everett continued the debate in opposition to the bill. Feb. 9, Thursday. — Mr. Smith addressed the Senate in opposition to the bill. Feb. 13, Monday. — Mr. Weller spoke for nearly an hour in support of the bill. Feb. 14, Tuesday. — Mr. Houston addressed the Senate in opposition to the bill, on the ground that it violated the rights of the In- dians who are in possession of that territory, and the good faith of this government on which the Indians relied when they treated to remove to it. Feb. 15, Wednesday. — Mr. Houston con- cluded his speech, and Mr. Douglas's amend- ment was adopted, as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Adams of Miss., Atchison of Mo., Bayard of Del., Bell of Tenn., Benjamin of La., Brown of Miss., But- ler of S. C. Cass of Mich.. Clayton of Del.. Dawson of Geo., Dixon of Ky., Bodge of Io., Bouglas of 111., Evans of S. C. Fitzpatrick of Ala.. Geyer of Mo., Gtvin of Cal., Hunter of Va., Johnson of Ark., Jones of Io.. Jones of Tenn., Mason of Va., Morton of Fla., Norris of N. II.. Pearce of Md., 1'ettit of Ind., Pratt of Md., Sebastian of Arks., Sliddl of La., Sttiart of Mich., Thompson of Ky., Toombs of Geo., Wetter of Cal.. and Williams of N. II. — 35. Nats. — Messrs. Allen of R. I., Chase of 0.. Bodge of Wis., Everett of Mass., Fish of N. Y., Foot of Vt., Houston of Tex., Seward of N. Y., Sumner of Mass., and Wade of 0. — 10. Mr. Chase then moved to amend the section by adding thereto the following words : — "Under which the people of the territories, through their appropriate representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit slavery therein;" which caused some debate. Feb. 16, Thursday. — Mr. Badger spoke at length in favor of the bill. Feb. 17, Friday. — Mr. Seward having pre- sented the resolutions of the legislature of New York requesting its senators and repre- sentatives to oppose the bill, addressed the Senate for three hours in opposition to the bill. Mr. Pettit moved a postponement to Monday, which was carried. Feb. 20, Monday. — A very large number NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 353 of petitions and remonstrances against the bill were presented by Senators Seward, Chase, Sumner, and others. Mr. Dodge of Iowa pre- sented the memorial of Hadley D. Johnson, delegate from the territory of Nebraska, claim- ing for the people of that territory the right to legislate for themselves on the subject of sla- very, and that Congress should leave the question to the decision of their own choice; which was ordered to lie on the table and be printed. When the consideration of the bill was resumed, Mr. Pettit spoke for three hours in favor of the bill, and Mr. Cass briefly re- sponded tc some personal remarks made by Mr. Pettit Feb. 21. — Mr. Sumner temporarily yielded the floor to Mr. Cass, who spoke briefly on the power of Congress to establish governments *fbr the territories. Mr. Sumner then spoke at length against the bill. Feb. 23, Thursday. — Mr. Toombs spoke for one and a half hours in defence of the bill, showing its constitutionality, and just dispo- sition of the slavery question. Feb. 24. — The resolutions of the legislature of Massachusetts protesting against the bill were presented. Mr. Douglas said that the friends of the bill desired to take the vote upon its passage on the next Wednesday. Mr. Chase said he should have several amendments to offer. Mr. Hunter spoke one and a half hours in support of the bill ; and was followed on the same side by Mr. Butler. Feb. 25. — Mr. Butler concluded his speech, and Messrs. Brown of Mass., and Dodge of Iowa, continued the debate in favor of the bill. Feb. 27. — Mr. Cass spoke at length in favor of the bill, and was followed by Mr. Cooper of Pa. against it. Feb. 28. — Messrs. Brodhead of Pa., and Thompson of N. J., defended the bill. On the 1st of March, 1820, Mr. Clayton of Del. addressed the Senate. On the 2d of March, Mr. Clayton concluded his speech. A running debate then ensued on a memo- rial presented by Mr. Chase, from a public meeting in Ohio, severely animadverting upon senators. Mr. Chase's amendment of February 15, was lost by a vote of yeas 10, nays 36. The affirmative vote was as follows : — Messrs. Chase of 0., Dodge of Wis., Fessenden of Me., Fish of X. Y.. Foot of Vt, Hamlin of Me., Seward of X. Y., Smith of Conn., Sumner of Mass., Wade of 0.— 10. Mr. Badger moved to amend by insert- ing, — Provided, That nothing herein contain- ed shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of 6th March, 1820, either pro- tecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolish- ing slavery. The amendment was adopted as follows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Atchison of Mo.. Badger of N. C, Bell of Tenn., Benjamin of La., Brodhead of Pa., Butler of S. C, Clay «f Ala., Dawson of Ga.. Dixon of Ky., Dodge of la., Douglas of 111., Evans of S. C, Fish of N. Y., Fitzpatrick of Ala., Foot of Vt., Gwin of Cal., Hamlin of Me., Houston of Tex., Hunter of Ya.. Jones of la., Jones of Tenn., Mason of Va., Morton of Fla., Norris of N. II., Fettit of Ind., Pratt of Md.. Seward of N. Y., Shields of 111., Slidell of La.. Smith of Conn.. Stuart of Mich., Tmicey of Conn., Walker of Wis., Welter of Cal.. W. •"- Hams of N. H.— 35. Nays. — Messrs. Adams of Miss., Brown of Miss., Dodge of Wis., Jolinson of Ark., Jiusk of Tex., Sebastian of Ark. — tj. Mr. Clayton then moved his amendment* prohibiting " Alien Suffrage," and it was agreed to as follows : — ■ Yeas. — Messrs. Adams. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benjamin. Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Clay, Claytou. Dawson, Dixon, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Houston, Hunter, Johnson, Jones of Tenn., Mason, Morton, Pratt, Sebastian, Slidell. — 23. Nats.— Messrs. Chase, Dodge of Wis., Dodge of la., Doug- las, Fessenden, Fish, Foot, Gwin, Hamlin. Jones of la., Nor- ris, Fettit, Seward, Shields, Smith, Stuart, Sumner, Toucey, Wade, Walker, Williams.— 21. The boundary provisions were so amended as not to interfere with those of Utah. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, by a vote of yeas 29, nays 12. March 3, a long debate ensued. The Sen- ate continued its session through the night until the morning of the 4th, Mr. Douglas speaking in defence of the bill until half-past three in the morning. Mr. Houston replied until near five. The bill was then passed by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Adams of Miss., Atchison of Mo., Badger of N. C, Bayard of Del., Benjamin of La., Brodhead of Pa., Brown of Miss., Butler of S. C, Cass of Mich., Clay of Ala., Dawson of Geo., Dixon of Ky., Dodge of la., Dmiglas of 111., Evans of S. C, Fitzpatrick of Ala.. Geyer of Mo., Gwin of Cal., Hunter of Va., Johnson of Ark., Jones of la., Jones of Tenn.. Mason of Va., Morton of Fla., Norris of X. H., Pettit of Ind., Pratt of Md.. Fusk of Tex.. S"J)astian of Ark., Shields of 111., Slidell of La., Stuart of Mich.. Thompson of Ky.. Tlwmpson of X. J., Toucey of Conn., Weller of Cal.. Williams of X. II.— 37. Xats.— Messrs. Bell of Tenn., Chase of 0.. Dodge of Wis., Fessenden of Me., Fish of X. Y., Foot of Vt., Hamlin of Me.. Houston of Tex., James of R. I., Seward of X. Y., Smith of Conn., Sumner of Mass., Wade of 0., Walker of Wis. — 14. Satisfactory reasons were given for the ab- sence of Senators Bright, Toombs, and Allen. On the 7th of March Messrs. Clayton and Everett stated, if they had been present they would have voted against the bill. March 14, Tuesday. — Mr. Everett pre- sented the mammoth memorial, f signed by 3050 clergymen of New England, of different religious denominations, protesting against the passage of the bill. Subsequently, Mr. Douglas called for its reading, and a debate ensued ; in which Messrs. Douglas, Mason, Butler, Pettit, Adams, and Badger, condemn- ed the tenor of the memorial, and Messrs. Everett, Houston, and Seward, defended it ; and the subject was then laid upon the table. House of Bepresentatives, 1853, December 12, Monday. — The Speaker announced the appointment of the standing committees, and the Committee on Territories was constituted of Messrs. W. A. Richardson (chairman), of 111., John McQueen of S. O, John L. Taylor of Ohio, D. I. Bailey of Ga., Wm. Smith of Va., E. W. Farley of Md., W. H. English *The vote on this amendment was omitted by mistake from under the head of " Alien Suffrage." f For copy of this memorial see under head of " Minister of tiie Gospel" 354 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of Ind., P. Phillips of Ala., and A. W. Lamb of Mo. Dec. 20. — Mr. Phelps presented the memo- rial of Thomas Johnson, praying to be ad- mitted as a delegate in Congress from the territory of Nebraska ; which was referred to Committee on Territories. Dec. 21. — On motion by Mr. Richardson, the Committee on Territories was discharged from further consideration of the memorial of Thomas Johnson, praying to be admitted as a delegate, &c. ; and the same was referred to Committee on Elections. Dec. 22. — Mr. Henn (on privileged ques- tion) presented the credentials of Hadley D. Johnson, delegate from Nebraska territory; and on his motion they were referred to com- mittee on elections. Mr Miller of Mo., in pursuance of previous notice, introduced " a bill to organize the territory of Nebraska," which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to Committee on Territories. 1854, Jan. 23, Monday. — Mr. Phelps pre- sented the memorial of Thomas Johnson and Hadley D. Johnson, praying for the estab- lishment of two territorial governments, and the extinguishment of Indian titles to the ter- ritory lying west of the states of Wisconsin and Iowa. Jan. 30. — The resolutions of the legisla- ture of Rhode Island, against the repeal of the Missouri compromise, were presented. Mr. Pringle of N. Y. offered a resolution, in- structing the committee on territories to report at an early day a bill, similar to that which passed the House last session, providing for the organization of the territory of Nebraska ; but, an objection rising, the resolution went over. Jan. 31. — Mr. Richardson, from Commit- tee on Territories, reported " A bill for or- ganizing the territories of Nebraska and Kan- sas." (H. R., No. 236.) Mr. English said, that a minority of the committee were opposed to a part of the bill as reported ; and submit- ted his views, with proposed amendments. Mr. Richardson resumed, and moved that it be referred to the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, and printed. An ex- citing running debate ensued, but the motion was carried, and the minority report also ordered to be printed. The House bill is the same as the original bill of the Senate, ex- cepting a very few lines regarding the bound- aries, &c. Feb. 1. — The first petition against the bill was presented, and thenceforward their num- ber steadily increased. Feb. 14. — Mr. Mace of Ind. spoke for an hour on the Nebraska bill, and against the repeal of the Missouri compromise ; and was .followed by Mr. Skelton of N. J. on the same side. Feb. 17. — The Homestead bill being under consideration, Mr. Meacham got the floor, spoke against the bill and the proposed repeal of the Missouri compromise. Feb. 17. — The resolutions of the legislature of New York were presented. In Committee of the Whole, lengthy speeches on the bill were made, by Messrs. Stephens, Campbell, and Kerr. Feb. 20.— In Committee of the Whole, Mr. Ewing spoke on the history of the Missouri compromise, &c. Feb. 21.— The Homestead bill being still under consideration, Mr. James C. Allen* of 111., delivered a lengthy speech on the com- promises of 1820 and 1850, and the general Nebraska-Kansas question. Feb. 24, Friday. — The resolutions of the legislature of Massachusetts, against the bill, were presented, which were ordered to lie on the table and be printed. March 6, Monday. — The resolutions of the legislature of Maine on the bill were presented. March 14. — Mr. Appleton asked leave to present a remonstrance against the repeal of the Missouri compromise, signed by 3050 clergymen (Protestant) of New England (the same as presented to the Senate, 200 feet long, the paper backed with cambric). Mr. Boyce objected ; and as the rule requires unanimous consent, this remonstrance was removed from the hall. March 15, Friday. — In Committee of the Whole on the new Deficiency bill, speeches were made in favor of the Nebraska-Kansas bill, by Messrs. Bridges of Pa., and Brooks of S. C. March 20. — Resolutions from the legisla- tures of Georgia and Mississippi, in favor of the bill, were read and ordered to be printed. March 21, Tuesday. — There was an un- usually full attendance of members, indicat- ing the consideration of subjects of more than ordinary interest. Mr. Richardson moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, with the design of reaching, as early as possible, the House bill on the calendar to organize territorial govern- ments for Nebraska and Kansas : and after some remarks this was negatived — yeas 84, nays 108. On motion of Mr. Cutting, the House proceeded to consider and dispose of the business on the Speaker's table, on which was the Senate bill on Nebraska and Kansas. When this was reached (being the fourth in order), it was twice read by its title ; and Mr. Richardson moved that it be referred to the Committee on Territories. Mr. Cutting moved its reference to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Mr. Richardson, not yielding the floor, said, that he desired to have the bill referred to the Committee on Territories, for the purpose of amending it in some particulars ; and that to refer it to the Committee of the Whole would be to kill it by indirection, as it was not likely that it would then (so low on the calendar) be reached during the present session. Mr. Cutting again made his motion, remarking that this was for the purpose of giving it deliberate consideration ; that he was favorable to the principle of popu- * Mr. Allen's speech was the first speech from the North in the House made in favor of the bill. NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 355 lar sovereignty, opposed to the proviso of Senator Badger, and had objections to the restriction on the right of suffrage ; that it was eminently favorable to the North (which is more interested in it than the South), and that a full discussion would prove it to be so, &c. Mr. Richardson suggested that the bill be made a special order ; but Mr. Cutting- replied that this would require a vote of two- thirds ; and {after further remarks between him and Mr. R.) he demanded the previous question. Many members asked Mr. Cutting to withdraw the demand, but he declined ; and it having been seconded (yeas 113), the main question was then put, and resulted, yeas 110, nays 95 ; so the bill was accordingly referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, with an order to be printed, and was placed in order upon the calendar. Mr. Cutting moved to reconsider the vote just made, and to lay the motion to reconsider on the table, which was agreed to — yeas 110, nays 96 ; and the House adjourned. The pro- gress of the vote on the main question was watched by the House and galleries with great anxiety and doubt, as the decision on the commitment of the bill was viewed somewhat as a test of its strength in the House. March 23, Thursday. — Speeches were de- livered on the Nebraska bill. Mr. Millson of Va. opposed it as received from the Senate, especially Mr. Badger's amendment, and say- ing that it was unjust to the South. Mr. Hunt of La. also took decided grounds against the bill, arguing that the repeal of the Missouri restriction would be a breach of good faith. Mr. Breckenridge of Ky. made a stirring speech in its support, and reviewed the objec- tions which had been urged. He took strong grounds against the course pursued by Mr. Cutting and other professed friends of the bill, and intimated that Mr. C. had sought, under the guise of friendship, to utterly de- feat the bill. The discussion throughout com- manded the earnest attention of the House and galleries, and was considered amongst the ablest of the session. March 27, Monday. — The House having gone into Committee of the Whole on the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation bill, Mr. Cut- ting addressed the committee in relation to his procedure on the Nebraska-Kansas bill. The remainder of this day's session was oc- cupied by the spirited debate which then ensued between Messrs. Cutting and Brecken- ridge, and which was characterized by bitter and sarcastic personalities. March 28.— Mr. Yates of 111. and Mr. Franklin of Md. spoke in opposition to the Nebraska-Kansas bill. March 29. — Two speeches were delivered on the Nebraska-Kansas bill ; Mr. Barksdale of Miss, in its favor, and Mr. Norton of 111. against it. March 30.— Mr. Keitt of S. C. spoke for an hour, showing that the Missouri restriction had been injurious, that the ordinance of 1787 was unconstitutional, in defence of sla- very, &e. April 4, Tuesday. — The General Appropria- tion bill was taken up ; but the sitting of the committee was occupied by three spirited and lengthy speeches on the Nebraska-Kansas bill. Messrs. Clingman of N. C. and Wright of Pa. argued in favor of the Senate bill, each ex- cepting only Mr. Clayton's amendment; and Mr. Matteson of N. Y. spoke against it April 5. — Messrs. Chandler of Pa., Nicholas of Ohio, and Washburn of 111., opposed the bill, and mainly on the ground that it proposed the repeal of the Missouri compromise. Mr. Smith of Tenn. supported the measure, because it asserts the principle of self-govern- ment in accordance with the Constitution. April G. — When the General Appropriation bill was taken up, Mr. Preston of Ky. spoke in favor of the Nebraska-Kansas bill, but was for striking out Mr. Clayton's amendment ; and he was followed by Mr. Gerrit Smith of N. Y. against the bill. April 7. — Mr. Caruthers spoke on the Ne- braska-Kansas bill, in its favor, showing the inconsistency of the North on the Missouri restriction, and that the passage of the bill would end all legislation in Congress on sla- very, and give perpetual peace to the country. Mr. Washburn of Me. then spoke in opposi- tion to the bill, arguing the constitutionality of the Act of 1820, claiming that Congress had the power, and that it was its duty to restrict slavery in the territories. April 10. — When the House went into Com- mittee of the Whole on the General Appro- priation bill, Mr. McDonald of Me. spoke in favor of the Nebraska-Kansas bill, denouncing its fanatical opponents, and arguing that it asserted the great right of the people to govern themselves. Mr. Faulkner of Va. followed on the same side, and then the House ad- journed. April 11. — Mr. Cullom of Tenn. spoke for an hour in denouncing the Nebraska-Kansas project, its author, and its friends and in de- fence of the act of 1820. On the 8th of May, 1854, the friends of the bill proceeded in Committee of the Whole to reach the Senate bill, which had been referred thereto on motion of Mr. Cutting, and which occupied a position very low on the calendar. To accomplish this each bill before it thereon, was laid aside by a separate motion and vote until the Senate bill was finally reached. The debate was continued by the following gentlemen until the 19th of May, 1854: — In favor of the bill, by Messrs. Harris of Miss., Smith of Va., Barry of Miss., Zollicof- fer of Tenn., English of Ind., Cox of Kv., Taylor of N. Y., Bayly of Va., Seward of Geo., Elliott of Ky., Dowdell of Ala., Tweed of N. Y., Colquitt of Geo., Maxwell of Fla., Ready of Tenn., Oliver of Mo., Straub of Pa., Miller of Mo., Churchwell of Tenn., Walsh of N. Y., Hamilton of Md., Goode of Va., Dun- 356 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ham of Ind., Caskie of Va., Greenwood of Ark., Stanton of Tenn., Henn of la., Witte of Pa., and Chastain of Geo. Against the bill, by Messrs. Heister of Pa., Taylor of 0., Hughes of N. Y., Sapp of Ohio, Walley of Mass., Simmons of N. Y., Davis of R. I., Ball of 0., Grow of Pa,, Perkins of N. Y., Elliott of Mass., Carpenter of N. Y., Farley of Me., Harnson of 0., Upham of Mass., Mayall of Me., Flagler of N.Y., GiddingsofO., Etheridge of Tenn., Bennett of N. Y., Wade of 0., Banks of Mass., Parker of Ind., Peckham of N. Y., Taylor of Tenn., Wentworth of Mass., Dean of N. Y., Wheeler of N. Y., Benton of Mo., Knox of 111., Pringle of N. Y., Howe of Pa., Seymour of Conn., Edmands of Mass., Pen- nington of N. J., and Sage of N. Y. Mr. Richardson of 111., who reported the bill, closed the debate on it in Committee of the Whole, on the 19th of May, 1854. Mr. Stephens of Ga. moved to strike out the enacting clause of the Senate bill, so as to bring it before the House, which motion was carried. The Committee then rose, and its chairman (Mr. Olds of 0.,) reported to the House its ac- tion in striking out the enacting clause. The House refused to concur in the action of the Committee in striking out the enacting clause. (This was the result the friends of the bill engineered to reach. The bill being then before the House perfect for its action.) On the 22d of May, Mr. Richardson moved to substitute the House bill therefor. This bill was the same as the Senate bill, omitting the Clayton amendment. For the vote on substituting the same, which was carried, see under head of "Alien Suf- frage." The bill as amended, passed the House on the 22d of May, 1854, by yeas and nays as follows : — i Yeas. — Messrs. Abercrombie of Ala.. James C. Allen of 111., Willis Allen of Jill., Ashe of N. C, David J. Bailey of Ga., Thomas II. Bayly of Va., Barksdale of Miss.. Barry of Miss., Bell of Tex., Bocock of Va., Boyce of S. C, Breckenridge of Ky.. Bridges of Pa., Brooks of S. C, Caskie of Va., Chastain of Ga., Chrisman of Ky., Churchwell of Tenn., Clark of Mich., Clingman of N. C, Cobb of Ala.. Colquitt of Ga., Cox of Ky., Craige of N. 0, Gumming of N. Y., Cutting of N. Y., John G. Davis of Ind., Dawson of Pa., Disney of 0., Dowdell of Ala., Dunbar of La., Dunham of Ind., Eddy of Ind., Edmund- sou of Va., John M. Elliott of Ky., English of Ind., Faulkner of Va., Florence of Pa., Goode of Va., Green of 0., Greenwood of Ark., Grey of Ky., Hamilton of Md., Sampson W. Harris of Ala., Hendricks of Ind., Henn of la., Hibbard of N. H., J {ill of Ky., Hillyer of Ga., Houston of Ala., Ingersoll of Conn., George W. Jones of Tenn., J. Glancy Jones of Pa., Roland Jones of La., Kerr of N. C, Kidwell of Va., Kurtz of l'a., Lamb of Mo., Lane of Ind., Latham of Cal., Letcher of Va., Lilly of N. J., Lindky of Mo., Macdonald of Me., McDou- gall of Cal., McNair of Pa., Maxwell of Fla., May of Md.. John G. Miller of Mo.. Miller of Ind., Olds of 0., Mordecai Oliver of Mo., Orr of S. C, Packer of Pa., John Perkins of La , Phelps of Mo., Philips of Ala., Powell of Va., Preston of Ky., Ready of Tenn., Reese of Ga., Richardson of 111., Riddle of Del., Robbins of Pa., Rowe of N. Y.. Ruffin of N. C, Shan- non of 0., Shaw of N. C, Shower of Md., Singleton of Miss., Samuel A. Smith of Tenn., William Smith of Va., William R. Smith of Ala., George W. Smyth of Tex., Snodgrass of Va., Frederick P. Stanton of Tenn., Richard H. Stanton of Ky., Alexander II. Stephens of Ga., Straubof Pa., St'uartof Mich., John J. Taylor of N. Y., Tweed of N. Y., Vail of N. J., Van- sant of Md., Walbridge of N. Y., Walker of N. Y., Walsh of N. Y., Warren of Ark., Westbrook of N. Y., Witte of Pa., Daniel B. Wright of Miss., Uendricli B. Wright of Pa., Zollicoffer of Tenn.— 113. ! Nats. — Messrs. Ballot 0., Banks of Mass., Belcher of Conn., Bennett of N. Y., Benson of Me., Benton of Mo., Btigg r.i Tenn., Campbell of 0., Carpenter of N. Y., Chandler of Pa., Crocker of Mass., Cullom of Tenn., Curtis of Pa., Thomaa Davis of R. I., Dean of N. Y., Be Witt of Mass., Dick of Pa., Dickinson of Mass., Drum of Pa., Eastman of Wis., Edgerton of 0., Edmands of Mass., Thomas D. Eliot of Mass., Ellison of 0., Etheridge of Tenn., Everhart of Pa., Farley of Me.. Fenton of N. Y., Flagler of N. Y., Fuller of Me., Gamble of Pa., Gidwngs of 0., Goodrich of Mass., Grow of Pa., Aaron Harlan of 0., Andrew J. Harlan of Ind., Harrison of 0-, Hastings of N. Y., Haven of N. Y., Heister of Pa., Howe of Pa., Hughes of N. Y., Hunt of La., Johnson of 0., Jones of N. Y., Kittredge of N. II., Knox of 111., Lindsley of O., Lyon of N. Y., McCulloch of Pa., Mace of Ind., Malteson of N. Y., Mayall of Me., Meacham of Vt, Middleswarth of Pa., Mill- son of Va., Momjan of N. Y., Morrison of N. II., Murray of N. Y., Nichols of 0., Noble of Mich.. Norton of 111., Andrew Oliver of N.Y., Parker of Ind., Peck of N.Y., Peckhamof N.Y., Pennington of N. J., Perkins of N. Y., Pratt of Conn., Prinqlt of N. Y.. Puryear of N. C, Daniel Ritchie of Pa., Thos. Ritehey of 0., Rogers of N.C., Russell of Pa., Sabin of Vt., Sage of N. Y., Sapp of 0., Seymour of Conn., Simmons of N. Y., Skelton of N. J., Geeeit Smith of N. Y., Hestor L. Stevens of Mich., Stratton of N. J., Andrew Stuart of 0., John L. Taylor of 0.. Nathaniel G. Taylor of Tenn., Thurston of R. I., Tracy of Vt., Trout of Pa., Upham of Mass., Wade of 0., Walley of Mass., Eliliu B. Washburne of 111., Israel Washburne of Me., Wells of Wis., John Wentworth of 111., Wentworth of Mass., Wheeler of N. Y., Yates of 111— 100. Democrats in roman, Whigs in italic, Abo- litionists in SMALL CAPS. The action in the Senate upon its return, was to concur in the amendment of the House striking out the Clayton amendment, which vote, upon the motion of Mr. Pearce to renew the Clayton amendment, will be found under the head of " Alien Suffrage." The vote on the final passage of the Senate bill, as amended by the House, was yeas 35, nays 13, as follows : — ■ Yeas. — Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Benjamin, Broclhead, Brown, Butler, Cass, Clay, Dawson, Douglas, Fitzpatricl:, Gwin, Hunter, Johnson, Jones of la., Jonesof Tenn., Mallory, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pettit, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Shields, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson of Ky., Thompson of N. J., Toombs, Tuucey, Wetter, Williams, Wright. — 35. Nats. — Messrs. Alhn, Bell, Chase, Clayton. Fish. Foot, Gillette, Hamlin, James, Seward, Sumner, Wade, Walker. — 13. The bill is as follows: A Bill to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas. Strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert : That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the following limits, except such portions thereof as are hereinafter expressly exempted from the ope- rations of tli is act, to wit: beginning at a point in the Missouri river where the fortieth parallel of north latitude crosses the same; thence west on said parallel to the east boun- dary of the territory of Utah on the summit of the Rocky Mountains ; thence on said sum- mit northward to the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude ; thence east on said parallel to the western boundary of the territory of Minnesota ; thence southward on said bounda- ry to the Missouri river ; thence down the main channel of said river to the place of beginning, be, and the same is hereby, created into a tem- porary government by the name of the territory of Nebraska; and when admitted as a state or states, the said territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the t?imc of their admission : NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 357 Provided, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to inhibit the government of the United States from dividing said terri- tory into two or more territories, in such manner and at such times as Congress shall deem convenient and proper, or from attach- ing any portion of said territory to any other state or territory of the United States : Pro- vided, further, That nothing in this actcon- tained shall be construed to impair the rights of person or property now pertaining to the Indians in said territory, so long as such rights shall remain unextinguished by treaty be- tween the United States and such Indians, or to include any territory which, by treaty with any Indian tribe, is not, without the consent of said tribe, to be included within the terri- torial limits or jurisdiction of any state or territory ; but all such territory shall be ex- cepted out of the boundaries, and constitute no part of the territory of Nebraska, until Baid tribe shall signify their assent to the President of the United Sjtates to be included within the said territory of Nebraska, or to affect the authority of the government of the United States to make any regulations re- specting such Indians, their lands, property, or other rights, by treaty, law, or otherwise, which it would have been competent to the government to make if this act had never passed. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the executive power and authority in and over said territory of Nebraska shall be vested in a governor, who shall hold his office for four years, and until his successor shall be ap- pointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President of the United States. _ The governor shall reside within said territory, and shall be commander-in-chief of the militia thereof. He may grant pardons and respites for offences against the laws of said territory, and reprieves for offences against the laws of the United States, until the decision of the Pre- sident can be made known thereon ; he shall commission all officers who shall be appointed to office under the laws of the said territory, and shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That there shall be a secretary of said territory, who shall reside therein, and hold his office for five years, unless sooner removed by the President of the United States ; he shall re- cord and preserve all the law-; and proceed- ings of the legislative assembly hereinafter constituted, and all the acts and proceedings of the Governor in his executive department ; he shall transmit one copy of the laws and journals of the legislative assembly within thirty days after the end of each session, and one copy of the executive proceedings and official correspondence semi-annually on the first days of January and July in each year, to the President of the United States, and two copies of the laws to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives to be deposited in the libra- ries of Congress ; and, in case of the death, removal, resignation, or absence of the gover- nor from the territory, the secretary shall be, and he is hereby, authorized and required to execute and perform all the powers and du- ties of the governor during such vacancy or absence, or until another governor shall be duly appointed and qualified to fill such vacancy. Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the legislative power and authority of said terri- tory shall be vested in the governor and a legislative assembly. The legislative assem- bly shall consist of a council and house of representatives. The council shall consist of thirteen members, having the qualifications of voters, as hereinafter prescribed, whose term of service shall continue two years. The hou.-e of representatives shall, at its first session, consist of twenty-six members, possessing the same qualifications as prescribed for members of the council, and whose term of service shall continue one year. The number of re- presentatives may be increased by the legisla- tive assembly, from time to time, in proportion to the increase of qualified voters : Provided, That the whole number shall never exceed thir- ty-nine ; an apportionment shall be made as nearly equal as practicable, among the several counties or districts, for the election of the council and representatives, giving to each section of the territory representation in the ratio of its qualified voters as nearly as may be. And the members of the council and of the house of representatives shall reside in, and be inhabitants of, the district or county, or counties, for which they may be elected, respectively. Previous to the first election, the governor shall cause a census, or enume- ration of the inhabitants and qualified voters of the several counties and districts of the territory, to be taken by such persons and in such mode as the governor shall designate and appoint ; and the persons so appointed shall receive a reasonable compensation therefor. And the first election shall be held at such time and places, and be conducted in such manner, both as to the persons who shall su- perintend such election and the returns there- of, as the governor shall appoint and direct ; and he shall at the same time declare the number of members of the council and house of representatives to which each of the counties or districts shall be entitled under this act. The persons having the highest number of legal votes in each of said council districts for members of the council, shall be declared by the governor to be duly elected to the council ; and the persons having the highest number of legal votes for the house of represen- tives, shall be declared by the governor to be duly elected members of said house : Provi- ded, That in case two or more persons voted for shall have an equal number of votes, and in case a vacancy shall otherwise occur in either branch of the legislative assembly, the governor shall order a new election; and the persons thus elected to the legislative assem- S58 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. bly shall meet at such place and on such day as the governor shall appoint ; but thereafter, the time, place, and manner of holding and conducting all elections by the people, and the apportioning the representation in the several counties or districts to the council and house of representatives, according to the number of qualified voters, shall be prescribed by law, as well as the day of the commence- ment of the regular sessions of the legislative assembly : Provided, That no session in any one year shall exceed the term of forty days, except the first session, which may continue sixty days. Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years who shall be an actual resident of said territory, and shall possess the qualifications hereinafter prescribed, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said territory ; but the qualifications of voters, and of holding office, at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be prescribed by the le- gislative assembly : Provided, That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exer- cised only by citizens of the United States and those who shall have declared on oath their intention to become such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act: And provided further, That no officer, soldier, seaman or marine, or other person in the army or navy of the United States, or attached to troops in the service of the United States, shall be allowed to vote or hold office in said terri- tory, by reason of being on service therein. Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That the legislative power of the territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act ; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil ; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States ; nor shall the lands or other property of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents. Every bill which shall have passed the council and house of representatives of the said territory shall, before it become a law, be presented to the governor of the terri- tory ; if he approve, he shall sign it ; but if not, he shall return it with his objections to the house in which it originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with thu objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, to be entered on the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the governor within three days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the assembly, by adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law. Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That all township, district, and county officers, not here- in otherwise provided for, shall be appointed or elected, as the case may be, in such manner as shall be provided by the governor and legisla- tive assembly of the territory of Nebraska. The governor shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the legislative coun- cil, appoint g.U officers not herein otherwise provided for; and in the first instance the governor alone may appoint all said officers, who shall hold their offices until the end of the first session of the legislative assembly ; and shall lay off the necessary districts for mem- bers of the council and house of representa- tives, and all other officers. Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That no member of the legislative assembly shall hold, or be appointed to any office which shall have been created or the salary or emoluments of which shall have been increased while he was a member, during the term for which he was elected, and for one year after the expiration of such term ; but this restriction shall not be applicable to members of the first legislative assembly ; and no person holding a commis- sion or appointment under the United States, except postmasters, shall be a member of the legislative assembly, or shall hold any office under the government of said territory. Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That the judicial power of said territory shall be vested in a supreme court, district courts, probate courts, and in justices of the peace. The su- preme court shall consist of a chief justice and two associate justices, any two of whom shall constitute a quorum, and who shall hold a term at the seat of government of said terri- tory annually, and they shall hold their offices during the period of four years, and until their successors shall be appointed and quali- fied. The said territory shall be divided into three judicial districts, and a district court shall be held in each of said districts by one of the justices of the supreme court, at such times and places as may be prescribed by law; and the said judges shall, after their ap- pointments, respectively, reside in the district which shall be assigned them. The jurisdiction of the several courts herein provided for, both appellate and original, and that of the probate courts and of justices of the peace, shall be as limited by law: Provided, That justices of the peace shall not have jurisdiction of any matter in controversy when the title or bound- aries of land may be in dispute, or where the debt or sum claimed shall exceed one hundred dollars ; and the said supreme aud district courts, respectively, shall possess chancery as well as common law jurisdiction. Each dis- trict court, or the judge thereof, shall appoint its clerk, who shall also be the- register in chancery, and shall keep his office at the place where the court may be held. Write of error, bills of exception, and appeals, shall be al- NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 359 lowed in all cases from the final decision of said district courts to the supreme court, un- der such regulations as may be prescribed by law; but in no case removed to the supreme court shall trial by jury be allowed in said court. The supreme court, or the justices thereof, shall appoint its own clerk, and every clerk shall hold his office at the pleasure of the court for which he shall have been ap- pointed. Writs of error, and appeals from the final decision of said supreme court, shall be allowed, aud may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, in the same man- ner and under the same regulations as from the Circuit Courts of the United States, where the value of the property, or the amount in controversy, to be ascertained by the oath or affirmation of either party, or other competent witness, shall exceed one thousand dollars ; except only that in all cases involving title to slaves, the said writs of error or appeals shall be allowed and decided by the said supreme court, without regard to the value of the mat- ter, property, or title in controversy: and except also that a writ of error or appeal shall also be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, from the decision of the said supreme court created by this act, or of any judge thereof, or of the district courts created by this act, or of any judge thereof, upon any writ of habeas corpus, involving the question of persoual freedom : Provided, That nothing herein contained 6hall be construed to apply to or affect the provisions of the "act respecting fugitives from justice, aud persons escaping from the service of their masters," approved February twelfth, seventeen hundred and ninety -three, and the " act to amend and supplementary to the aforesaid act," approved September eigh- teen, eighteen hundred and fifty ; and each of the said district courts shall have and ex- ercise the same jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States as is vested in the circuit and district courts of the United States ; and the said su- preme and district courts of the said territory, and the respective judges thereof, shall and may grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases in which the same are granted by the judges of the United States iu the District of Colum- bia ; and the first six days of every term of said courts, or so much thereof as shall be ne- cessary, shall be appropriated to the trial of causes arising' under the said Constitution and laws, and writs of error and appeal iu all such cases shall be made to the supreme court of said territory, the same as in other cases. The said clerk shall, receive in all such cases the same fees which the clerks of the district courts of Utah Territory now receive for similar ser- vi ;es. Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That the provisions of an act entitled "An act re- specting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters," approved February twelve, seventeen hundred and ninety-three, and the provisions of the act entitled "An act to amend, anil supplementary to, the aforesaid act," approved Septembei eighteen, eighteen hundred and fifty, be, and the same are hereby, declared to extend to and lie in full force within the limits of said Ter- ritory of Nebraska. Sec. 11. And be it further enacted, That there shall be appointed an attorney for said territory, who shall continue in office for four years, and until his successor shall be appoint- ed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President, and who shall receive the same fees and salary as the attorney of the United States for the present Territory of Utah. There shall also be a marshal for the territory appointed, who shall hold his office for four years, and until his successor shall be ap- pointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President, and who shall execute all processes issuing from the said courts when exercising their jurisdiction as circuit and district courts of the United States ; he shall perform the duties, be subject to the same re- gulations and penalties, and be entitled to the same fees as the marshal of the district court of the United States for the present Territory of Utah, and shall, in addition, be paid two hundred dollars annually as a compensation for extra services. Sec. 12. And be it further enacted, That the governor, secretary, chief justice and associate justices, attorney, and marshal, shall be nomi- nated, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appointed by the President of the United States. The governor and secre- tary to be appointed as aforesaid, shall, before they act as such, respectively take an oath or affirmation before the district judge or some justice of the peace in the limits of said terri- tory, duly authorized to administer oaths and affirmations by the laws now in force therein, or before the chief justice or some associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to support the Constitution of the Uni- ted States, and faithfully to discharge the duties of their respective offices, which said oaths, when so taken, shall be certified by the person by whom the same shall have been taken ; and such certificates shall be received and recorded by the said secretary among the executive proceedings; and the chief justice and associate justices, and all other civil offi- cers in said territory, before they act as such, shall take a like oath or affirmation before the said governor or secretary, or some judge or justice of the peace of the territory who may be duly commissioned and qualified, which said oath or affirmation shall be certified and transmitted by the person taking the same to the secretary, to lie by him recorded as afore- said ; aud, afterwards, the like oath or affirma- tion shall be taken, certified, and recorded, in such manner and form as may be prescribed by law. The governor shall receive an annual salary of two thousand five hundred dollars. The chief justice and associate justices shall each receive an annual salary of two thousand dollars. The secretary shall* receive an annual 360 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. salary of two thousand dollars. The said sala- ries shall be paid quarter-yearly, from the dates of the respective appointments, at the treasury of the United States ; but no such payment shall be made until said officers shall have entered upon the duties of their respective appointments. The members of the legisla- tive assembly shall be entitled to receive three dollars each per day during their attendance at the sessions thereof, and three dollars each for every twenty miles' travel in going to and returning from the said sessions, estimated according to the nearest usually travelled route; and an additional allowance of three dollars shall be paid to the presiding officer of each house fur each day he shall so preside. And a chief clerk, one assistant clerk, a ser- geant-at-arms, and door-keeper, may be chosen for each house ; and the chief clerk shall re- ceive four dollars per day, and the said other officers three dollars per day, during the session of the legislative assembly ; but no other offi- cers shall be paid by the United States: Pro- vided, That there shall be but one session of the legislature annually, unless on an extraor- dinary occasion the governor shall think proper to call the legislature together. There shall be appropriated, annually, the usual sum, to be expended by the governor, to defray the con- tingent expenses of the territory, including the salary of a clerk of the executive depart- ment ; and there shall also be appropriated, annually, a sufficient sum, to be expended by the secretary of the territory, and upon an estimate to be made by the secretary of the treasury of the United States, to defray the expenses of the legislative assembly, the printing of the laws, and other incidental ex- penses ; and the governor and secretary of the territory shall, in the disbursement of all moneys intrusted to them, be governed solely by the instructions of the secretary of the treasury of the United States, and shall, semi- annually, account to the said secretary for the manner in which the aforesaid moneys shall have been expended ; and no expenditure shall be made by said legislative assembly for ob- jects not specially authorized by the acts of Congress making the appropriations, nor be- yond the sums thus appropriated for such objects. Sec. 13. And be it further enacted. That the legislative .assembly of the territory of Ne- braska shall hold its first session at such time and place in said territory as the governor thereof shall appoint and direct; and at said first session, or as soon thereafter as they shall deem expedient, the governor and legislative assembly shall proceed to locate and establish the seat of government for said territory at such place as they may deem eligible; which place, however, shall thereafter be subject to be changed by the said governor and legisla- tive assembly. Sec. 14. And be it further enacted, That a delegate to the House of Representatives of the United States, to Berve for the term of two years, who shall be a citizen of the United States, may be elected by the voters qualified to elect members of the legislative assembly who shall be entitled to the same rights and privileges as are exercised and enjoyed by the delegates from the several other territories of the United States to the said House of Repre- sentatives, but the delegate first elected shall hold his seat only during the term of the Con- gress to which lie shall be elected. The first election shall be held at such time and places, and be conducted in such manner, as the gov- ernor shall appoint and direct ; and at all subsequent elections the times, places, and manner of holding the elections, shall be pre- scribed by law. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be declared by the gov- ernor to be duly elected, and a certificate thereof shall be given accordingly. That the Constitution, and all the laws of the United States, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Con- gress with slavery in the states and territories, as recognised by the legislation of eighteen hundred and fifty, commonly called the com- promise measures, is hereby declared inopera- tive and void ; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it there- from, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic insti- tutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States : Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be con- strued to revive or put in force any law or regu- lation which may have existed prior to the act of sixth March, eighteen hundred and twenty, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery. Sec. 15. And be it further enacted, That there shall hereafter be appropriated, as has been customary for the territorial govern- ments, a sufficient amount, to be expended under the direction of the said governor of the territory of Nebraska, not exceeding the sums heretofore appropriated for similar ob- jects, for the erection of suitable public build- ings at the seat of government, and for the purchase of a library, to be kept'at the seat of government for the use of the governor, legis- lative assembly, judges of the supreme court, secretary, marshal, and attorney of said terri- tory, and such other persons, and under such regulations as shall be prescribed by law. Sec. 16. And be it further enacted, That when the lands in the said territory shall be surveyed under the direction of the govern- ment of the United States, preparatory to bringing same into market, sections numbered sixteen and thirty-six, in each township in said territory, shall bo, and the same are here- NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 301 by, reserved for the purpose of being applied to schools in said territory, and in the states and territories hereafter to he erected out of the same. Sec. 17. And be it further enacted, That, until otherwise provided hy law, the governor of said territory may define the judicial dis- tricts of said territory, and assign the judges who may he appointed for said territory to the several districts ; and also appoint the times and places for holding courts in the several counties or subdivisions in each of said judi- cial districts by proclamation, to be issued by him ; but the legislative assembly, at their first or any subsequent session, may organize, alter, or modify such judicial districts, and assign the judges, and alter the times and places of holding the courts, as to them shall seem proper and convenient. Sec. 18. And be it further enacted, That all officers to bo appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for the territory of Nebraska, who, by virtue of the provisions of any law now exist- ing, or which may be enacted during the pre- sent Congress, are required to give security for moneys that may be intrusted with them for disbursements, shall give such security, at such time and place, and in such manner as the secretary* of the treasury may prescribe. Section 19 begins that part of the bill which provides for the government of Kansas. This is literally the same as section 1 of bill, ex- cept the boundaries of Kansas are substituted for those of Nebraska, and the word "Kan- sas" for " Nebraska," wherever the latter oc- curs. Sections 20, 21, 22. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36, are literally like sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, except the substitution of " Kansas" for " Nebraska," wherever the lat- ter word occurs. Section 31 provides for the location of the seat of government of Kansas. Section 37, the last section of the bill, is as follows : — And be it further enacted, That all treaties, laws, and other engagements made by the go- vernment of the United States with the Indian tribes inhabiting the territories embraced within this act, shall be faithfully and rigidly observed, notwithstanding anything contained in this act ; and that the existing agencies and superintendencies of said Indians be continued with the same powers and duties which are now prescribed by law, except that the Presi- dent of the United States may, at his discre- tion, change the location of the office of super- intendent. Passed the House of Representatives, Mav 22, 1854. Attest: John W. Fornev. Clerk, House of Representatives. The Hon. A. II. Reeder, of Easton, Penn- sylvania, was appointed governor of the ter- ritory of Kansas, and Daniel Woodson, of Virginia, secretary. Mr. Burt, of South Carolina, was appointed governor of Nebraska, but soon died; and Clark W. Izard, of Arkansas, was appointed in his place. Thomas B. Camming was made secretary. So far as Nebraska was concerned, no ex- citement of any kind marked the initiation of her territorial existence. The persons who emigrated there seemed to regard the pursuits of business as of more interest than the dis- cussion of slavery. Kansas, less fortunate than her sister Ne- braska, became at once the battle-field of a fierce political conflict between the advocates of slavery and the free soil men from the North, who went there to resist the establish- ment of that institution in the territory. This much to be deprecated condition of things has continued to mark the history of Kansas ever since. She has had no less than five different governors, all of whom, with the exception of the present governor, the Hon. T. W. Denver, as member of the 34th Con- gress from California, became complicated in the difference existing in the territory, and in turn gave way to their successors, each one of whom was deemed to possess some essential qualification to restore peace to Kansas. These expectations were not realized. The present governor, Denver, seems to give satis- faction, and to possess the elements of an executive for so turbulent a territory. We will, however, begin at the beginning, and avoid any further diversion from a suc- cinct history of the political excitement iD Kansas. On the 20th of Dec, 1S54, the Hon. John W. Whitfield, delegate elect from the territory of Kansas, was sworn in and admit- ted to a seat in the House. It had been al- leged that his election was carried by the importation of Missourians into the territory ; but no contest was made upon his right, and he held his position during the remainder of the thirty-third Congress. During the recess between the 4th of March and the 1st of Dec. 1855, the history of Kan- sas was marked by events fully elaborated in official documents hereinafter contained, which preclude the necessity of a detail of them here. The removal of the seat of government by the territorial legislature from the place which had been fixed by Gov. Reeder, was deemed by the latter to have made void ab initio all acts enacted by them subsequent to such re- moval, on the ground that the power to locate the same was vested in him. The Free State party backed up Gov. Reeder, whilst the Pro-Slavery party, as they are re- spectively called, endorsed the action of the legislature. Gov. Reeder, in the mean time, was removed as governor. The Free State party met at Big Springs, 362 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. and resolved to repudiate the acts of the terri- torial legislature, and organize a state govern- ment. A convention was accordingly called, and held by them, at Topeka, on the fourth Tues- day of October, and framed what was called the Topeka Constitution, and set on foot a state government which, figuratively speaking, was put in motion, and bringing the officers elected under it in conflict with the regularly consti- tuted authorities, resulted in the indictments against them for treason which followed. In the mean time General Whitfield was elected delegate to the 34th Congress without opposition, under the act of the territorial legislature prescribing the mode and man- ner of holding elections, &c. The free state men asserted said election to be null, held, as it was, under a law passed by a legislature which was, as they contended, in itself no legislature, but an assumption. They accord- ingly, on the 9th of October, held an election of their own, and polled their votes for Gov. Reeder as delegate. The President, in his annual message, re- ferred to the condition of affairs in Kansas ; but they assumed so frightful a mien during January, 1856, that he made them the subject of a special message to Congress, before yet the House had been organized. That message was read to both Houses on the 24th of Jan., 1856, and is as follows: — To the Senate and House of Representa- tives : — Circumstances have occurred to disturb the course of governmental organization in the territory of Kansas, and produce there a con- dition of things which renders it incumbent on me to call your attention to the subject, and urgently to recommend the adoption by you of such measures of legislation as the grave exigencies of the case appear to re- quire. A brief exposition of the circumstances re- ferred to, and of their causes, will be neces- sary to the full understanding of the recom- mendation which it is proposed to submit. The act to organize the territories of Ne- braska and Kansas was a manifestation of the legislative opinion of Congress on two great points of constitutional construction : one, that the designation of the boundaries of a new territory, and provision for its political organization and administration as a territory, are measures which of right fall within the powers of the general government ; and the other, that the inhabitants of any such terri- tory considered as an inchoate state are en- titled, in the exercise of self-government, to determine for themselves what shall be their own domestic institutions, subject only to the Constitution and the laws duly enacted by Congress under it, and to the power of the exist- ing states to decide, according to the provi- sions and principles of the Constitution, at what time the territory shall be received as a etate into the Union. Such are the great po- litical rights which are solemnly declared and affirmed by that act. Based upon this theory, the act of Congress defined for each territory the outlines of repub- lican government, distributing public autho- rity among lawfully created agents — executive, judicial, and legislative — to be appointed either by the general government or by the territory. The legislative functions were in- trusted to a Council and a House of Repre- sentatives, duly elected, and empowered to enact all the local laws which they might deem essential to their prosperity, happiness, and good government. Acting in the same spirit, Congress also defined the persons who were in the first instance to be considered as the people of each territory ; enacting that every free white male inhabitant of the same above the age of twenty-one years, being an actual resident thereof, and possessing the qualifications hereafter described, should be entitled to vote at the first election, and be eligible to any office within the territory ; but that the qualifications of voters and holding office at all subsequent elections should be such as might be prescribed by the Legisla- tive Assembly : Provided, however, that the right of suffrage and of holding office should be exercised only by citizens of the United States, and those who should have declared on oath their intention to become such, and have taken an oath to support the Constitu- tion of the United States and the provisions of the act : And provided further, that no offi- cer, soldier, seaman, or marine, or other per- son in the army or navy of the United States, or attached to troops in their service, should be allowed to vote or hold office in either ter- ritory by reason of being on service therein. Such of the public officers of the territo- ries as, by the provisions of the act, were to be appointed by the general government, in- cluding the governors, were appointed and commissioned in due season ; the law having been enacted on the 30th of May, 1854, and the commission of the governor of the terri- tory of Nebraska being dated on the 2d day of August, 1854, and of the territory of Kan- sas on the 29th day of June, 1854. Among the duties imposed by the act on the governors was that of directing and su- perintending the political organization of the respective territories. The Governor of Kansas was required to cause a census or enumera- tion of the inhabitants and qualified voters of the several counties and districts of the terri- tory to be taken by such persons and in such mode as he might designate and appoint ; to appoint and direct the time and places of holding the first elections, and the manner of conducting them, both as to the persons to superintend such elections and the returns thereof; to declare the number of the mem- bers of the Council and House of Representa- tives for each county or district ; to declare what persons might appear to be duly elected ; and to appoint the time and place of the first meeting of the Legislative Assembly. In sub- NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 363 stance, the same duties were devolved on the Governor of Nebraska. While by this act, the principle of consti- tution for each of the territories was one and the same, and the details of organic legisla- tion regarding both were as nearly as could be identical, and while the territory of Ne- braska was tranquilly and successfully organ- ized in the due course of law, and its first Legislative Assembly met on the 16th of Jan. 1855, the organization of Kansas was long delayed, and has been attended with serious difficulties and embarrassments, partly the consequence of local mal-administration, and partly of the unjustifiable interference of the inhabitants of some of the states foreign by residence, interests, and rights to the terri- tory. The governor of the territory of Kansas, commissioned, as before stated, on the 29th of June, 1854, did not reach the designated seat of his government until the 7th of the ensu- ing October; and even then failed to make the first step in its legal organization — that of ordering the census or enumeration of its in- habitants — until so late a day that the election of the members of the Legislative Assembly did not take place until the 30th of March, 1855, nor its meeting until the 2d of July, 1855. So that for a year after the territory was constituted by the act of Congress and the officers to be appointed by the federal executive had been commissioned, it was with- out a complete government, without any legis- lative authority, without local law, and of course without the ordinary guarantees of peace and public order. In other respects, the governor, instead of exercising constant vigilance, and putting forth all his energies to prevent or counteract the tendencies to illegality which are prone to exist in all imperfectly organized and newly associated communities, allowed his attention to be diverted from official obligation by other objects, and himself set an example of the vio- lation of law in the performance of acts which rendered it my duty, in the sequel, to remove him from the office of chief executive magis- trate of the territory. Before the requisite preparation was accom- plished for election of a territorial legislature, an election of delegate to Congress had been held in the territory on the 29th day of No- vember, 1854, and the delegate took his seat in the House of Representatives without chal- lenge. If arrangements had been perfected by the governor so that the election for mem- bers of the Legislative Assembly might be held in the several precincts at the same time as for delegate to Congress, any question apper- taining to the qualification of the persons voting as people of the territory would have passed necessarily and at once under the supervision of Congress, as the judge of the validity of the return of the delegate, and would have been determined before conflict- ing passions had become inflamed by time, and before opportunity could have been af- forded for systematic interference of the peo- ple of individual states. This interference, in so far as concerns its primary causes and its immediate commence- ment, was one of the incidents of that perni- cious agitation on the subject of the condition of the colored persons held to service in some of the states which has so long disturbed the repose of our country, and excited individuals, otherwise patriotic and law-abiding, to toil with misdirected zeal in the attempt to pro- pagate their social theories by the perversion and abuse of the powers of Congress. The persons and the parties whom the tenor of the act to organize the territories of Nebraska and Kansas thwarted in the endeavor to impose, through the agency of Congress, their parti- cular views of social organization on the peo- ple of the future new states, now perceiving that the policy of leaving the inhabitants of each state to judge for themselves in this re- spect was ineradically rooted in the convic- tions of the people of the Union, then had re- course, in the pursuit of their general object, to the extraordinary measure of propagandist colonization of the territory of Kansas, to prevent the free and natural action of its in- habitants in its internal organization, and thus to anticipate or to force the determina- tion of that question in this inchoate state. With such views, associations were orga- nized in some of the states, and their purposes were proclaimed through the press in lan- guage extremely irritating and offensive to those of whom the colonists were to become the neighbors. Those designs and acts had the necessary consequence to awaken emo- tions of intense indignation in states near to the territory of Kansas, and especially in the adjoining state of Missouri, whose domestic peace was thus the most directly endangered ; but they are far from justifying the illegal and reprehensible counter movements which en- sued. Under these inauspicious circumstance^ the primary elections for members of the Legisla- tive Assembly were held in most, if not all, of the precincts at the time and the places, and by the persons designated and appointed by the governor according to law. Angry accusations that illegal votes had been polled abounded on all sides, and impu- tations were made both of fraud and violence. But the governor, in the exercise of the power and the discharge of the duty conferred and imposed by law on him alone, officially re- ceived and considered the returns ; declared a large majority of the members of the Coun- cil and the House of Representatives " duly elected ;" withheld certificates from others be- cause of alleged illegality of votes ; appointed a new election to supply the place of the per- sons not certified ; and thus at length, in all the forms of statute, and with his own official authentication, complete legality was given to the first Legislative Assembly of the territory. Those decisions of the returning officers and of the governor are final, except that, by the 164 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. parliamentary usage of the country applied to the organic law, it may be conceded that each House of the Assembly must have been com- petent to determine, in the last resort, the qualifications and the election of its members. The subject was, by its nature, one appertain- ing exclusively to the jurisdiction of the local authorities of the territory. Whatever irregu- larities may have occurred in the elections, it seems too late now to raise that question. At all events, it is a question as to which, neither now, nor at any previous time, has the least possible legal authority been possessed by the President of the United States. For all pre- sent purposes the legislative body, thus con- stituted and elected, was the legitimate Assem- bly of the territory. Accordingly, the governor, by proclama- tion, convened the Assembly thus elected to meet at a place called Pawnee City ; the two houses met and were duly organized in the ordinary parliamentary form ; each sent to, and received from, the .governor the official communications usual on such occasions ; an elaborate message opening the session was communicated by the governor ; and the ge- neral business of legislation was entered upon by the Legislative Assembly. But, after a few days, the Assembly re- solved to adjourn to another place in the ter- ritory. A law was accordingly passed, against the consent of the governor, but in due form otherwise, to remove the seat of government temporarily to the " Shawnee Manual Labor School," (or Mission,) and thither the Assem- bly proceeded. After this, receiving a bill for the establishment of a ferry at the town of Kickapoo, the governor refused to sign it, and, by special message, assigned for reason of refusal, not anything objectionable in the bill itself, nor any pretence of the illegality or incompetency of the Assembly as such, but only the fact that the Assembly had by its act transferred the seat of government tempora- rily from Pawnee City to Shawnee Mission. For the same reason he continued to refuse to sign other bills, until, in the course of a few days, he, by official message, communicated to the Assembly the fact that he had received no- tification of the termination of his functions as governor, and that the duties of the office were legally devolved on the secretary of the terri- tory ; thus to the last recognising the body as a duly elected and constituted Legislative As- sembly. It will be perceived that, if any constitu- tional defect attached to the legislative acts of the Assembly, it is not pretended to consist in irregularity of election, or want of qualifica- tion of the members, but only in the change of its place of session. However trivial this objection may seem to be, it requires to be considered, because upon it is founded all that superstructure of acts, plainly against law, which now threatens the peace, not only of the territory of Kansas, but of the Union. Such an objection to the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly wa3 of exceptionable ori- gin, for the reason that, by the express terms of the organic law, the seat of government of the territory was "located temporarily at Fort Leavenworth," and yet the governor himself remained there less than two months, and of his own discretion transferred the seat of government to the Shawnee Mission, where it in fact was at the time the Assembly were called to meet at Pawnee City. If the gover- nor had any such right to change temporarily the seat of government, still more had the Legislative Assembly. The objection is of ex- ceptionable origin for the further reason that the place indicated by the governor, without having any exclusive claim of preference in itself, was a proposed town site only, which he and others were attempting to locate unlaw- fully upon land within a military reservation, and for participation in which illegal act the commandant of the post — a superior officer of the army — has been dismissed by sentence of court-martial. Nor is it easy to see why the Legislative Assembly might not with propriety pass the territorial act transferring its sittings to the Shawnee Mission. If it could not, that must be on account of some prohibitory or incompat- ible provision of act of Congress. But.no such provision exists. The organic act, as already quoted, says, " the seat of government is here- by located temporarily at Fort Leavenworth," and it then provides that certain of the public buildings there "maybe occupied and used under the direction of the governor and Legis- lative Assembly." These expressions might possibly be construed to imply that when in a previous section of the act it was enacted that " the first Legislative Assembly shall meet at such place and on such day as the gover- nor shall appoint," the word " place" means place at Fort Leavenworth, not place any- where in the territory. If so, the governor would have been the first to err in this matter, not only in himself having removed the seat of government to the Shawnee Mission, but in again removing it to Pawnee City. If there was any departure from the letter of the law, therefore, it was his in both in- stances. But, however this may be, it is most unrea- sonable to suppose that by the terms of the organic act Congress intended to do impliedly wliat it has not done expressly — that is, to forbid to the Legislative Assembly the power to choose any place it might see fit as the tern porary seat of its deliberations. That is proved by the significant language of one of the subsequent acts of Congress on the sub- ject, that of March 3, 1855, which, in making appropriation for public buildings of the ter- ritory, enacts that the same shall not be expended " until the legislature of said terri- tory shall have fixed by law the permanent seat of government." Congress, in these ex- pressions, does not profess to be granting the power to fix the. permanent seat of govern ment, but recognises the power as one already NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 365 granted. But hem ? Undoubtedly by the com- prehensive provision of the organic act itself, which declares that " the legislative power of the territory shall extend to all rightful sub- jects of legislation consistent with the Consti- tution of the United States and the provisions of this act." If, in view of this act, the Legis- lative Assembly had the large power to fix the permanent seat of government at any place in its discretion, of course, by the same enact- ment, it had the less and the included power to fix it temporarily. Nevertheless, the allegation that the acts of the Legislative Assembly were illegal by reason of this removal of its place of session was brought forward to justify the first great movement in disregard of law within the ter- ritory. One of the acts of the Legislative As- sembly provided for the election of a delegate to the present Congress, and a delegate was elected under that law. But, subsequently to this, a portion of the people of the territory proceeded without authority of law to elect another delegate. Following upon this movement was another and more important one of the same general character. Persons confessedly not constitut- ing the body politic, or all the inhabitants, but merely a party of the inhabitants, and without law r , have undertaken to summon a convention for the purpose of transferring the territory into a state, and have framed a con- stitution, adopted it, and under it elected a governor and other officers, and a representa- tive to Congress. In extenuation of these illegal acts, it is alleged that the states of California, Michigan, and others, were self-organized, and, as such, were admitted into the Union without a pre- vious enabling act of Congress. It is true that, while, in a majority of cases, a previous act of Congress has been passed to authorize the territory to present itself as a state, and that this is deemed the most regular course, yet such an act has not been held to be in- dispensable, and, in some cases, the territory lias proceeded without it, and has nevertheless lieen admitted into the Union as a state. It lies with Congress to authorize beforehand, <>r to confirm afterwards, in its discretion. But in no instance has a state been admitted upon the application of persons acting against authorities duly constituted by act of Con- gress. In every case it is the people of the territory, not a party among them, who have the power to form a constitution, and ask for admission as a state. No principle of public law, no practice or precedent under the Con- stitution of the United States, no rule of rea- son, right, or common sense, confers any such power as that now claimed by a mere party in the territory. In fact, what ha3 been done is of revolutionary character. It is avowedly so in motive and in aim as respects the local law of the territory. It will become treason- able insurrection if it reach the length of organized resistance by force- to the funda- mental or any other federal law, and to the authority of the general government. In such an event, the path of duty for the executive is plain. The Constitution requir- ing him to take care that the laws of the Uni- ted States be faithfully executed, if they be opposed in the territory of Kansas, he may and should place at the disposal of the marshal any public force of the United States which happens to be within the jurisdiction, to be used as a portion of the posse comiiatus ; and, if that do not suffice to maintain order, then he may call forth the militia of one or more states for that object, or employ for the same object any part of the land or naval force of the United States. So, also, if the obstruction be to the laws of the territory, and it be duly presented to him as a case of insurrection, he may employ for its suppression the militia of any state, or the land or naval force of the United States. And if the territory be invaded by the citizens of other states, whether for the purpose of deciding elections or for any other, and the local authorities find themselves un- able to repel or withstand it, they w T ill be entitled to, and upon the fact being fully as- certained they shall most certainly receive, the aid of the general government. But it is not the duty of the President of the United States to volunteer interposition by force to preserve the purity of elections either in a state or territory. To do so would be subversive of public freedom. And whether a law be wise or unwise, just or unjust, is not a question for him to judge. If it be constitu- tional — that is, if it be the law of the land — it is his duty to cause it to be executed, or to sustain the authorities of any state or territory in executing it in opposition to all insurrec- tionary movements. Our system affords no justification of revo- lutionary acts ; for the constitutional means of relieving the people of unjust administra- tion and laws, by a change of public agent and by repeal, are ample, and more prompt and effective than illegal violence. These constitutional means must be scrupulously guarded — this great prerogative of popular sovereignty sacredly respected. It is the undoubted right of the peaceable and orderly people of the territory of Kansas to elect their own legislative body, make their own laws, and regulate their own social insti- tutions, without foreign or domestic molesta- tion. Interference, on the one hand, to pro- cure the abolition or prohibition of slave labor in the territory, has produced mischievous interference ; on the other for its maintenance or introduction. One wrong begets another. Statements entirely unfounded, or grossly ex- aggerated, concerning events within the terri- tory, are sedulously diffused through remote states to feed the flame of sectional animosity there ; and the agitators there exert themselves indefatigably in return to encourage and sti- mulate strife within the territory. The inflammatory agitation, of which the 366 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. present is but a part, has for twenty years produced nothing save unmitigated evil, North and South. But for it the character of the domestic institutions of the future new state would have been a matter of too little interest to the inhabitants of the contiguous states, personally or collectively, to produce among them any political emotion. Climate, soil, pro- duction, hopes of rapid advancement, and the pursuit of happiness on the part of the settlers themselves, with good wishes, but with no interference from without, would have quietly determined the question which is at this time of such disturbing character. But we are constrained to turn our attention to the circumstances of embarrassment as they now exist. It is the duty of the people of Kansas to discountenance every act or pur- pose of resistance to its laws. Above all, the emergency appeals to the citizens of the states, and especially of those contiguous to the ter- ritory, neither by intervention of non-residents in elections, nor by unauthorized military force, to attempt to encroach upon or usurp the authority of the inhabitants of the terri- tory. No citizen of our country should permit himself to forget that he is a part of its gov- ernment, and entitled to be heard in the de- termination of its policy and its measures, and that, therefore, the highest considerations of. personal honor and patriotism require him to maintain, by whatever of power or influence he may possess, the integrity of the laws of the republic. Entertaining these views, it will be my im- perative duty to exert the whole power of the federal executive to support public order in the territory ; to vindicate its laws, whether federal or local, against all attempts of organ- ized resistance ; and so to protect its people in the establishment of their own institutions, undisturbed by encroachment from without, and in the full enjoyment of the rights of self-government assured to them by the Con- stitution and the organic act of Congress. Although serious and threatening disturb- ances in the territory of Kansas, announced to me by the governor in December last, were speedily quieted, without the eifusion of blood, and in a satisfactory manner, there is, I regret to say, reason to apprehend that disorders will continue to occur there, with increasing ten- dency to violence, until some decisive measures be taken to dispose of the question itself, which constitutes the inducement or occasion of internal agitation and of external interfe- rence. This, it seems to me, can best be accom- plished by providing that, when the inhabit- ants of Kansas may desire it, and shall be of sufficient numhers to constitute a state, a con- vention of delegates, duly elected by the qua- lified voters, shall assemble to frame a consti- tution, and thus to prepare, through regular and lawful means, for its admission into the Union as a state. I respectfully recommend the enactment of a law to that effect. I recommend, also, that a special appropri- ation be made to defray any expense which may become requisite in the execution of the laws or the maintenance of public order in the territory of Kansas. Franklin Pierce. Washington, Jan. 24, 1856. It was referred in the Senate to the Com- mittee on Territories, and in the House to the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. On the 11th of February the President is- sued a proclamation setting forth that : — ' Whereas, indications exist that public tran- quillity and the supremacy of law in the terri- tory of Kansas are endangered by the repre- hensible acts or purposes of persons, both within and without the same, who propose to direct and control its political organization by force : It appearing that combinations have been formed therein to resist the execution of the territorial laws, and thus, in effect, sub- vert by violence all present constitutional and legal authority : It also appearing that per- sons residing without the territory, but near to its borders, contemplate armed intervention in the affairs thereof: It also appearing that other persons, inhabitants of remote states, are collecting money, engaging men, and pro- viding arms for the same purpose: And it further appearing that combinations within the territory are endeavoring, by the agency of emissaries and otherwise, to induce indi- vidual states of the Union to intervene in the affairs thereof, in violation of the Constitution of the United States : And whereas all such plans for the deter- mination of the future institutions of the ter- ritory, if carried into action from within the same, will constitute the fact of insurrection, and, if from without, that of invasive aggres- sion, and will, in either case, justify and re- quire the forcible interposition of the whole power of the general government, as well to maintain the laws of the territory as. those of the Union, &c. : Warning all unlawful com- binations to retire peaceably to their respect- ive abodes, or he would use the power of the local militia and the available forces of the United States to disperse them, &c, &c. On the 14th of Feb., 1856, Mr. Florence of Pa. presented in the House the memorial of A. II. Reeder, contesting the seat of John W. Whitfield, delegate from Kansas, which was referred to the Committee on Elections. On the 12th of March, Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Territories, submitted to the Senate the following report : — Your committee deem this a.n appropriate occasion to state briefly, but distinctly, the principles upon which new states may be ad- mitted and territories organized under the authority of the Constitution of the United States. NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 367 The Constitution (section 3, article 4) pro- vides that " new states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." Section 8. Article 1 : " Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers Tested by this Constitution in the government of tbe United States, or in any department or office thereof." loth amendment: '-The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to tbe people." A state of the Federal Union is a sovereign power, limited only by the Constitution of the United States. The limitations which that instrument has imposed are few, specific, and uniform — ap- plicable alike to all the states, old and new. There is no authority for putting a restriction upon the sovereignty of a new state, which the Constitution has not placed on the original states. Indeed, if such a restriction could be imposed on any state, it would instantly cease to be a state within the meaning of the Federal Constitution, and, in consequence of the ine- quality, would assimilate to the condition of a province or dependency. Hence, equality among all the states of the Union is a funda- mental principle in our federative system — a principle embodied in the Constitution, as the basis upon which the American Union rests. African slavery existed in all the colonies, under the sanction of the British government, prior to the Declaration of Independence. When the Constitution of the United States was adopted, it became the supreme law and bond of union between twelve slaveholding states and one non-slaveholding state ; each state reserved the right to decide the question of slavery for itself — to continue it as a domestic institution so long as it pleased, and to abolish it when it chose. In pursuance of this reserved right, six of the original slaveholding states have since abolished and prohibited slavery within their limits respectively, without consulting Con- gress or their sister states, while the other six have retained and sustained it as a domestic institution, which, in their opinion, had be- come so firmly engrafted on their social sys- tems, that the relation between the master and slave could not be dissolved with safety to either. In the mean time, eighteen new states have been admitted into the Union, in obedience to the Federal Constitution, on an equal footing with the original states, in- cluding, of course, the right of each to decide the question of slavery for itself. In deciding this question, it has so happened that nine of these new states have abolished and prohibited slavery, while the other nine have retained and regulated it. That these neAv states had at the time of their admission, and still retain, an equal right, under the Federal Constitution, with the original states, to decide all questions of domestic policy for themselves, including that of African slavery, ought not to be se- riously questioned, and certainly cannot be successfully controverted. They are all subject to the same supreme law, which, by the consent of each, consti- tutes the only limitation upon their sovereign authority. Since we find the right to admit new states enumerated among the powers expressly dele- gated in the Constitution, the question arises, whence does Congress derive authority to or- ganize temporary governments for the terri- tories preparatory to their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original states? Your committee are not prepared to adopt the reasoning which deduces the power from that other clause of the Constitution which says : ''Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." The language of this clause is much more appropriate when applied to property than to persons. It would seem to have been em- ployed for the purpose of conferring upon Congress the power of disposing of the public lands and other property belonging to the United States, and to make all needful rules and regulations for that purpose, rather than to govern the people who might purchase those lands from the United States and be- come residents thereon. The word "terri- tory" was an appropriate expression to desig- nate that large area of public lands of which the United States had become the owner by virtue of the Revolution and the cession by the several states. The additional words " or other property belonging to the United States" clearly show that the term "territory" was used in its ordinary geographical sense to designate the public domain, and not as de- scriptive of the whole body of the people, con- stituting a distinct political community, who have no representation in Congress, and con- sequently no voice in making the laws upon which all their rights and liberties would de- pend, if it were conceded that Congress had the general and unlimited power to make all " needful rules and regulations concerning" their internal affairs and domestic concerns. It is under this clause of the Constitution, and from this alone, that Congress derives authority to provide for the surveys of the public lands, for securing pre-emption rights to actual settlers, for the establishment of land offices in the several states and terri- tories, for exposing the lands to private and public sale, for issuing patents and confirming titles, and, in short, for making all needful rules and regulations for protecting and dis- posing of the public domain and other pro- perty belonging to the United States. These needful rules and regulations may be embraced, and usually are found, in general laws applicable alike to states and territories, wherever the United States may be the owner of the lands or other property to be regulated or disposed of. It can make no difference, under this clause of the Constitution, whether the " territory, or other property, belonging to the United States," shall be situated in 368 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Ohio or Kansas, in Alabama or Minnesota, in California or Oregon ; the power of Congress to make needful rules and regulations is the same in the states and territories, to the extent that the title is vested in the United States. Inasmuch as the right of legislation in such eases rests exclusively upon the fact of owner- ship, it is obvious it can extend only to the tracts of land to which the United States pos- sess the title, and must cease in respect to each tract the instant it becomes private pro- perty by purchase from the United States. It will scarcely be contended that Congress pos- sesses the power to legislate for the people of those states in which public lands may be located, in respect to their internal affairs and domestic concerns, merely because the United States may be so fortunate as to own a portion of the territory and other property within the limits of those states. Yet it should be borne in mind that this clause of the Constitution confers upon Congress the same power to make needful rules and regulations in the states as it does in the territories, concerning the terri- tory or other property belonging to the United States. In view of these considerations, your com- mittee are not prepared to affirm that Con- gress derives authority to institute govern- ments for the people of the territories from that clause of the Constitution which confers the right to make needful rules and regula- tions concerning the territory or other pro- perty belonging to the United States ; much less can we deduce the power from any sup- posed necessity, arising outside of the Consti- tution, and not provided for in that instru- ment. The federal government is one of dele- gated and limited powers, clothed with no rightful authority which does not result di- rectly and necessarily from the Constitution. Necessity, when experience shall have clearly demonstrated its existence, may furnish satis- factory reasons for enlarging the authority of the federal government, by amendments to the Constitution, in the mode prescribed in that instrument ; but cannot afford the slight- est excuse for the assumption of powers not delegated, and which, by the tenth amend- ment, are expressly "reserved to the states respectively or to the people." Hence, before the power can be safely exercised, the right of Congress to organize territories, by institu- ting temporary governments, must be traced directly to some provision of the Constitution conferring the authority in express terms, or as a means necessary and proper to carry into effect some one or more of the powers which are specifically delegated. Is not the organi- zation of a territory eminently necessary and proper as a means of enabling the people thereof to form and mould their local and do- mestic institutions and establish a state go- vernment under the authority of the Constitu- tion, preparatory to its admission into the Union ? If so, the right of Congress to pass the organic act for the temporary government ia clearly included in the provision which au- thorizes the admission of new states. This power, however, being an incident to an ex- press grant, and resulting from it by neces- sary implication, as an appropriate means for carrying it into effect, must be exercised in harmony with the nature and objects of the grant from which it is deduced. The organic act of the territory, deriving its validity from the power of Congress to admit new states, must contain no provision or restriction which would destroy or impair the equality of the proposed state with the original states, or im- pose any limitation upon its sovereignty which the Constitution has not placed on all the states. So far as the organization of a terri- tory may be necessary and proper as a means of carrying into effect the provision of the Con- stitution for the admission of new states, and when exercised with reference only to that end, the power of Congress is clear and ex- plicit ; but beyond that point the authority cannot extend, for the reason that all " powers not delegated to the United States by the Con- stitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." In other words, the organic act of the territory, conforming to fho spirit of the grant from which it receives its validity, must leave the people entirely free to form and regulate their domestic institutions and internal concerns in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, to the end that when they attain the requisite population, and establish a state government in conformity to the Federal Constitution, they may be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatsoever^ The act of Congress for the organization of the territories of Kansas and Nebraska was designed to conform to the spirit and letter of the Federal Constitution, by preserving and maintaining the fundamental principle of equality among all the states of the Union, notwithstanding the restriction contained in the 8th section of the act of March 6, 1820 (preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union), which assumed to deny to the people for ever the right to settle the question of slavery for themselves, provided they should make their homes and organize states north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude. Conforming to the cardinal prin- ciples of state equality and self-government, in obedience to the Constitution, the Kansas- Nebraska act declared, in the precise language of the compromise measures of 1850, that, " when admitted as a state, the said territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitutions may prescribe at the time of their admission." Again, after declaring the said 8th section of the Missouri act (some- times called the Missouri compromise, or Mis- souri restriction) inoperative and void, as be- ing repugnant to these principles, the purpose of Congress, in passing the act, is deolared in these words : — NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 369 "It being the true intent and meaniui of this act not to legislate slavery into any state or territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." The passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act was strenuously resisted by all persons who thought it a less evil to deprive the people of new states and territories of the right of state equality and self-government under the Con- stitution, than to allow them to decide the slavery question for themselves, as every state of the Union had done, and must retain the undeniable right to do so, so long as the Con- stitution of the United States shall be main- tained as the supreme law of the land. Find- ing opposition to the principles of the act unavailing in the halls of Congress and under the forms of the Constitution, combinations were immediately entered into in some por- tions of the Union to control the political des- tinies, and form and regulate the domestic institutions of those territories and future states, through the machinery of emigrant aid societies. In order to give consistency and efficiency to the movement, and surround it with the color of legal authority, an act of in- corporation was procured from the legislature of the state of Massachusetts, in which it was provided, in the first section, that twenty per- sons therein named, and their " associates, successors, and assigns, are hereby made a • .rporation, by the name of the Massachu- setts Emigrant Aid Company, for the purpose of assisting emigrants to settle in the West ; and for this purpose they shall have all the n iwers and privileges, and be subject to all the duties, restrictions, and liabilities set forth in the 38th and 44th chapters of the revised statutes" of Massachusetts. The committee here entered into a detail of the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Society and remark : — • ■ When a powerful corporation, with a cap- ital of five millions of dollars invested in houses and lands, in merchandise and mills, in cannon and rifles, in powder and lead — in all the implements of art, agriculture and war, and employing a corresponding number of men, all under the management and control of non-resident directors and stockholders, who are authorized by their charter to vote by proxy to the extent of fifty votes each, enters a distant and sparsely-settled territory with the fixed purpose of wielding all its power to control the domestic institutions and political Jestinies of the territory, it becomes a ques- tion of fearful import how far the operations < if the company are compatible with the rights and liberties of the people. Whatever may be the extent or limit of Congressional autho- rity over the territories, it is clear that no individual state has the right to pass any law or authorize any act concerning or affecting the territories, which it might not enact in reference to any other state. " It is a well-settled principle of constitu- tional law in this country, that while all the 24 states of the Union are united in one for cer- tain purposes, yet each state, in respect to everything which afieets its domestic policy and internal concerns, stands in the relation of a foreign power to every other state. " Hence no state has a right to pass any law, or do or authorize any act, with a view to influence or change the domestic policy of any other state or territory of the Union, more than it would with reference to France or England, or any other foreign state with which we are at peace. Indeed, every state of this Union is under higher obligations to observe a friendly forbearance and generous comity towards each other member of the con- federacy than the laws of nations can impose on foreign states. " If our obligations arising under the laws of nations are so imperative as to make it our duty to enact neutrality laws, and to exert the whole power and authority of the executive branch of the government, including the army and navy, to enforce them, in restraining our citizens from interfering with the internal concerns of foreign states, can the obligations of each state and territory of this Union be less imperative under the Federal Constitution to observe entire neutrality in respect to the domestic institutions of the several states and territories ?" The committee then entered into a history of General Whitfield's election to Congress on the 29th of Nov., 1854, which was secured, says the report, by the votes of men of all parties who were in favor of the principles of the Kan- sas-Nebraska act, and opposed to placing the political destinies of the territory in the keeping of the Abolition party of the Northern states, to be managed through the machinery of their emigrant aid companies. No sooner was the result of the election known, than the defeated party proclaimed, throughout the length and breadth of the republic, that it had been pro- duced by the invasion of the territory by a Missouri mob, which had overawed and out- numbered and outvoted the bona-fide settlers of the territory. This election, the report shows, was held in pursuance of a proclamation issued by Gov, Reeder, prescribing the manner and mode of holding the same. It nowhere appears that General Whitfield's right to a seat by virtue of that election was ever contested. It does not appear that " ten qualified voters of the territory" were ever found who were willing to make the " written statement directed to the governor, with an affidavit" of one or more qualified voters to the " truth of the facts therein stated," to " dispute the fairness or correctness of the re- turns," or to " set forth specific cause of com- plaint or errors in the conducting or returning of the election" in any one of the seventeen dis- tricts of the territory. Certain it is, that there could not have been a system of fraud and violence such as has been charged by the agents and supporters of the emigrant aid societies, unless the governor and judges of 570 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. election -were parties to it ; and your commit- tee are not prepared to assume a fact, so dis- reputable to them, and so improbable upon the state of facts presented, without specific charges and direct proof. In the absence of all proof and probable truth, the charge that the Missourians had invaded the territory and controlled the Congressional election by fraud and violence, was circulated throughout the free states, and made the basis of the most in- flammatory appeals to all men opposed to the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska act to emi- grate or send emigrants to Kansas for the purpose of repelling the invaders, and assisting their friends who were then in the territory in putting down the slave power, and prohibiting slavery in Kansas, with the view of making it a free state. Exaggerated accounts of the large number of emigrants on their way under the auspices of the emigrant aid companies with the view of controlling the election for members of the territorial legislature, which was to take place on the 30th of March, 1855, were published and circulated. These ac- counts being republished and believed in Missouri, where the excitement had already been inflamed to a fearful intensity, induced a corresponding effort to send at least an equal number, to counteract the apprehended result of this new importation. The election was held in obedience to the proclamation of the governor of the territory, which prescribed the mode of proceeding, the form of the oath and returns, the precaution- ary safeguards against illegal voting, and the mode of contesting the election, which were, in substance, the same as those already re- ferred to in connexion with the Congressional election. When the period arrived for the governor to canvass the returns, and issue cer- tificates to the persons elected, it appeared that protests had been filed against the fairness of the proceedings and the correctness of the re- turns, in seven out of the eighteen election dis- tricts into which the territory had been divided, for election purposes, alleging fraudulent and illegal voting by persons who were not actual settlers and qualified voters of the territory. It also appears that in some of these contested cases the form of the oath administered to the judges, and of the returns made by them, were not in conformity to the proclamationof the governor. After a careful investigation of the facts of each case, as presented by the returns of the judges, and the protests and al- legations of all persons who disputed the fair- ness of the election and the correctness of the returns, the governor came to the conclusion that it was his duty to set aside the election in these seven disputed districts, the effect of which was, to create two vacancies in the Council, and nine in the House of Representa- tives of the territory, to be filled by a new election ; and to change the result so far as to cause the certificate for one councilman and one representative to issue to different persons than those returned as elected by the judges. Accordingly the governor issued his writs for special elections, to be held on the 24th of May, to fill those vacancies, and, at the same time, granted certificates of election to eleven councilmen and seventeen representatives, whose election had not been contested, and whom he adjudged to have been fairly elected. At the special election to fill these vacancies, three of the persons whose election on the 30th of March had been set aside for the rea- sons already stated, were re-elected, and in the other districts different persons were re- turned ; and the governor having adjudged them to have been duly elected, accordingly granted them certificates of election ; thus making the full complement of thirteen coun- cilmen and twenty-six representatives, of whom, by the organic law of the territory, the legislature was to be composed. On the 17th day of April the governor issued his proclamation, summoning these thirteen coun- cilmen and twenty-six representatives, whom he had commissioned as having been fairly elected, to assemble at Pawnee City on the 2d day of July, and organize as the legislature of the territory of Kansas. It appears from the journal that the two houses did assemble, in obedience to the go- vernor's proclamation, at the time and place appointed by him, and, after the oath of office had been duly administered by one of the judges of the Supreme Court of the territory to each of the members who held the govern- or's certificate, proceeded to organize their respective houses by the election of their offi- cers ; and each notified the other, by resolu- tion, that they were thus duly organized. Also, by joint resolution, appointed a com- mittee who waited on the governor, and in- formed him that " the two houses of the Kansas legislature are organized, and are now ready to proceed to business, and to re- ceive" such communication as he may deem necessary. In response to this joint resolution, " a message from the governor, by Mr. Iliggins, his private secretary, transmitting his mes- sage, was received, and ordered to be read." The message commences thus : — " To the Honorable the Council and House of Repre- sentatives of the Territory of Kansas," &c, &p. From this message, as well as from all the offi- cial acts of the governor preceding it, having reference to the election and return of the mem- bers and the convening of the two houses for le- gislative business, the conclusion is irresistible, that up to this period of time the governor had never conceived the idea — if, indeed, he has since entertained it — that the two houses were spurious and fraudulent assemblies, having no rightful authority £o pass laws which would be binding upon the people of Kansas. On the first day of the session, and immediately after the organization of the house was effected, the following resolution was adopted: " Resolved, That all persons who may desire to contest the seats of any persons now holding certificates of election as members of this house, may present their protests to tha committee on credentials, and that notice thereof shali be given to the persons koldiug such certificates." NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 371 [The committee then entered into a history of the contested seats in the legislature, and the difference between that body and the governor, as to which was the judge of the qualification of the members. The removal of the seat of government to the Shawnee Manual Labor School, showing that Governor Reeder in all his disputes with the legislature, whilst denying their right to do thus and so, ne*ver regarded them as other- wise than as the regularly constituted legisla- ture of Kansas. The suspension of intercourse between Governor Reeder and the legislature after their removal to the Shawnee Mission, on the ground that they were not a valid legislature in session, as it was in a place in which he contended it had no right to sit, is then treated in the Report.] On the 16th of August, the journal of the House of Representatives says : "The following message was received from Governor A. II. Reeder, by Mr. Lowry, his private secretary : "To the honorable the members of the Council and House of Representatives of the Territory of Kansas. "Gentlemen: Although, in my message to your bodies under date of the 21st instant, [ult.,] I stated that I was unable to convince myself of the legality of your session at this place, for reasons then given, and although that opinion still remains unchanged, yet, inasmuch as my reasons were not satisfactory to your body, and the bills passed by your houses have been up to this time seut to me fur approval, it is proper that I should inform you that after your adjourn- ment of yesterday I received official notification that my functions as Governor of the Territory of Kansas were ter- minated. No successor having arrived, Secretary Woodson will of course perform the duties of the office as acting go- vernor. A. B. Reeder." Inasmuch as Governor Reeder dissolved his official relations with the legislature, and de- nied the validity of their acts, solely upon the ground that they were enacted in the wrong place, it becomes material to inquire whether it was competent for them, under the organic act, to remove the seat of government tempo- rarily from " Pawnee City" to the Shawnee Mission. The 24th section of the organic act provides " that the legislative power of the territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act." That the location of the seat of government, and the changing of the same whenever the public interests and convenience may require it, is a " rightful subject of legislation," is too plain to admit of argument ; hence the power is clearly included in this general grant, and may be exercised at pleasure by the legisla- ture, unless it shall be made to appear that Congress, by some other provision, has im- posed restrictions or conditions upon its exercise. The thirty-first section of the organic act provides " that the temporary seat of govern- ment of said territory is hereby located at Fort Leavenworth ; and that such portions of the public buildings as may not be actually used and needed for military purposes may be occupied and used, under the direction of the governor and Legislative Assembly, for such public purposes as may be required under the provisions of this act;" and the twenty second section of the same act provides that " the persons thus elected to the Legislative Assembly shall meet at such place and on such day as the governor shall appoint" for the first meeting. These two provisions, b< parts of the same act, and having reference to the same subject-matter, must be taken to- gether, and receive such a construction as will give full effect to each, and not render either nugatory. While, therefore, the go- vernor was authorized to convene the legisla- ture, in the first instance, at such place as he should appoint, still he was required, by that provision which made Fort Leavenworth the temporary seat of government, with the view of using some of the public buildings, to designate as the place some one of the public buildings within the military reservation of Fort Leavenworth. Had not Congress, in the meantime, interposed and changed the law, as here presented, the governor would not have been authorized to have convened the legisla- ture at " Pawnee City," or at any other place in the territory than some one of the public buildings at Fort Leavenworth, as provided in the organic act. In view of the fact that the Secretary of War had intimated an opinion that all of the public buildings at Fort Leavenworth were needed for military purposes, and that the location of the seat of government, even tem- porarily, within the lines of a military reser- vation, where the military law must necessa- rily prevail, would be inconvenient if not in- jurious to the public service, the following provision was adopted in the appropriation bill of the 5th of Aug., 1854, for the purpose of enabling the governor to erect buildings for the temporary seat of government at some more suitable and convenient point in the ter- ritory: — " That in the event that the Secretary of War shall deem it inconsistent with the interest, of the military service to furnish a sufficient portion of the military buildings at Fort Leavenworth for the use of the territorial government of Kansas, the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars shall be, and in that contingency is hereby appropriated, for the erection of public buildings for the use of the legislature of the territory of Kansas, to he expended under the direction of the governor of said territory." Under this provision, taken in connexion with that clause of the organic act which au- thorized the governor to convene the legisla- ture at such place as he should appoint, he would have had the right to establish the tem- porary seat of government and erect the pub- lic buildings at Pawnee City, or any other place he might have selected in the territory, instead of Fort Leavenworth, but for the fact that on the 3d of March, 1855, and before any portion of the money had been expended, or even the site selected, Congress made a fur- ther appropriation of twenty-five thousand dollars for public buildings, with the proviso " that said money, or any part thereof, or any portion of the money heretofore appropriated for this purpose, shall not be expended until the legislature of said territory shall have fixed by law the permanent seat of govern- m THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ment." This provision did not confer upon the legislature any power in respect to the lo- cation of the seat of government, either tem- porarily or permanently, which it did not previously possess ; for the general grant, ex- tending to all "rightful objects of legisla- tion," necessarily included the right to deter- mine the place of holding its sessions. The object as well as legal effect of this provision, was to restrain the governor from expending the appropriation until the voice of the people of Kansas should be expressed, through their legislature, in the selection of the place, leav- ing the governor to perform his whole duty under the 22d section of the organic act, by appointing the place and day of the first meeting of the legislature, and of expending the money appropriated by Congress for the erection of public buildings, at such place as the legislature should designate for the per- manent seat of government of the territory. Under this view of the subject, it is evident that the legislature was clothed with legiti- mate authority to enact the law in obedience to which its session was adjourned from Paw- nee City to Shawnee Mission, and that its en- actments, made at the latter place, must have the same force and validity that they would have possessed had not the removal taken place. Your committee have not considered it any part of their duty to examine and review each enactment and provision of the large volume of laws adopted by the legislature of Kansas upon almost every rightful subject of legisla- tion, and affecting nearly every relation and interest in life, with a view either to their ap- proval or disapproval by Congress, for the reason that they are local laws, confined in their operation to the internal concerns of the territory, the control and management of which, by the principles of the Federal Consti- tution, as well as by the very terms of the Kansas-Nebraska act, are confided to the people of the territory, to be determined by themselves through their representatives in their local legislature, and not by the Con- gress, in which they have no representatives, to give or withhold their assent to the laws upon which their rights and liberties may all depend. Under these laws marriages have taken place, children have been born, deaths have occurred, estates have been distributed, contracts have been made, and rights have accrued which it is not competent for Congress to divest. If there can be a doubt in respect to the validity of these laws, growing out of the alleged irregularity of the election of the members of the legislature, or the lawfulness of the place where its sessions were held, which it is competent for any tribunal to in- quire into, with a view to its decision at this day, and after the series of events which have ensued, it must be a judicial question, over which Congress can have no control, and which can be determined only by the courts of justice, under the protection and sanction j>f the Constitution. "When it was proposed in the last Congress to annul the acts of the Legislative Assembly of Minnesota, incorporating certain railroad companies, this committee reported against the proposition, and, instead of annulling the local legislation of the territory, recommended the repeal of that clause of the organic act of Minnesota which reserves to Congress the right to disapprove its laws. That recom- mendation was based on the theory that the people of the territory, being citizens of the United States, were entitled to the privilege of self-government in obedience to the Consti- tution ; and if, in the exercise of this right, they had made wise and just laws, they ought to be permitted to enjoy all the advantages resulting from them : while, on the contrary, if they had made unwise and unjust laws, they should abide the consequences of their own acts until they discovered, acknowledged, and corrected their errors. It has been alleged that gross misrepresenta- tions have been made in respect to the charac- ter of the laws enacted by the legislature of Kansas, calculated, if not designed, to preju- dice the public mind at a distance against those who enacted them, and to create the im- pression that it was the duty of Congress to interfere and annul them. In view of the violent and insurrectionary measures which were being taken to resist the laws of the ter- ritory, a convention of delegates, representing almost every portion of the territory of Kan- sas, was held at the city of Leavenworth on the 14th of Nov., 1855, at which men of all shades of political opinions, "Whigs, Democrats, Pro- slavery men, and Free-state men, all met and harmonized together, and forgot their former differences in the common danger that seemed to threaten the peace, good order, and pros- perity of this community." This convention was presided over by the governor of the ter- ritory, assisted by a majority of the judges of the Supreme Court ; and the address to the citizens of the United States, among other dis- tinguished names, bears the signatures of the United States district attorney and marshal for the territory. [The committee then quote from an address of said meeting in explanation of said laws.] A few days after Governor Reeder dissolved his official relations with the legislature, on account of the removal of the seat of govern- ment, and while that body was still in session, a meeting was called by " many voters," to assemble at Lawrence on the 14th or 15th of August, 1855, "to take into consideration the propriety of calling a territorial conven- tion, preliminary to the formation of a state government, and other subjects of public interest." At that meeting the following preamble and resolutions were adopted with but one dissenting voice : — "Whereas the people of Kansas territory have been since its settlement, and now are, without any law-making power: therefore, . _ _ "Be it resolved, That we, the people of Kansas territory, in mass meeting assembled, irrespective of party distinctions, influenced by a common necessity, and greatly desirous of NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 373 promoting the common good, do hereby call upon and re- quest all bona fide, citizens of Kansas territory, of whatever political views or predilections, to consult together in their respective election districts, and, in mass convention or otherwise, elect three delegates for each representative of the Legislative Assembly, by proclamation of Governor Reeder of date 10th March. 1S55 ; said delegates to assemble in con- vention at the town of Topeka. on the 19th day of September, 1S55, then and there to consider and determine upon all subjects of public interest, and particularly upon that hav- ing reference to the speedy formation of a state constitution, with an intention of an immediate application to be admitted as a state into the Union of the United States of America." This meeting, so far as your committee have been able to ascertain, was the first step in that series of proceedings -which resulted in the adoption of a constitution and state gov- ernment, to be put in operation on the 4th of the present month, in subversion of the terri- torial government established under the au- thority of Congress. The right to set up the state government in defiance of the constituted authorities of the territory, is based on the assumption " that the people of Kansas terri- tory have been since its settlement, and no-w- are, without any law-making power ;" in the face of the well known fact, that the territorial legislature were then in session, in pursuance of the proclamation of Governor Reeder and the organic law of the territory. On the 5th of September, a " territorial delegate conven- tion" assembled at the Big Springs, " to take into consideration the present exigencies of political affairs," at which, among others, the following resolutions were adopted : — "Resolved, That this convention, in view of its recent repudiation of the acts of the so-called Kansas Legislative Assembly, respond most heartily to the call made by the people's convention of the 14th ultimo, for a delegate con- vention of the people of Kansas, to be held at Topeka on the 19th instant, to consider the propriety of the formation of a state constitution, and such matters as may legitimately come before it. " Resolved, That we owe no allegiance or obedience to the tyrannical enactments of this spurious legislature; that their laws have no validity or binding force upon the people of Kansas; and that every freeman among us i-s at full liberty, consistently with his obligations as a citizen and a man. to defy and resist them if he choose so to do. " Resolved, That we will endure and submit to these laws no longer than the best interests of the territory require, as the least of two evils, and will resist them to a bloody issue as soon as we ascertain that peaceable remedies shall fail, and forcible resistance shall furnish any reasonable prospect of success; and that in the meantime we recommend to our friends throughout the territory the organization and dis- cipline of volunteer companies, and the procurement and preparation of arms." With the view to a distinct understanding of the meaning of so much of this resolution as relates to the " organization and discipline of volunteer companies, and the procurement and preparation of arms," it may be necessary to state that there was at that time existing in the territory a secret military organization, which had been formed for political objects prior to the alleged invasion, at the election on the 30th of March, and which held its first "grand encampment at Lawrence, Feb. 8, 1855." Your committee have been put in pos- session of a small printed pamphlet, contain- ing the " constitution and ritual of the grand encampment and regiment ; of the Kansas legion of Kansas territory, adopted April 4, 1855," which, during the recent disturbances in that territory, was taken on the person of one George Warren, who attempted to conceal and destroy the same by thrusting it into his mouth, and biting and chewing it. Although somewhat mutilated by the " tooth prints," it bears internal evidence of being a genuine document, authenticated by the original signa- tures of " G. W. Hutchinson, grand general," and "J. K. Goodwin, grand quartermaster." On the last page was a charter of the Kansas legion, authorizing the said George Warren, from whose mouth the document was taken, to form a new regiment. [The committee here quote from the charter largely. Amongst other things, is] the process of initiating new recruits, who are properly vouched for by members of the order, the preliminary obligations to observe secrecy, the catechism to which the candidate is sub- jected, and the explanations of the colonel in respect to the objects of the order, which are thus stated: "First, to secure to Kansas the blessing and prosperity of being a free state: and. secondly, to protect the ballotrbox from the leprous touch of unprincipled men." These and all other questions being satis- factorily answered, the final oath is thu.:, administered : "With these explanations upon our part, we shall ask of you that you take with us an obligation placing yourself in "the same "attitude as before. " OBLIGATION. , in the most solemn manner, here, in "I, the presence of Heaven and these witnesses, bind myself that I will never reveal, nor cause to be revealed, either by word, look, or sign, by writing, printing, engraving paint- ing, or in anv manner whatsoever, anything pertaining to this institution, save to persons duly qualified to receive the same. I will never reveal the nature of the organization, the place of meeting, the fact that any person is a member of the same, or even the existence of the organization, ex- cept to persons legallv qualified to receive the same. Should I at any time withdraw, or be suspended or expelled from this organization. I will keep this obligation to the end of life. If any books, papers, or moneys belonging to this organization be intrusted to my care or keeping. I will faith- fully and completely deliver up the same to my successor in office, or anv one legally authorized to receive them. _ I will never knowingly propose a person for membership in this order who is not in favor of making Kansas a free, state, and who I feel satisfied will exert his entire influence to bring about this result. I will support, maintain, and abide by any honorable movement made by the organization to secure this great end. which will not conflict with the laws of the country and the Constitution of the United States. I will unflinchingly vote for and support the candidates nominated by this organization in preference to any and all others. " To all of this obligation I do most solemnly promise and affirm, binding myself under the penalty of being expelled from this organization, of having my name published to the several territorial encampments as a perjurer before Heaven and a traitor to my countrv, of passing through life scorned and reviled by man. frowned on by devils, forsaken by angels, and abandoned by God." The " closing ceremony" is as follows : "\Colonel.] Fellow-soldiers: I trust this review has been both pleasant and profitable to all. We met as friends ; lei us part as brothers, remembering that we seek no wrong to any; and our bond of union in battling for the right must tend to make us better men, better neighbors, and better citizens. We thank you for your kindness and attention, and invite you all to be present at our next review, to be holden at , on next, at o'clock, p. m. Sentinels, vou will open the doors, that our soldiers may retire plea- santly and in order." Your committee have deemed it important to give this outline of the " constitution and ritual of the grand encampment and regiments of the Kansas legion," as constituting the secret organization, political and military, in obedience to which the public demonstrations 374 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. have been made to subvert the authority of the territorial government established by Con- gress, by setting iip a state government, either with or without the assent of Congress, as circumstances should determine. The endorse- ment of this military organization, and the recommendation by the Big Springs conven- tion for " the procurement and preparation of arms," accompanied with the distinct declara- tion that we "will resist them [the laws enacted by the Kansas legislature] to a bloody issue, as soon as we ascertain that peaceable remedies shall fail, and forcible resistance shall furnish any reasonable prospect of suc- cess," would seem to admit of no other inter- pretation than that, in the event that the courts of justice shall sustain the validity of those laws, and Congress shall refuse to admit Kansas as a state with the constitution to be formed at Topeka, they will set up an inde- pendent government in defiance of the federal authority. The same purpose is clearly indicated by the other proceedings of this convention, in which it is declared that "we with scorn repudiate the election law, so called," and they nominate Governor Reeder for Congress, to be voted for on a different day from that authorized by law, at an election to be held by judges and clerks not appointed in pursu- ance of any legal authority, and not to be sworn by any person authorized by law to ad- minister oaths ; and the returns to be made, and result proclaimed, and certificate granted, in a mode and by persons not permitted to perform these acts by any law, in or out of the territory. In accepting the nomination, Governor Reeder addressed the convention as follows ; and among other things, said : " He urged the Free-State men of Kansas to forget all minor issues, and pursue determinedly the one great object, never swerving, but. steadily pressing on, as did the wise men who followed the star to the manger, looking back only for fresh encouragement. He counselled that peaceful resist- ance be made to the tyrannical and unjust laws of the spu- rious legislature; that appeals to tho courts, to the ballot- box, and to Congress, be made for relief from this oppressive load ; that violence should be deprecated as long as a single hope of peaceable redress remained ; but if, at last, all these should fail — if, in the proper tribunals, there is no hope for our dearest rights, outraged and profaned— if we are still to suffer, that corrupt men may reap harvests watered by our tears — then there is one more chance for justice. God has provided, in the eternal frame of things, redress for every wrong; and there remains to us still the steady eye and the strong arm, and we must conquer, or mingle the bodies of the oppressors with those of the oppressed upon the soil which the Declaration of Independence no longer protects. But he was not at all apprehensive that such a crisis would ever arrive. He believed that justice might be found far short of so dreadful an extremity; and, even should an appeal to arms come, it was his opinion, that if we are well prepared, that moment the victory is won." In pursuance of the recommendation of the mass meeting held at Lawrence on the 14th of August, and endorsed by the convention held at the Big Springs on the 5th and 6th of September, a convention was held at Topeka on the 19th and 20th of September, at which it was determined to hold another convention at the same place on the fourth Tuesday of October, for the purpose of forming a consti- tution and state government ; and to this end such proceedings were had as were deemed necessary for giving the notices conducting the election of delegates, making the returns, and assembling the convention. With regard to the regularity of these proceedings, your committee see no necessity for further criticism other than is to be found in the fact that it was the movement of a political party instead of the whole body of the people of Kansas, conducted without the sanction of law, and in defiance of the constituted authorities, for the avowed purpose of overthrowing the territorial government established by Congress. The constitutional convention met at Topeka on the fourth Tuesday of October, and orga- nized by electing Colonel J. H. Lane president, who, in returning his acknowledgments for the honor, repudiated the validity of the terri- torial legislature and its acts in these words : "Gentlemen of the convention : For the position assigned me, accept my thanks. You have met, gentlemen, on no ordinary occasion, to accomplish no ordinary purpose. You are the first legal representatives the real settlers of Kansas have ever had. You comprise the first legally elected rep- resentative body ever assembled iu the territory," &c. Mr. Emery said : " Now, Mr. Chairman, what does this resolution contemplate? What is proposed to be done? It first proposes to supersede the present weak and inefficient territorial government, and hence it enunciates the funda- mental idea of the constitutional movement. Ay, it does more. It proposes to prove into a fact the leading idea of the Declaration of Independence, the highest human autho- rity in American politics, which is this : whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government. It proposes to force theories of human rights into facts, to practically apply this great principle to the wants and the necessities of the down- trodden people of Kansas. I do not question this right of the people, and certainly no gentleman on this floor will disagree with me. If he does, he occupies a most extraordi- nary position, and consistency would suggest that he with- draw from this body. No, when we say that we will take measures to supersede and render unnecessary that thing now extended over us called a territorial government — when we say and maintain that we have a right, guarantied by the Constitution, to have a form of government resting on our own consent and free will, we are doing what, as American citizens, we have a right to do ; we only propose to carry out the doctrine, much abused and grossly misrepresented as it has been — I mean the doctrine of squatter sovereignty, under which we are assembled here to-day, and in pursuance of the principles of which we hope to extricate ourselves from our present unhappy condition." In reply to the advocates of immediate state organization, Mr. Delahay, of Leavenworth, said: "Under the defined rights of squatter sovereignty, aa enunciated by the Kansas-Nebraska act, it seems reasonable that the people have the right to take upon themselves the burdens of a government ; but I question the right of the people of Kansas to organize a new government created by Congress. The gentleman from Lawrence [Colonel Lane] has assumed as a fundamental position, in advocating an immediate state organization, that neither government nor local law exists in this territory. Sir, I must dissent from that position. I deny, Mr. Chairman, that a territorial government can be legally abolished by the election of another government. I hold, on the contrary, and I think that my position would he supported by our highest legal authorities, that the power of a territorial government ceases only by the enactment of the body which created it; in other words, that the government and laws of Kansas can be abolished by Congress alone, and are beyond the reach of this territory, or any other power. I do not pre- tend to deny that, as all civil power is derived from the people, they have the moral right to abolish unjust laws, or to overthrow obnoxious governments by force; but I do question the expediency of effecting a reform in Kansas by any overt act of rebellion. For I must confess, Mr. Chair- man, while I cast not the shadow of suspicion on the motives of the advocates of this measure, that from the point cf view from which I regard this question, it appears to me to be an act of rebellion." Your committee have made these voluminous NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 375 extracts from the best authenticated reports which they have been able to obtain of the proceedings of the convention, for the purpose of showing that it was distinctly understood on all sides that the adoption of the proposition for organizing the state government before the assent of Congress for the admission of the state should be obtained, was a decision in favor of repudiating the laws and overthrow- ing the territorial government, in defiance of the authority of Congress. By this decision, as incorporated into the schedule to the consti- tution, the vote on the ratification to the constitution was to be held on the 15th of December, 1855, and the election for all state officers on the third Tuesday of January, 1856. The third section of the schedule is as follows : "The General Assembly shall meet on the 4th day of March, a.d. 1856, at the city of Topeka, at 12 m., at which time and place the governor, lieutenant-governor, secretary «f state, judges of the supreme court, treasurer, auditor, state printer, reporter and clerk of supreme court, and attorney-general, shall appear, take the oath of office, and enter upon the discharge of the duties of their respective offices under this constitution; and shall continue in office in the same manner, and during the same period, they would have done had they been elected on the first Monday of August, A. D. 1S66." The elections for all these officers were held at the times specified ; and on the fourth day of the present month the new government was to have been put in operation, in conflict with the territorial government established by Congress, and for the avowed purpose^ of subverting and overthrowing the same, with- out reference to the action of Congress upon their application for admission into the Union. Your committee are not aware of any case in the history of our own country which can be fairly cited as an example, much less a justification, for these extraordinary proceed- ings. Cases have occurred in which the inhabitants of particular territories have been permitted to form constitutions, and take the initiatory steps for the organization of state governments, preparatory to their admission into the Union, without obtaining the previous assent of Congress; but in every instance, the proceeding has originated with, and been conducted in subordination to, the authority of the local governments established or recog- nised by the government of the United States. Michigan, Arkansas, Florida, and California, are sometimes cited as cases in point. Michi- gan was erected into a territory in pursuance of the ordinance of the 13th of July, 1787, as recognised and carried into effect by acts of Congress subsequent to the adoption of the Federal Constitution. In that ordinance, it was provided that the territory northwest of the Ohio river should be divided into not less than three nor more than five states ; " and whenever any of said states shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such state shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original states in all respects Whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a per- manent constitution and state government." In pursuance of this provision of their or- ganic law, the legislature of the territory of Michigan passed an act providing for a con- vention of the people to form a constitution and state government, which was accordingly done in obedience to the laws and constituted authorities of the territory. The legislature of the territory of Arkansas, having ascer- tained by a census that the territory contained about 51,800 inhabitants, at a time when the ratio of representation in Congress awarded one representative to each 47,700 inhabitants, passed an act authorizing the people to form a constitution and ask for admission into the Union, as they supposed they had a right to do under the treaty acquiring the territory from France, which guarantied their admis- sion as soon as may be consistent with the Federal Constitution. Upon this point your committee adopt the legal opinion of the At- torney General of the United States (B. F. Butler), as expressed in the following ex- tract : — "But I am not prepared to say that all proceedings on this subject, on the part of the citizens of Arkansas, will be illegal. They undoubtedly possess the ordinary privi- leges and immunities of citizens of the United States. Among these is the right to assemble and to petition the government for the redress of grievances; in the exercise of this right, the inhabitants of Arkansas may peaceably meet together in primary assemblies, or in conventions chosen by such assemblies, for the purpose of petitioning Congress to abrogate the territorial government, and to admit them into the Union as an independent state. The particular form which they may give to their petition can- not be material, so long as they confine themselves to the mere right of petitioning, and conduct all their proceedings in a peaceable manner. And as the power of Congress over the whole subject is plenary and unlimited, they may accept any constitution, however framed, which in their judgment meets the sense of the people to be affected by it. If, therefore, the citizens of Arkansas think proper to accom- pany their petition with a written constitution, framed and agreed on by their primary assemblies, or by a convention of delegates chosen by such assemblies, I perceive no legal objection to their power to do so, nor to any measures which may be taken to collect the sense of the people in respect to it ; provided, always, that such measures be commenced and prosecuted in a peaceable manner, in strict subordination to the existing territorial government, and in entire subser- viency to the power of Congress to adopt, reject, or disre- gard them at their pleasure. "It is, however, very obvious, that all measures com- menced and prosecuted with a design to subvert the terri- torial government, and to establish and put in force in its place a new government, without the consent of Congress, will be unlawful. The laws establishing the territorial go- vernment must continue in force until abrogated by Con- gress; and. in the mean time, it will be the duty of the go- vernor, and of all the territorial officers, as well as of the President, to take care that they are faithfully executed." On the 11th day of January, 1839, a commit- tee of the constitutional convention of Florida addressed a memorial to Congress, in which they state that in 1837 the territorial council passed a law submitting to the people the question of "state" or "territory," to be de- cided at the election of delegate to Congress in the month of May of that year ; that a de- cided majority of the suffrages given at that election was in favor of " state ;" that the legislative council of 1838, in obedience to the expressed wishes of the people, enacted a law authorizing the holding of a convention to form and adopt a state constitution : that the convention assembled on the 3d of December, 1838, and continued in session until the 11th of January, 1839 ; and that, on behalf of the 376 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. people of Florida, they transmit the " consti- tution, or form of government," and ask for admission into the Union. It is also stated in the memorial that in 1838 a census of the ter- ritory was taken, in obedience to a law passed by the territorial council, and that this census, although taken during the ravages of Indian hostilities, when a large portion of the inhabi- tants could not be found at home, showed an aggregate population of 48,223 persons, which the memorialists insisted furnished satisfac- tory assurance of a sufficient population to entitle them to admission, accordingto the treaty acquiring the country froin Spain, and the then ratio of representation, which awarded a member of Congress to each 47,700 inhabi- tants. Congress failing to yield its assent to the admission of Florida for more than six years after this constitution was formed and application made, the people of Florida during all that period remained loyal to the territorial government and obedient to its laws, and did not assume the right to supersede the existing government by putting into operation a state government until the assent of Congress was obtained in 1845. The circumstances connected with the for- mation of the constitution and state govern- ment of California are peculiar. During the Mexican war the country was conquered and occupied by our troops, and the civil govern- ment was administered by the military autho- rities under the war power. According to an official communication of General Persifbr F. Smith, acting governor of California, to a committtee of citizens of San Francisco, under date of March 27, 1849, withholding his " re- cognition and concurrence" in their proposi- tion " to organize a Legislative Assembly, and to appoint judges and other ministerial offi- cers, and to enact suitable laws to establish principles of justice and equity, and to give protection to life, liberty, and property," it appears that the President of the United States (Mr. Polk) and his cabinet officially promul- gated the following opinions as the decision of the executive on the points stated : — 1. That at the conclusion of the treaty with Mexico, on the 30th of May, 1848, the mili- tary government existing in California was a government de facto. 2. That it, of necessity, continue until Con- gress provide another ; because, if it cease, anarchy must ensue : thus inferring that no power but Congress can establish any govern- ment. It also appears, from the proclamation of General Riley, acting governor, to the people of California, dated June 3, 1849, that a go- vernment de facto was constituted as fol- lows : — " A brief summary of the organization of the present government may not be uninteresting. It consists — First, of a governor appointed by the supreme government; in default of such appointment, the office is temporarily vested in the commanding military officer of the department. The powers and duties of the governor are of a limited charac- ter, but fully defined and pointed out by the laws. Second, a secretary, whose duties and powers are also properly defined. Third, a territorial or departmental legislature, with limited powers to pass laws of a local character Fourth, a superior com-t (tribunal superior) of the territory consisting of four .judges and a fiscal. Fifth, a prefect and sub prefects for each district, who are charged with the pre servation of the public order and the execution of the laws : their duties correspond, in a great measure, with those of district marshals and sheriffs. Sixth, a judge of first in- stance, for each district. This office is, by a custom not inconsistent with the laws, vested in the first alcalde of the district. Seventh, alcaldes, who have concurrent jurisdic- tion among themselves in the same district, but are subor- dinate to the higher judicial tribunals. Eighth, local jus- tices of the peace. Ninth, ayuntamientos. or town councils The powers and functions of all these officers are fully de- fined in the laws of the country, and are almost identical with those of the corresponding officers in the Atlantic and Western States." On the 3d of April, 1849, President Taylor appointed Thomas Butler King agent, for the purpose of conveying important instructions to our military and naval commanders who were intrusted with the administration of the civil government de facto in California, and to make known to the people his opinions and wishes in respect to the formation of a consti- tution and state government preparatory to their admission into the Union. What these opinions and wishes were, are distinctly stated by the President in the following extract from his special message to Congress on the 23d of January, 1850 : — " I did not hesitate to express to the people of those ter- ritories my desire that each territory should, if prepared to comply with the requisitions of the Constitution of the Uni- ted States, form a plan of a state constitution, and submit the same to Congress, with a prayer for admission into the Union as a state; but I did not anticipate, suggest, or au- thorize the establishment of any such government without the assent of Congress ; nor did I authorize any government, agent or officer to interfere with or exercise any influence or control over the election of delegates, or over any con- vention, in making or modjfyiDg their domestic institutions, or any of the provisions of their proposed constitution. On the contrary, the instructions by my orders were, that all measures of domestic policy adopted by the people of Cali- fornia must originate solely with themselves; that, while the Executive of the United States was desirous to protect them in the formation of any government republican in its character, to be at the proper time submitted to Congress, yet it was to be distinctly understood that the plan of such a government must, at the same time, be the result of their own deliberate choice, and originate with themselves, with- out the interference of the Executive." On the 30th of June, 1850, General Riley, in his capacity as civil governor of California, re- ports to the government at Washington that — "On the 3d instant I issued my proclamation to the people of California, defining what was understood to be the legal position of affairs here, and pointing out the course it was deemed advisable to pursue in order to procure a new political organization, better adapted to the character and present condition of the country. The course indicated in my proclamation will be adopted by the people, almost unanimously; and there is now little or no doubt that the convention will meet on the first of September next, and form a state constitution, to be submitted to Congress in the early part of the coming session. "A few prefer a territorial organization, but I think a majority will be in favor of a state government, so as to avoid all further difficulties respecting the question of slavery. This question will probably be submitted, together with the constitution, to a direct vote of the people, in order that the wishes of the people of California may be cleurly and fully expressed. Of course, the constitution or plan of a territorial government formed by this convention can have no legal force till approved by Congress." On the 12th day of October, General Riley, acting governor, issued the following procla- mation : — " To the. People of California. "The delegates of the people, assembled in convention, have formed a constitution which is now presented for your ratification. The time and manner of voting on this con- stitution, and of holding the first general election, aro NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 0--T o<7 dearly set forth in t.*ve schedule. The whole subject is therefore left for your unbiassed and deliberate considera- tion. " The prefect (or person exercising the functions of that office) of each district will designate the places for opening the polls, and give due notice of the election, in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and schedule. " The people are now called upon to form a government for themselves, and to designate such officers as they desire to make and execute the laws. That their choice may be wisely made, and that the government so organized may secure the permauent welfare and happiness of the people of the new state, is the sincere and earnest wish of the present executive, who, if the constitution be ratified, will with pleasure surrender his powers to whomsoever the people may designate as his successor. ''Given at Monterey, California, this twelfth day of Octo- ber, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and forty-nine. " B. RlLET, " Brevet Brig. Gen. V. S. A., and Governor of California. " Official : " H. W. Halleck, " Brevet Captain and Secretary of State." These facts and official papers prove con- clusively that the proposition to the people of California to hold a convention and organize a state government originated with, and that all the proceedings were had in subordination to, the authority and supremacy of the existing local government of the territory, under the advice and with the approval of the executive government of the United States. Hence the action of the people of California in forming their constitution and state government, and of Congress in admitting the state into the Union, cannot be cited, with the least show of justice or fairness, in justification or palliation of the revolutionary movements to subvert the government which Congress has established in Kansas. Nor can the insurgents derive aid or comfort from the position assumed by either party to the unfortunate controversy which arose in the state of Rhode Island a few years ago, when an effort was made to change the organic law, and set up a state government in opposition to the one then in existence, under the charter granted by Charles the Second of England. Those who were engaged in that unsuccessful struggle assumed, as fundamental truths in our system of government, that Rhode Island was a sovereign state in all that pertained to her internal affairs; that the right to change their organic law was an essential attribute of sovereignty ; that, inasmuch as the char- ter under which the existing government was organized contained no provision for changing or amending the same, and the people had not delegated that right to the legislature or any other tribunal, it followed, as a matter of course, that they had retained it, and were at liberty to exercise it in such manner as to them should seem wise, just, and proper. Without deeming it necessary to express any opinion on this occasion in reference to the merits of that controversy, it is evident that the principles upon which it was conducted are not involved in the revolutionary struggle now going on in Kansas ; for the reason, that the sovereignty of a territory remains in abeyance, suspended in the United States, in trust 'for the people, until they shall be admitted into the Union as a state. In the mean time they are entitled to enjoy and exercise all the privileges and rights of self-government, in subordination to the Constitution of the United States, and in obedience to their organic law passed by Con- gress in pursuance of that instrument. These rights and privileges are all derived from the constitution through the act of Congress, and must be exercised and enjoyed in subjection, to all the limitations and restrictions which that constitution imposes. Hence, it is clear that the people of the territory have no inherent sovereign right under the Constitution of the United States to annul the laws and resist the authority of the territorial government which Congress has established in obedience to the Constitution. It now only remains for your committee to respond to the two specific recommendations of the President in his special message. They are as follows : — " This, it seems to. me, can be best accomplished by pro- viding that, when the iuhabitants of Kansas may desire it, and shall be of sufficient numbers to constitute a staff, a convention of delegates, duly elected by the qualified voters, shall assemble to frame a constitution, and thus prepare, through regular and lawful means, for its admission into the Union as a state. I respectfully recommend the enact- ment of a law to that effect. "I recommend, also, that a special appropriation be made to defray any expense which may become requisite in the execution of the laws or the maintenance of public order in the territory of Kansas." In compliance with the first recommenda- tion, your committee ask leave to report a bill authorizing the legislature of the territory to provide by law for the election of delegates by the people, and the assembling of a con vention to form a constitution and state government, pre- paratory to their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, as soon as it shall appear, by a census to be taken under the direction of the governor, by the au- thority of the legislature, that the territory con- tains ninety-three thousand four hundred and twenty inhabitants — that being the number re- quired by the present ratio of representation for a member of Congress. In compliance with the other recommenda- tion, your committee propose to offer to the ap- propriation bill an amendment appropriating such sum as shall be found necessary, by the estimates to be obtained, for the purpose indi- cated in the recommendation of the President. All of which is respectfully submitted to the Senate by your committee. Minority Report of the Senate Committee on Territories, made March 12, 1856, by Judge Collamer, of Vermont. Views of the minority of the Committee on Territories, to whom was referred so much of the annual message of the President as relates to territorial affairs, the message of the President of 24th January in relation to Kansas territory, and the message of the President of the 18th February, in answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 4th February, relative to the affairs in Kansas. Thirteen of the present prosperous states of this Union passed through the period of apprenticeship or pupilage of territorial train- ing, under the guardianship of Congress, pre* 378 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. paratory to assuming their proud rank of manhood as sovereign and independent states. This period of their pupilage was, in every case, a period of the good offices of parent and child, in the kind relationship sustained be- tween the national and the territorial govern- ment, and may be remembered with feelings of gratitude and pride. We have fallen on different times. A territory of our govern- ment is now convulsed with violence and dis- cord, and the whole family of our nation is in a state of excitement and anxiety. The na- tional executive power is put in motion, the army in requisition, and Congress is invoked for interference. In this case, as in all others of difficulty, it becomes necessary to inquire what is the true cause of existing trouble, in order to apply effectual cure. It is but temporary palliatives to deal with the external and more obvious manifestations and developments, while the real, procuring cause lies unattended to, and uncorrected, and unremoved. It is said that organized opposition to law exists in Kansas. That, if existing, may probably be suppressed by the President, by the use of the army; and so, too, may inva- sions by armed bodies from Missouri, if the executive be sincere in its efforts ; but when this is done, while the cause of trouble remains, the results will continue with renewed and increased developments of danger. Let us, then, look fairly and undisguisedly at this subject, in its true character and his- tory. Wherein does this Kansas territory differ from all our other territories, which have been so peacefully and successfully carried through, and been developed into the man- hood of independent states ? Can that differ- ence account for existing troubles? Can that difference, as a cause of trouble, be removed? The first and great point of difference be- tween the territorial government of Kansas and that of the thirteen territorial govern- ments before mentioned, consists in the sub- ject of slavery, the undoubted cause of present trouble. The action of Congress in relation to all those thirteen territories was conducted on a uniform and prudent principle, to wit : To settle, by a clear provision, the law in relation to the subject of slavery to be operative in the territory, while it remained such ; not leaving it in any one of those cases to be a subject of controversy within the same, while in the plastic gristle of its youth. This was done by Congress in the exercise of the same power which moulded the form of their organic laws, and appointed their executive and judiciary, and sometimes their legislative officers. It was the power provided in the Constitution, in these words : " Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other Eroperty belonging to the United States." ettling the subject of slavery while the country remained a territory, was no higher exercise of power in Congress than the regu- lation of the functions of the territorial gov- ernment, and actually appointing its principal functionaries. This practice commenced with this national government, and was continued, with uninterrupted uniformity, for more than sixty years. This practical contemporaneous construction of the constitutional power of this government is too clear to leave room for doubt, or opportunity for scepticism. The peace, prosperity, and success, which attended this course, and the results which have en- sued, in the formation and admission of the thirteen states therefrom, are most conclusive and satisfactory evidence, also, of the wisdom and prudence with -which this power was ex- ercised. Deluded must be that people who, in the pursuit of plausible theories, become deaf to the lessons and blind to the results of their own experience. Let us next inquire by what rule of uni- formity Congress was governed, in the exer- cise of this power of determining the condition of each territory as to slavery, while remain- ing a territory, as manifested in those thirteen instances. An examination of our history will show that this was not done from time to time by agitation and local or party triumphs in Congress. The rule pursued was uniform and clear ; and whoever may have lost by it, peace and prosperity have been gained. That rule was this: Where slavery was actually existing in a country to any considerable or general extent, it was (though somewhat modified as to fur- ther importation in some instances, as in Mis- sissippi and Orleans territories) suffered to remain. The fact that it had been taken and existed there was taken as an indication of its adaptation and local utility. Where slavery did not in fact exist to any appreciable extent, the same was, by Congress, expressly pro- hibited ; so that in either case the country settled up without difficulty or doubt as to the character of its institutions. In no instance was this difficult and disturbing subject left to the people who had and who might settle in the territory, to be there an everlasting bone of contention, so long as the territorial government should continue. It was ever regarded, too, as a subject in which the whole country had an interest, and, therefore, im- proper for local legislation. And though, whenever the people of a ter- ritory come to form their own organic law, as an independent state, they would, either be- fore or after their admission as a state, form and mould their institutions, as a sovereign state, in their own way, yet it must be ex- pected, and has always proved true, that the state has taken the character her pupilage has prepared her for, as well in respect to slavery as in other respects. Hence, six of the thir- teen states are free states, because slavery was prohibited in them by Congress while territories, to wit: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Seven of the thirteen are slaveholding states, because slavery was allowed in them by Congress NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 379 while they were territories, to wit: Tennes- see, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri. On the 6th of March, a. d. 1820, was passed by Congress the act preparatory to the admis- sion of the state of Missouri into the Union. Much controversy and discussion arose on the question whether a prohibition of slavery within said state should be inserted, and it resulted in this : that said state should be ad- mitted without such prohibition, but that slavery should be for ever prohibited in the rest of that country ceded to us by France lying north of 30° 30 / north latitude, and it was so done. This contract is known as the Mis- souri compromise. Under this arrangement, Missouri was admitted as a slaveholding state, the same having been a slaveholding terri- tory. Arkansas, south of the line, was formed into a territory, and slavery allowed therein, and afterwards admitted as a slaveholding state. Iowa was made a territory, north of the line, and, under the operation of the law, was settled up without slaves, and admitted as a free state. The country now making the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, in 1820, was almost or entirely uninhabited, and lay north of said line, and whatever settlers en- tered the same before 1854 did so under that law, for ever forbidding slavery therein. In 1854, Congress passed an act establish- ing two new territories — Nebraska and Kan- sas — in this region of country, where slavery had been prohibited for more than thirty years ; and, instead of leaving said laws against slavery in operation, or prohibiting or expressly allowing or establishing slavery, Congress left the subject in said territories to be discussed, agitated, and legislated on, from time to time, and the elections in said terri- tories to be conducted with reference to that subject, from year to year, so long as they should remain territories ; for, whatever laws might be passed by the territorial legislatures on this subject, must be subject to change or repeal by those of the succeeding years. In most former territorial governments, it was provided by law that their laws were subject to the revision of Congress, so that they would be made with caution. In these terri- tories, that was omitted. The provision in relation to slavery in Ne- braska and Kansas, is as follows: "The eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union (which being inconsistent with the principle of non- intervention by Congress with slavery in the states and territories, as required by the legis- lation of 1850, commonly called the Compro- mise Measures) is hereby declared inoperative and void ; it being the true intent and mean- ing of this act, not to legislate slavery into said territory or state, nor to exclude it there- from, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic insti- tutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States : Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be con- strued to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of 6th March, 1820, either protect- ing, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery." Thus it was promulgated to the people of this whole country, that here was a clear field for competition — an open course for the race of rivalship; the goal of which was, the ulti- mate establishment of a' sovereign state ; and the prize, the reward of everlasting liberty and its institutions on the one hand, or the perpetuity of slavery and its concomitants on the other. It is the obvious duty of this government, while this law continues, to see this manifesto faithfully and honorably and honestly performed, even though its particular supporters may see cause of a result unfavor- able to their hopes. It is further to be observed, that in the per- formance of this novel experiment, it was pro- vided that all white men who became inhabit- ants in Kansas were entitled to vote, without regard to their time of residence, usually provided in other territories. Nor was this right of voting confined to American citizens, but included all such aliens as had declared, or would declare, on oath, their intention to become citizens. Thus was the proclamation to the world to become inhabitants of Kansas, and enlist in this great enterprise, by the force of numbers, by vote, to decide for it the great question. Was it to be expected that this great proclamation for the political tourna- ment would be listened to with indifference and apathy ? Was it prepared and presented in that spirit? Did it relate to a subject on which the people were cool or indifferent ? A large part of the people of this country look on domestic slavery as " only evil, and that continually," alike to master and to slave, and to the community ; to be left alone to the management or enjoyment of the people of the states where it exists, but not to be extended, more especially as it gives, or may give, poli- tical supremacy to a minority of the people of this country in the United States government. On the other hand, many of the people of another part of the United States regard sla- very, if not in the abstract a blessing, at least as now existing, a condition of society best for both white and black, while they exist toge- ther ; while others regard it as no evil, but as the highest state of social condition. These consider that they cannot, with safety to their interests, permit political ascendancy to be largely in the hands of those unfriendly to this peculiar institution. From these conflicting views, long and violent has been the contro- versy, and experience seems to show it inter- minable. Many, and probably a large majority of this nation, lovers of quiet, entertained the hope that, after 1850, the so-called compromise measures, even though not satisfactory to the free states, would be kept by their supporters, and made by them what they were professed to be, a finality on the subject of the extent 380 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. and limitations of slave territory ; more espe- ceeding, it was not to be expected that the cially, after the assurances contained in the inaugural address of President Pierce. This hope was fortified with the consideration that at that time Congress had, by different provi- sions, settled by law the condition of freedom or slavery for all the territory of the United States. These hopes have been disappointed, and, from this very provision for repose has been extracted a principle for disturbing the condition of things on which its foundation of finality rested — that is, the permanence and continuance of the then existing condition of legal provisions. The establishment of the territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico, without a prohibition of slavery, was sustained by many, on the ground that no such provision was required for its exclusion, as the condition of the country and its laws were a sufficient barrier ; and therefore they sustained them, because it would complete the series, and finish the provisions as to slavery in all our territory, and make an end of con- troversy on that subject ; yet, in 1854, it was insisted by the friends and supporters of the laws of 1850, and it is actually asserted in the law establishing the territorial government of Kansas, that the laws for New Mexico and Utah being of the compromise measures, adopt and contain a principle utterly at war with their great and professed object of finality ; and that, instead of completing and ending the provisions of Congressional action for the territories as to slavery, it really declared a principle which unsettled all those where sla- very had been prohibited, and rendered it proper, and only proper, to declare such pro- hibitions all " inoperative and void." The spirit and feeling which thus perverted those compromise laws, and made them the direct instrument of renewed disturbance, could not be expected then to leave the result to the decision of the people of Kansas with entire inactivity and indifference. The slaveholding states in 1820 secured the admission of Missouri as a slaveholding state, and all the region south of 36° 30 / , to the same purpose, by agreeing and enacting that all north of that line should be for ever free ; and by this they obtained only a sufficient number of votes from the free states, as counted with theirs, to adopt it. In 1850, they agreed that if New Mexico and Utah were made territories, without a prohibition of slavery, it would, with the laws already made for the rest of our territory, settle for ever the whole subject. This proposition, for such a termination, also secured votes from the free states, enough, with their own from the slaveholding states, to adopt it. In 1854, in utter disregard of these repeated contracts, both these arrangements were broken, and both these compromises disregarded, and all their provisions for freedom declared inopera- tive and void, by the vote of the slaveholding states, with a very few honorable exceptions, and a minority of the votes of the free states. After this extraordinary and inexcusable pro- people of the slaveholding states would take no active measures to secure a favorable result by votes in the territory of Kansas. Neither could it be expected that the people of the free states, who regarded the act of 1854 as a double breach of faith, would sit down and make no effort, by legal means, to correct it. It has been said that the repeal of this pro- vision of the Missouri compromise, and breach of the compromise of 1850, should not be re- garded as a measure of the slaveholding states, because it was presented by a senator from a free state. The actions or votes of one or more indivi- dual men cannot give character to or be re- garded as fixing a measure on their section or party. The only true or honest mode of de- termining whether any measure is that of any section or party is, to ascertain whether the majority of that section or party voted for it. Now, a large majority — indeed, the whole, with a few rare exceptions — of the representa- tives from the slaveholding states voted for that repeal. On the other hand, a majority of the representatives from the free states voted against it. This subject of slavery in the territories, which has violently agitated the country for many years, and which has been attempted to be settled twice by compromise, as before stated, does not remain settled. The Missouri compromise and the supposed finality by the acts of 1850 are scattered and dissolved by the vote of the slaveholding states ; and it is not to be disguised that this uncalled-for and dis- turbing measure has produced a spirit of re- sentment, from a feeling of its injustice, which, while the cause continues, will be difficult to allay. This subject, then, which Congress has been unable to settle in any such way as the slave states will sustain, is now turned over to those who have or shall become inhabitants of Kan- sas to arrange ; and all men are invited to participate in the experiment, regardless of their character, political or religious views, or place of nativity. Now, what is the right and the duty of the people of this country in relation to this mat- ter? Is it not the right of all who believe in the blessings of slaveholding, and regard it as the best condition of society, either to go to Kansas as inhabitants, and by their votes to help settle this good condition of that territory ; or, if they cannot so go and settle, is it not their duty, by all lawful means in their power, to promote this object by inducing others like- minded to go? This right becomes a duty to all who follow their convictions All whc regard an establishment of slavery in Kansas as best for that territory, or as necessary to their own safety by the political weight it gives in the national government, should use all lawful means to secure that result ; and, clearly, the inducing men to go there to be- come permanent inhabitants and voters, and to vote as often as the elections occur in favor NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 381 of the establishment of slavery, and thus con- trol the elections, and preserve it a slave state fur ever, is neither unlawful nt>r censurable. It is and would be highly praiseworthy and commendable, because it is using lawful means to carry forward honest convictions of public good. All lawfully associated effort to that end is equally commendable. Nor will the application of opprobrious epithets, and calling it propagandise, change its moral or legal character, from whatever quarter or source, official or otherwise, such epithets may come. Neither should they deter any man from peace- ably performing his duty by following his honest convictions. On the other hand, all those who have seen and realized the blessings of universal liberty, and believe that it can only be secured and promoted by the prohibition of domestic slavery, and that the elevation of honest in- dustry can never succeed where servitude makes labor degrading, should, as in duty bound, put forth all reasonable exertions to advance this great object by lawful means, whenever permitted by the laws of their coun- try. When, therefore, Kansas was presented, by law, as an open field for this experiment, and all were invited to enter, it became the right and duty of all such as desired, to go there as inhabitants for the purpose, by their numbers and by their votes, lawfully cast, from time to time, to carry or control, in a legal way, the elections there for this object. This could only be lawfully effected by permanent resi- dence, and continued and repeated effort, during the continuance of the territorial gov- ernment, and permanently remaining there to form and preserve a free state constitution. All those who entertained the same senti- ments, but were not disposed themselves to go, had the right and duty to use all lawful means to encourage and promote the object. If the purpose could be best effected by united efforts, by voluntary associations or corpora- tions, or by state assistance, as proposed in some southern states, it was all ecpially lawful and laudable. This was not the officious inter- meddling with the internal affairs of another nation, or state, or the territory of another pe >ple. The territory is the property of the nation, and is, professedly, open to the settle- ment and the institutions of every part of the United States. If lawful means, so extensive a> to be effectual, were used to people it with a majority of inhabitants opposed to slavery, is now considered as a violation of, or an op- position to, the law establishing the territory, then the declarations and provisions of that law were but a premeditated delusion, which not only allowed such measures, but actually invited them, by enacting that the largest aumber of the settlers should determine the condition of the country : thus inviting efforts for numbers. Such an invitation must have been expected to produce such efforts on both sides.. It now becomes necessary to inquire what has in fact taken place. If violence has taken place, as the natural, and perhaps unavoida- ble, consequence of the nature of the experi- ment, bringing into dangerous contact and collision inflammable elements, it was the vice of a mistaken law, and immediate measures should be taken by Congress to correct such law. If force and violence have been substi- tuted for peaceful measures there, legal pro- visions should be made and executed to correct all the wrong such violence has produced, and to prevent their recurrence, and thus secure a fair fulfilment of the experiment by peaceful means, as originally professed and presented in the law. A succinct statement of the exercise and progress of the material events in Kansas is this : After the passage of this law, establish- ing the territory of Kansas, a large body of settlers rapidly' entered into said territory, with a view to permanent inhabitancy therein. Most of these were from the free states of the West and North, who probably intended by their votes and influence to establish there a free state, agreeably to the law which invited them. Some part of those from the northern states had been encouraged and aided in this enterprise by the Emigrant Aid Society, formed in Massachusetts, which put forth some exertions in this laudable object by open and public measures, in providing facili- ties for transportation to all peaceable citizens who desired to become permanent settlers in said territory, and providing therein hotels, mills, &c, for the public accommodation of that new country. The Governor of Kansas having, in pursu- ance of law, divided the territory into districts, and procured a census thereof, issued his pro- clamation for the election of a Legislative As- sembly therein, to take place on the 30th day of March, 1855, and directed how the same should be conducted, and the returns made to him, agreeably to the law establishing said territory. On the day of election, large bodies of armed men from the state of Missouri ap- peared at the polls in most of the districts, and by most violent and tumultuous carriage and demeanor overawed the defenceless inhabit- ants, and by their own votes elected a large majority of the members of both Houses of said Assembly. On the returns of said elec- tion being made to the governor, protests and objections were made to him in relation to a part of said districts ; and as to them, he set aside such, and such only, as by the returns appeared to be bad. In relation to others, covering, in all, a majority of the two Houses, equally vicious in fact, but apparently good by formal returns, the inhabitants thereof, borne down by said violence and intimidation, scattered and discouraged, and laboring under apprehensions of personal violence, refrained and desisted from presenting any protest to the governor in relation thereto ; and he, then un- informed in relation thereto, issued certificates to the members who appeared by said formal returns to have been elected. 382 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. In relation to those districts which the go- vernor so set aside, orders were by him issued for new elections. In one of these districts, the same proceedings were repeated by men from Missouri, and in others not, and certifi- cates were issued to the persons elected. This Legislative Assembly, so elected, as- sembled at Pawnee, on the 2d day of July, 1855, that being the time and place for hold- ing said meeting, as fixed by the governor, by authority of law. On assembling, the said Houses proceeded to set aside and reject those members so elected on said second election, except in the district where the men from Missouri had, at said election, chosen the same persons they had elected at the said first elec- tion, and to admit all of the said first-elected members. A Legislative Assembly, so created by mili- tary force, by a foreign invasion, in violation of the organic law, was but a usurpation. No act of its own, no act or neglect of the govern- or, could legalize or sanctify it. Its own deci- sions as to its own legality are, like its laws, but the fruits of its own usurpation, which no governor could legitimate. They passed an act altering the place of the temporary seat of government to the Shawnee Mission, on the border, and in near proximity to Missouri. This act the governor regarded as a violation of the organic law establishing the territory, which fixed the temporary seat of government, and prohibited the Legislative Assembly from doing anything inconsistent with said act. He, therefore, and for that cause, vetoed said bill ; but said Assembly re- passed the same by a two-thirds majority, not- withstanding said veto, and removed to said Shawnee Mission. They then proceeded to pass laws, and the governor, in writing, de- clined further to recognise them as a legiti- mate Assembly, sitting at that place. They continued passing laws there, from the 16th day of July to the 31st day of August, 1855. On the 15th day of August last, the gover- nor of said territory was dismissed from ofiice, and the duties devolved upon the secretary of the territory; and how many of the laws passed with his official approbation does not appear, the laws as now presented being with- out date or authentication. As by the law of Congress organizing said territory, it was expressly provided that the people of the territory were to be " left per- fectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way," and among these institutions slavery is included, it was, of course, implied that that subject was to be open and free to public and private discussion, in all its bearings, rights, and relationships. Among these must, of course, be the question, Whatwas the stateof the existing laws, and the modifications that might be required on that subject? The law had declared that its "true intent and meaning was not to legislate slavery into the territory, or exclude it therefrom." This would, of course, leave to that people the inquiry, What, then, are the existing rights under the Constitution ? Can slaves be holden, in the absence of any law on the subject ? This question, about which so much difference of opinion exists, and which Congress and the courts have never settled, was thus turned over to the people there, to discuss and settle for themselves. This territorial legislature, so created b\ force from Missouri, utterly refused to permit discussion on the subject; but, assuming that slavery already existed there, and that neither Congress nor the people in the territory, under the authority of Congress, had or could pro- hibit it, passed a law which, if enforced, utterly prohibits all discussion of the cpiestion. The eleventh and twelfth sections of that act are as follows : — "Sec. 11. If any person print, write, intro- duce into, publish, or circulate, or cause to be brought into, printed, written, published, or circulated, or shall knowingly aid or assist in bringing into, printing, publishing, or circu- lating, within this territory, any book, paper, pamphlet, magazine, handbill, or circular, containing any statements, arguments, opi- nions, sentiments, doctrines, advice, or in- nuendo, calculated to promote a disorderly, dangerous, or rebellious disaffection among the slaves in this territory, or to induce such slaves to escape from the service of their masters, or to resist their authority, he shall be guilty of a felony, and be punished by im- prisonment and hard labor for a term not less than five years. " Sec. 12. If any free person, by speaking or by writing, assert or maintain that persons have not the right to hold slaves in this terri- tory, or shall introduce into this territory, print, publish, write, circulate, or cause to be introduced into this territory, written, printed, published, or circulated, in this territory, any book, paper, magazine, pamphlet, or circular, containing any denial of the right of persons to hold slaves in this territory, such person shall be deemed guilty of felony, and punished by imprisonment at hard labor for a term of not less than two years." And further pro- viding, that no person " conscientiously op- posed to holding slaves" shall sit as a juror in the trial of any cause founded on a breach of the foregoing law. They further provided, that all officers and attorneys should be sworn not only to support the Constitution of the United States, but also to support and sustain the organic law of the territory and the fugi- tive slave laws ; and that any person offering to vote shall be presumed to be entitled to vote until the contrary is shown ; and if any one, when required, shall refuse to take oath to sustain the fugitive slave laws, he shall not be permitted to vote. Although they passed a law that none but an inhabitant, who had paid a tax, should vote, yet they required no time of residence necessary, and provided for the immediate payment of a poll-tax ; so pro- viding, in effect, that on the eve of an election the people of a neighboring state could come in, in unlimited numbers, and, by taking up a NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 385 residence of a day or an hour, pay a poll-tax, and thus become legal voters, and then, after voting, return to their own state. They thus, in practical effect, provided for the people of Missouri to control elections at their pleasure, and permitted such only of the real inhabit- ants of the territory to vote as are friendly to the holding of slaves. They permitted no election of any of the officers in the territory to be made by the peo- ple thereof, but created the offices, and tilled them, or appointed officers to fill them, for long periods, and provided that the next an- nual election should be holden in October, 1856, and the Assembly to meet in January, 1857 ; so that none of these laws could be changed until the lower House might be changed, in 1856 ; but the Council, which is elected for two years, could not be changed, so as to allow a change of the laws or officers, until the session of 1858, however much the inhabitants of the territory might desire it. These laws, made by an Assembly created by a foreign force, are but a manifestation of the spirit of oppression which was the parent of the whole transaction. No excuse can be found for it in the pretence that the inhabit- ants had carried with them into said territory a quantity of Sharpe's rifles — first, because that, if true, formed no excuse; secondly, it is untrue, as their Sharpe's rifles were only ob- tained afterwards, and entirely for the pur- pose of self-defence, the necessity for which this invasion and other acts of violence and threats clearly demonstrated. These laws were obviously made to oppress and drive out all who were inclined to the exclusion of slavery ; and if they remained, to silence them on this subject, and subject them to the will and con- trol of the people of Missouri. These are the laws which, the President says, must be en- forced by the army and whole power of the nation. The people of Kansas, thus invaded, sub- dued, oppressed and insulted, seeing their ter- ritorial government (such only in form) per- verted into an engine to crush them in the dust, and to defeat and destroy the professed object of their organic law, by depriving them of the " perfect freedom" therein provided; and finding no ground to hope for rights in that organization, they proceeded, under the guarantee of the United States Constitution, "peaceably to assemble to petition the go- vernment for the redress of (their) griev- ances." They saw no earthly source of relief, but in the formation of a state government by the people, and the acceptance and ratifica- tion thereof by Congress. It is true that in several instances in our political history, the people of a territory have been authorized by an act of Congress to form a state constitution, and, after so doing, were admitted by Congress. It is quite obvious that no such authority could be given by the act of the territorial government. That clearly has no power to create another government, paramount to itself. It is equally true, that, in numerous instances in our history, the people of a territory have, without any pre- vious act of Congress, proceeded to call a con- vention of the people by their delegates ; have formed a state constitution, which has been adopted by the people, and a state legis- lature assembled under it, and chosen Sena- tors to Congress, and then have presented said constitution to Congress, which has approved the same, and received the Senators and mem- bers of Congress who were chosen under it before Congress had approved the same. Such was the case of Tennessee ; such was the case of Michigan, where the people not only formed a state constitution without an act of Con- gress, but they actually put their state govern- ment into full operation and passed laws, and it was approved by Congress by receiving it as a state. The people of Florida formed their constitution without any act of Congress therefor, six years before they were admitted into the Union. When the people of Arkan- sas were about forming a state constitution, without a previous act of Congress, in 1835, the territorial governor applied to the Presi- dent on the subject, who referred the matter to the Attorney-General, and his opinion, as then expressed and published, contained the following : — " It is not in the power of the General As- sembly of Arkansas to pass any law for the purpose of electing members to a convention to form a constitution and state government, nor to do any other act, directly or indirectly, to create such government. Every such law, even though it were approved by the governor of the territory, would be null and void ; if passed by them notwithstanding his veto, by a vote of two-thirds of each branch, it would still be equally void." He further decided that it was not rebellious or insurrectionary, or even unlawful, for the people peaceably "to proceed, even without an act of Congress, in forming a constitution, and that the so form- ing a state constitution, and so far organizing under the same as to choose the officers neces- sary for its representation in Congress, with a view to present the same to Congress for ad- mission, was a power which fell clearly within the right of the people to assemble and peti- tion for redress. The people of Arkansas proceeded without an act of Congress, and were received into the Union accordingly. If any rights were derived to the people of Arkansas from the terms of the French treaty of cession, they equally extended to the people of Kansas, it being a part of the same cession. In this view of the subject, in the first part of August, 1855, a call was published in the public papers for a meeting of the citizens of Kansas, irrespective of party, to meet at Law- rence, in said territory, on the 15th of said August, to take into consideration the pro- priety of calling a convention of the people of the whole territory to consider that subject. That meeting was 'held on the 15th day of August last, and it proceeded to call such con- 384 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. vention of delegates to be elected, and to assemble at Topeka,' in said territory, on the 19th day of September, 1855, not to form a (institution, but to consider the propriety of calling, formally, a convention for that pur- pose. The minority report then gives a detailed history of the movements which brought about the Topeka Convention, and says : — Delegates v>ev° elected, and they met at Topeka, on the fourth Tuesday in October, 1855, and formed a constitution, which was submitted to the people, and was ratified by them by vote in the districts. An election of state officers and members of the state legis- lature has been had, and a representative to Congress elected, and it is intended to pro- ceed to the election of senators, with the view to present the same, with the constitution, to Congress, for admission into the Union. Whatever views individuals may at times, or in meetings, have expressed, and whatever ultimate determination may have been enter- tained in the result of being spurned by Con- gress, and refused redress, is now entirely immaterial. That cannot condemn or give character to the proceedings thus far pursued. Many may have honestly believed usurp- ation could make no law, and that if Congress made no further provisions, they were well justified in forming a law for themselves ; but it is not now necessary to consider that mat- ter, as it is to be hoped that Congress will not leave them to such a necessity. Thus far, this effort of the people for redress is peaceful, constitutional, and right. Whether it will succeed, rests with Congress to deter- mine ; but clear it is that it should not be met and denounced as revolutionary, rebel- lious, insurrectionary, or unlawful, nor does it call for or justify the exercise of any force by any department of this government to check or control it. It now becomes proper to inquire what should be done by Congress ; for we are in- formed by the President, in substance, that he has no power to correct a usurpation, and that the laws, even though made by usurped authority, must be by him enforced and exe- cuted, even with military force. The measures of redress should be applied to the true cause of the difficulty. This obviously lies in the repeal of the clause for freedom in the act of 1820, and therefore the true remedy lies in the entire repeal of the act of 1854, which effected it. Let this be done with frankness and magnanimity, and Kansas be organized anew, as a free territory, and all will be put right. But if Congress insist on proceeding with the experiment, then declare all the action by this spurious foreign Legislative Assembly utterly inoperative and void, and direct a re- organization, providing proper safeguard for legal voting and against foreign force. There is, however, another way to put an end to all this trouble there, and in the nation, without retracing steps or continuing violence, or by force compelling obedience to tyrannical laws made by foreign force ; and that is, by admitting that territory as a state, with her free constitution. True, indeed, her numbers are not such as gives her a right to demand admission, being, as the President informs us, probably only about twenty-five thousand. The Constitution fixes no number as necessary, and the importance of now settling this ques- tion may well justify Congress in admitting this as a state, at this time, especially as we have good reason to believe, that if admitted as a state, and controversy ended, it will im- mediately fill up with a numerous and suc- cessful population. At any rate, it seems impossible to believe that Congress is to leave that people without redress, to have enforced upon them by the army of the nation these measures and laws of violence and oppression. Are they to be dragooned into submission ? Is that an ex- periment pleasant to execute on our own free people ? The true character of this transaction is matter of extensive notoriety. Its essential features are too obvious to allow of any suc- cessful disguise or palliation, however compli- cated or ingenious may be the statements, or however special the pleadings, for that pur- pose. The case requires some quieting, kind, and prudent treatment, by the hand of Con- gress, to do justice and satisfy the nation. The people of this country are peacefully re- lying on Congress to provide the competent measures of redress which they have the un- doubted power to administer. The Attorney-General, in the case of Ar- kansas, says: "Congress may at pleasure repeal or modify the laws passed by the territorial legislature, and may at any time abrogate and remodel the legislature itself, and all the other departments of the territo- rial government." Treating this grievance in Kansas with in- genious excuses, with neglect or contempt, or riding over the oppressed with an army, and dragooning them into submission, will make no satisfactory termination. Party success may at times be temporarily secured by adroit devices, plausible pretences, and partisan ad- dress ; but the permanent preservation of this Union can be maintained only by frankness and integrity. Justice may be denied where it ought to be granted ; power may perpetuate that vassalage which violence and usurpation have produced ; the subjugation of white free- men may be necessary, that African slavery may succeed ; but such a course must not be expected to produce peace and satisfaction in our country, so long as the people retain any proper sentiment of justice, liberty, and law. J. COLLAKER. On the 27th of February, 1856, Mr. Grow reported from the Committee on Territories, a bill to annul certain acts of the territorial legislature of Kansas. NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 3S5 The bill coming up on the 29th of July, Mr. Dunn moved his celebrated amendment, which is referred to under the head of " Dunn's Amendment," and where the reader will find the action of the House passing the bill and amendment. The title of the bill was then changed so as to make it An act to recognise the territory of Kansas and for other purposes. When the bill reached the Senate, it was referred to the Committee on Territories. A report was made from that committee by Mr. Douglas on the 11th of Aug., 185G. After discussing other portions of the bill, the report goes on to consider the 24th section of Mr. Dunn's celebrated amendment, of which it says : — In the opinion of your committee there are various grave and serious objections to this section of the bill. In the first place it ex- pressly repudiates and condemns the great fundamental principles of self-government and state equality which it was the paramount object of the Kansas-Nebraska act to main- tain and perpetuate, as affirmed in the follow- ing provision : " It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof per- fectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Not content with repealing this wise and j ust provision, and condemning the sound con- stitutional principles asserted in it, the bill proceeds to legalize and establish, for a lim- ited time, hereditary slavery, not only in the territory of Kansas (where there is no other 1 ocal or affirmative law protecting it than the enactments of the Kansas territorial legisla- ture, which have been alleged to be illegal and v>id, and which the House of Representatives, by amendments to the appropriation bills, have instructed the President not to enforce), hut also in all that part of New Mexico which it is proposed to incorporate in the territory of Kansas, and where slavery was prohibited by the Mexican law, and it is not pretended that there is any territorial enactment recogni- sing or establishing it. Having thus asserted and exercised the power of introducing and establishing slavery in the territories by act of Congress, and declaring children hereafter born therein to be slaves for life and their pos- terity after them, provided they shall be re- moved therefrom within a specified period, the bill proceeds to affirm and exercise the power of prohibiting slavery in the same territories for ever from and after January 1, 1858, by enacting and putting in force the following provision, being the 8th section of the act passed March 6, 1820, to wit :— " Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, not included 25 within the limits of the state contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the parties shall have been duly con- victed, shall be, and is hereby, for ever pro- hibited : Provided always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any state or ter- ritory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the per- son claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid." It will be observed that this 8th section of the Missouri act (commonly called the Mis- souri Compromise) by its terms only applied to the territory acquired from France, known as the Louisiana purchase, the western boun- dary of which was defined by the treaty with Spain in 1819, and subsequently by treaties with Mexico and Texas, to be the 100th meri- dian of longitude, while the bill under con- sideration, under the guise of reviving and restoring that provision, extends it more than seven degrees of longitude further westward, and applies it to that large extent of territory to which it had no application in its original en- actment. Nor can it be said with fairness or truth that this provision was. applied to any portion of the territory in question by the "joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States," for the reason that the whole territory embraced within the limits of the republic of Texas was admitted into the Union as one state, with the privilege of forming not exceeding four other states out of the state of Texas, " by the consent of said state," with the condition that " in such state or states as should be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited." It was left discretionary with Texas to re- main for ever one state, and to retain the whole of her territory as slave territory, or to con- sent to a division, in which case the prohibi- tion would take effect, by virtue of the com- pact, from the date of the formation of a new state within the limits of the republic of Texas north of 36° 30'. If, on the contrary, Texas should determine to withhold her assent, no such new state could ever be formed, and hence the prohibition would never take effect. All difficulty, however, on this point, has been removed by the act of 1850, purchasing from Texas all that portion of her territory lying north of 36° 30', and incorporating it in the territory of New Mexico, with the guarantee that " when admitted as a state, the said ter- ritory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of admission." Hence all that ter- ritory, to which it is now proposed to apply the Missouri restriction for the first time, under the plea of restoring the Missouri com- promise of the 6th of March, 1820, is protected from any such invasion of the rights of the inhabitants to form and regulate their own. 386 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. domestic affairs in their own way, by the sol- emn guarantees contained in the compromise measures of 1850, which blotted out the geo- graphical line as a dividing line between free territory and slave territory, and substituted for it the cardinal principle of self-government, in accordance with the Constitution. But it will also be observed that the bill under consideration does not propose to limit the restriction to the territory acquired from Texas, nor the country on the east side of the Ilio Grande, but extend it across that river over a portion of the territory acquired from Mexico, which was never claimed by Texas nor embraced within the Louisiana purchase, and to which there is no pretext for asserting that the Missouri compromise ever applied. If, in the application of the 8th section of the act of the 6th of March, 1820 (commonly called the Missouri compromise), over so large a district of country to which it never had any previous application, it be the policy of the House of Representatives to return to the ■• obsolete idea" of a geographical line as a dividing line in all time to come between slave territory and free territory, a perpetual bar- rier against the advancement of slavery on the one hand and free institutions on the other, the measure falls short of accomplishing the whole of their object in not extending the line to the Pacific Ocean. Your committee can perceive many weighty considerations founded in policy, although wanting the sanc- tion of sound constitutional principles, which might be urged in favor of such a measure, inasmuch as the barrier once erected from ocean to ocean — permitting slavery on the one side and prohibiting it on the other — if uni- versally acquiesced in and religiously observed as a patriotic offering upon the altar of our common country, would put an end to the controversy for ever, and form a bond of peace and brotherhood in the future. But, unfor- tunately, when this expedient was proposed by the Senate in 1848, it was indignantly re- pudiated by the House of Representatives, and as a consequence the whole country was plunged into a whirlpool of sectional strife and angry crimination, which alarmed the greatest and purest patriots of the land for the safety of the republic, and was only res- cued from the impending perils by the adop- tion of the compromise measures of 1850, which abandoned the policy of a geographical line, and substituted for it the great princi- ples of self-government and state equality, in obedience to the Federal Constitution. In view of the history of the past, your commit- tee can perceive no safety in the future except in a strict and religious fidelity to the true principles of the Constitution as embodied in the adjustment of that unfortunate contro- versy, and adopted by the whole country as rules of action to be applied in all future time, when in the progress of events it should be necessary to organize territories or admit new states. The Kansas-Nebraska act was the logical sequence of the compromise measures of 1850, and rendered imperatively necessary in order to establish and perpetuate the prin- ciples of self-government and state equality in the organization of territories and admis- sion of new states. For these reasons your committee cannot concur with the House of Representatives in the proposition to blot out from the organic act of Kansas and Nebraska those essential provisions and cardinal princi- ples, the faithful observance of which can alone preserve the just rights of the inhabi- tants of the territories and maintain the peace, unity, and fraternity of the republic. The great object is to withdraw the slavery ques- tion from the halls of Congress and remand its decision to the people of the several states and territories, subject to no other conditions or restrictions than those imposed by the Constitution of the United States. Those pro visions of the bill under consideration which introduce and establish slavery, together with those which abolish and prohibit it, are alike obnoxious on the score of principle, inasmuch as they assert and exercise the right of Con- gress to form and regulate the local affairs and domestic institutions of a distant and dis- tinct people without their consent and regard- less of their rights and wishes. To avoid all misconstruction, however, upon this point, your committee deem it proper to remark that their objections do not apply to that part of the bill which extends the provisions of the fugitive slave law to the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and provides " that any per- son lawfully held to service in any other state or territory, and escaping into either the ter- ritory of Kansas or Nebraska, may be re- claimed and removed to the person or place where such service is. due, under any law of the United States which shall be in force upon the subject." In this clause your com- mittee are rejoiced to find a frank and con- scientious acknowledgment of the duty of Congress to provide efficient laws for carrying into faithful execution the provision of the Constitution of the United States which pro- vides for the rendition of fugitive slaves as well as all other obligations imposed by that instrument. The preservation of our free institutions de- pends upon a faithful observance of the Con- stitution in all its parts ; and the assurance thus furnished that the representatives of the people are ever ready to provide new and addi- tional guarantees when supposed to be neces- sary for the faithful performance of that constitutional obligation, which has been the subject of the severest criticism in some por- tions of the country, cannot fail to gratify every true friend of the Union. In this case, however, no such legislation is necessary, in- asmuch as the organic act of Kansas and Ne- braska extended the provisions of the fugitive slave law to both of those territories. In alluding to the 15th and 16th sections of the bill it says : — It will be observed that these two sections recognise the validity and binding force of the NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 387 entire code of laws enacted at the Shawnee is, by its terms, confined in its application to such crimes as shall be committed "within any fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or any other Mission, by the legislature of Kansas terri- tory, and provide for the faithful execution of all "those enactments except the criminal code. All justices of the peace, constables, sheriffs, and all other judicial and ministerial officers, now in office, are required to continue to exer- cise and perform the duties of their respective offices. All these officers, with the exception of the governor, three judges, secretary, and marshal, and district-attorney, were elected or appointed under the laws enacted by the legislature of Kansas, while their powers, functions, and duties, are all prescribed by those laws and none others. These officers are all required to continue to perform the duties of their respective offices, by observing and enforcing all the laws enacted at the Shawnee Mission, except the criminal code. " All suits, process, and proceedings, civil and criminal, at law and in chancery, and all in- dictments and informations which shall be pending and undetermined in the courts of the territory of Kansas or New Mexico, when this act shall take effect, shall remain in said courts where pending, to be heard, tried, pro- secuted, and determined, in such courts, as though this act had not been passed." The election laws, and the laws concerning slaves and slavery, and all laws protecting the rights of persons and property, and affecting all the relations of life, are recognised as valid and required to be enforced, excepting criminal prosecutions, by information or indictment, for violating or disregarding the laws of the legislature of Kansas. All such prosecutions are required to be forthwith dismissed, and the prisoners set at liberty, and no new pro- secutions are to be commenced for " any viola- tion or disregard of said legislative enactments at any time." Such is the legislation provided for in these two sections of the bill. They recognise the validity of the laws enacted at Shawnee Mission, and provide for the enforce- ment of all of them except in cases of criminal prosecution. Your committee are unable to perceive how the passage of such a bill would restore peace, quiet, and security to the people of Kansas. It has been alleged that there are in that territory organized bands of lawless and desperate men, who are in the constant habit of perpetrating deeds of violence — mur- dering and plundering the inhabitants, steal- ing their property, burning their, houses, and driving peaceable citizens from the polls on election day, and even from the territory. The remedy proposed in the bill is to grant to the perpetrators of these crimes a general amnesty for the past, and a full license in the future to continue their bloody work. There is no law in force in Kansas by which murder, robbery, larceny, arson, and other crimes known to the criminal codes of all civilized states, can be punished, except under tiie code enacted by the legislature of Kansas at the Shawnee Mission. The provisions of " An act for the punishment of crimes against the United States," approved April 30, 1790, place or district of country under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States,'* and " upon the high seas and navigable waters out of the jurisdiction of any particular state," but has never been held or construed to apply to the territories of the United States. The act of the 3d of March, 1817, "to provide for the punishment of crimes and offences commit- ted within the Indian boundaries," extends the provisions of the said act of 1790 to the Indian country, but expressly restricts its application, as its title imports, to crimes committed "with- in any town, district, or territory belonging to any nation or nations, tribe or tribes^ of In- dians." Hence, the moment the Indian title is extinguished, and the country placed under the jurisdiction of a territorial government, it ceases to be " under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States," and is no longer subject to the provisions of either of the above cited acts. Thus it will be seen that if the bill from the House of Representatives should become a law with the provisions grant- ing a general amnesty in respect to all past crimes, and unlimited license in the future to perpetrate such outrages as their own bad pas- sions might instigate, there would be no law in force in Kansas to punish the guilty or pro- tect the innocent. Inasmuch as the House of Representatives, by the passage of the bill under consideration, and the Senate, by its bill for the admission of Kansas into the Union, have each recognised the validity of the laws enacted by the Kansas legislature at Shawnee Mission, so far as they are consistent with the Constitution and the organic act, and affirmed the propriety and duty of enforcing the same, except in certain specified cases, it becomes important to inquire into the extent of the differences of opinion between the House of Representatives and the Senate, in respect to the particular laws which ought not to be enforced. The Senate has already declared, in the bill for the admission of Kansas into the Union, that all laws and enactments in said territory which are repug- nant to, or in conflict with, the great principles of liberty and justice, as guarantied by the Con- stitution of the United States and the organic act, and embodied in the 18th section of that bill, shall be null and void, and that none such shall ever be enforced or executed in said ter- ritory. By the 18th section of the bill, which has twice passed the Senate, and now remains on the Speaker's table of the House of Representa- tives unacted upon, and only awaits the favora- ble action of the House to enable it to become a law with the President's approval, all the ob- noxious laws, which have been the subject of so much censure and complaint, are swept out of existence, leaving none in force in said terri- tory except such as are usual, proper, and necessary in all civilized communities for the protection of life, liberty, and property. Your 3S8 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. committee have not yet relinquished the hope that the House of Representatives will concur with the Senate in the passage of that bill, and thus restore peace and security to the people of Kansas, by declaring all those obnoxious laws null and void, and providing for the faith- ful enforcement of the Kansas code, the validi- ty of which has thus been frankly and solemn- ly acknowledged by the votes and action of each House of Congress. The two Houses of Congress having, by their action, each arrived at the conclusion that the Kansas code is valid, and that the obnoxious laws referred to ought to be declared inoperative and void, as being repugnant to the principles of liberty and jus- tice intended to be secured by the Constitution of the United States and the Kansas-Nebraska act, it would seem, that the most serious and material point of difference between the two Houses which remains to be adjusted, is whether that part of the Kansas code which provides for the punishment of murder, rob- bery, larceny, and other criminal offences shall be enforced, or, whether all persons guilty of those offences shall be turned loose to prey upon the community with legalized impunity. It is true that there is, apparently, another point of difference between the two Houses, arising out of the question whether the people of Kansas shall be authorized to elect delegates to a convention (with proper and satisfactory safe-guards against fraud, violence, and illegal voting) and form a constitution and state government preparatory to their admission into the Union, or whether the territory shall be reorganized in accordance with the provisions of the bill from the House and left, for some years to come, in that condition. While the House of Representatives has recently ex- pressed its preference for the latter proposition, by the passage of the bill under consideration, your committee are not permitted to assume that they have insuperable objections to the admission of Kansas at this time, for the rea- son that a few weeks previous they passed a bill to admit that territory as a state, with the Topeka constitution. Hence the change of policy on the part of the House, in abandon- ing the state movement with the Topeka con- stitution, and substituting for it the proposition to reorganize the territory and leave it in that condition, must be taken only as a strong ex- pression of a decided preference on the part of the House for the bill under consideration, and not conclusive evidence of insuperable objec- tions to a fair bill, with proper and suitable guarantees against fraud and illegal voting, to authorize the people of Kansas to form a con- stitution and state government at this time. While the Senate bill, now pending before the House, is fair and impartial in all its pro- visions, with ample and satisfactory safe- guards against illegal and fraudulent voting, the bill from the House to reorganize the ter- ritory contains no such provisions and affords no such assurances. It leaves the qualifica- tions of the voters at the first election the eatne as they were under the Kansas-Nebraska act, with this difference, that it denies the privilege of voting and holding office to all men of foreign birth who shall have declared on oath their intention to become citizens, and who shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, but whe shall have failed from any cause to have com pleted their naturalization. The provision is, " that any white male inhabitant, being q citizen of the United States, above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resi- dent of said territory at the time of the passage of this act, shall be entitled to vote at the first election." No penalties or punishments are provided for illegal voting ; none for fraud in conducting the elections ; none for violence at the polls ; and none for destroying the ballot- boxes. All these things may be done with impunity ; for, while the election must be held in pursuance of the existing laws of the territory, which are recognised as being in force, the bill expressly provides that no crim- inal prosecution shall hereafter be instituted in any of the courts of the United States or of said territory for any violation or disregard of said legislative enactment at any time. Under this bill any number of persons from Missouri or Iowa, from South Carolina or Massachu- setts, or from any other part of the world, may enter the territory on election day and take possession of the polls, and vote as many times as they choose, and drive every legal voter from the polls with entire impunity ; for the bill declares that no criminal prosecutions shall ever be instituted in the courts of the United States or of said territory for violating or disregarding the only law which provides penalties and punishments for such outrages in the territory of Kansas. No measure can restore peace to Kansas which does not effectually protect the ballot- box against fraud and violence, and impart equal and exact justice to all the inhabitants. Under existing circumstances, your commit- tee are unable to devise any measure which will more certainly accomplish these desirable objects than the bill which has twice passed the Senate, and now only awaits the concur- rence of the House of Representatives, with the approval of the President, to become the law of the land. For these reasons your committee recom- mend that the bill from the House* of Repre- sentatives be laid on the table, as a test vote on its rejection, inasmuch as the objections apply to all the leading features and material provisions of the bill, and render it incapable of amendment without prepai'ing an entire new bill. The bill was laid on the table, with the dis- tinct understanding that it should be deemed a test vote on the rejection of the bill. The vote was as follows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Adams, Allen, Bell of Tenn., Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Brodhead, Brmon, Butler, Cass, Clay, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatriclc, Geyer, Houston, Hunter, Iver- son, Jr to recognise and regulate it therein. Mr. Benjamin moved an amendment to the amendment, "subject only to the Constitution •f the United States," which was adopted. The amendment as amended was rejected, yeas 11, nays 34. The nays were as fol- lows : — Messrs, Adams, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, BrigM, Brodliead, Brown, Cass, Clay, Crittenden, Dodge, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Gayer, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson. Jowes of la., Mollory, Mason, Pratt, Pugh, Reid, Sebastian, Shdell, Stuart, Thompson of Ky., Toombs, Toutxy, Welter, YY right, Yulee. Mr. Trumbull introduced an amendment nullifying all the laws of the territorial legis- lature of Kansas, and prohibiting any persons from holding office under the authority thereof. Kejected, yeas 11, nays 36. Yeas— Messrs. Bell of New Hampshire, Collamer, Durkee, Eessenden, Foot, foster, Ilale, Seward, Trumbull, Wade, aud Wilson. Nays the same as negative vote in last amendment, with the addition of Messrs. Allen and Bell of Tenn. Mr. Clayton introduced an amendment to the effect that no law shall be in force in said territory tending to interfere with the principle of the organic act, which leaves the people free to regulate their own domestic institutions^ or which prohibits them from a free discussion of their institutions and interests, or whereby for affirming or denying the existence of, or propriety of, prohibiting or admitting slavery in the said territory, be visited or threatened with any penalty or punishment. Prohibiting a test oath from being required from any officer ; insuring trial by jury, as at common law, and • nullification of jurors according thereto ; pro- hibiting the pre-payment of a tax as a qualifi- cation for a juror; preventing Indians not recognised by treaty from voting, and prevent- ing prosecutions for treason, unless it be for levying war against the United States,_orof adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Carried, yeas 40, nays 3. The negative vote being Messrs. Brown, Fitzpatrick, and Mason. Mr. Collamer moved an amendment, That, Until the people of the said territory shall form a ^ate government, slavery therein, except for crime, shall be prohibited. Provided always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any state, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her service or labor as afore- said. Yeas 10, nays 35. The affirmative vote is as follows : Messrs. Bell. Collamer, Fcssonden, Toot, Foster, Hale, Seward, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson. Several other amendments were offered, when the bill was passed by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Allen. Bayard. Beli of Tenn., Benjamin Biggs, Bigkr, Bright, Brndhead, Brown, diss. Cfay.CaiXTBK den Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick. Geyer, Hunter, Tverson, Johnson, Jones of la., MaUory. I 'rati. I'ugh, Reid, Sebastian, SlideU. Stuart, Thompson of Ky., Toombs, Toucey, Welter, Wright, Yulee. „ , ' , Nays.- Messrs. Ml of N. II., Collamer. Dodge, Durkee, Pessenden, Foot. Foster, Hale, Seward, Trumbull, Wade, Wilson. The only action ever taken upon this bill in the House, except to print it, may _ be seen from the following proceedings therein on the 28th of July, 1856. ADMISSION OF KANSAS. Mr. Dunn. I ask, now, the indulgence of the House, to take up from the Speaker's table Senate bill No. 356, entitled an "Act to authorize the people of the territory of Kansas to form a constitution and state government, preparatory to their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original states." I ask to have it taken up for the purpose of considering the question at this time ; and I will state to gentlemen, that if the rules be suspended, or if no objection be made (as I trust there will not be), I will at once propose to strike out the Senate bill after the enacting clause, and insert an amendment of which I gave notice some days ago, and which has been printed and laid on the table of members. Mr. Matteson objected. Mr. Dunn. I move that the rules be sus- pended, so that the bill may be taken up and considered at this time, for the purpose I have named ; and on that motion I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken ; and there were — yeas 102, nays 73 ; as follows : — Yeas— Messrs. Aiken, Allison, Ball. Barksdale, Bell, Hen- ry Bennet, HendUy S Bennett, Billinghurst, Bishop, Branch, Burnett, Lewis D. Campbell. Carutlurs, Oaskie, Howell Cobb, Williamson R. W. Cobb, Cox, Craige, Crawford, Cullf.n, Davidson, Henrt Winter Davis, Day, Dunn, Edmundson, Edwards, Elliott. English, Eustis, Florence, Foster, Thomas J D Fuller, Biddings, Goode, Greenwood. J. Morrison Har- ris Sampson W. Harris, Thomas L. Harris. Harrison, Ha- ven Hoffman, Valentine B. Horton, Houston. Jewett, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Kidwcll. Lumpkin, Humphrey Marshall. Samuel S. Marshall. Maxwell, McMullin. Mea- cham Killian Miller. Smith Miller. Million, Moore, Morrill, Mott, Nichols, Peck. Phelps, Porter, Powell, Pringle, Pcr- year, Quitman, Reade, Beady, Rioaud, Ritchie, RIVERS, Rum. Sabin. Sage, Savage, Scott. Seward, Sherman, Samuel A Smith, Wm. Smith, William B. Smith, Snei.d, Stanton, Stephens, Stewart, Stramihan, SwOPE, Talbott, Thormgton, Trippe Tyson. Underwood, rail. Vu.k. Warner, Wotkins, Williams, Winslow, Daniel B. Wright. John V. Wright, Zol- LICOFFER. — 102. Nays.— Messrs. Barbour. Benson. Bishop, Bingham. Bliss, Bowie, Bradshaw, Brenton, Broom. Buffinton, Burlingarue, Carlile, Chaffee, Clawsou, Colfax, Coinins, Covode, Cragin, Cuniback, Damrell. Dickson, Dodd. Dnrfee, Einne, Flagler, Galloway, Gilbert, Granger. Grow. Bobert B. Hall, Harlan, Hollowa'y, Thomns B. Horton, Hughston, Kelsey, King, Kuapp, Knight. Kuowltou, Knox. Lake, Leiter, Matteson, McCarty, Morgan. Norton, Andrew Oliver. Parker, Berry, Pettit, Pike, Purviance, Bobbins. Sapp, Shorter. Simmons. Spinner, Tappan, Thurston, Todd. Trafton, Wade. Walr bridge, Waldron. Cndwalader C. Wasbburne, Elihu B. W ash- burne, Israel Washburne, Watson, Welch, Wells, Whitney. Wood, Woodruff, Woodworth.— 73. 392 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. On the 19th of March, 1856, a resolution being before the House to empower the Com- mittee on Elections to send for persons and papers in the Kansas Contested Election case, Mr. Dunn of Indiana moved an amendment, which was adopted, providing for a commit- tee of three members of the House to proceed to Kansas, and make a thorough investigation of all matters connected therewith, and report all the evidence collected to the House. On the 24th of March, 1856, the Speaker appointed the following gentlemen the com- mittee : — Messrs. Lewis D. Campbell of Ohio, William A. Howard of Mich., and Mordecai Oliver of Missouri. Mr. Campbell afterwards declined, and Mr. John Sherman of Ohio was appointed in his stead. The committee proceeded to Kansas and made their investigations, and returned with the testimony, which, with their report, was submitted to the House ; that of the majority of the committee, Messrs. Howard and Sher- man, on the 2d of July, and that of the mino- rity, Mr. Oliver, on the 11th of July, 1856, and referred to the Committee on Elections. It would be a senseless waste of space to attempt either to condense the reports or the testimony into a form admissible into this work. Nothing short of the entire story would satisfy, and that would occupy a volume twice the size of this. The details are so unsatis- factory and so contradictory, that, even if it was possible to embrace them herein, they would confuse rather than enlighten. The majority report reached the following conclusions : — First. That each election in the territory, held under the organic or alleged territorial law, has been carried by organized invasion from the state of Missouri, by which the people of the territory have been prevented from ex- ercising the rights secured to them by the organic law. Second. That the alleged territorial legisla- ture was an illegally constituted body, and had no power to pass valid laws, and their enactments are therefore null and void. Third. That these alleged laws have not, as a general thing, beon to used to protect persons punish wrong, but for and property, and unlawful purposes. Fourth. That the election under which the sitting delegate, John W. Whitfield, holds his seat, was not held in pursuance of any valid law, and that it should be regarded only as the expression of the choice of those resident citizens who voted for him. Fifth. That the election, under which the contesting delegate, Andrew II. Reeder, claims his seat, was not held in pursuance of law, and that it should be regarded only as the expression of the resident citizens who voted for him. Sixth. That Andrew II. Reeder received a greater number of votes of resident citizens than John W. Whitfield, for delegate. Seventh. That in the present condition of the territory a fair election cannot be held without a "new census, a stringent and well- guarded election law, the selection of impar- tial judges, and the presence of United States troops at every place of election. Eighth. That the various elections held by the people of the territory, preliminary to the formation of the state government, have been as regular as the disturbed condition of the territory would allow ; and that the constitu- tion passed by the convention held in pursu- ance of said elections, embodies a will of a ma- jority of the people. The minority report concluded as follows: — First. That at the first election held in the territory under the organic act, for delegate to Congress, General John W. Whitfield re- ceived a plurality of the legal votes cast, and was duly elected such delegate, as stated in the majority report. Second. That the territorial legislature was a legally constituted body, and had power to pass valid laws, and their enactments are therefore valid. Third. That these laws, when appealed to, have been used for the protection of life, liberty, and property, and for the maintenance of law and order in the territory. Fourth. That the election under which the sitting delegate, John W. Whitfield, was held, was in pursuance of valid law, and should be regarded as a valid election. Fifth. That as said Whitfield, at said elec- tion, received a large number of legal votes without opposition, he was duly elected as a delegate to this body, and is entitled to a seat on this floor as such. Sixth. That the election under which the contesting delegate, Andrew II. Reeder, claims his seat, was not held under any law, but in contemptuous disregard of all law ; and that it should only be regarded as the expression of a band of malcontents and revolutionists and consequently should be wholly disregard- ed by the House. Seventh. As to whether or not Andrew II. Reeder received a greater number of votes of resident citizens on the 9th, than J. W. Whit- field did on the 1st of October, 1855, no testi- mony was taken by the committee, so far as the undersigned knows, nor is it material to the issue. On the 24th of July, 1856, Mr. Washburne presented a majority, and Mr. Stephens of Georgia, a minority, report from the Commit- tee on Elections on the Kansas Contested Election case. Mr. Washburne concluded with the following resolutions : — Resolved, That John W. Whitfield is not en- titled to a seat in the House as a delegate from the territory of Kansas. Resolved, That Andrew II. Reeder be ad- mitted to a seat on this floor as a from the territory of Kansas. The resolutions were brought to a vote in the House on the 1st of August, 1856. The first resolution, declaring Mr. Whitfield delegate NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 393 not to be entitled to a seat, was carried by yeas ' and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Albright, Allison, Ball, Barbour, Barclay, Henry Bennett, Benson, Billinghurst, Bliss, Bradshaw, Brenton, Broom, Buflinton. James II. Campbell, Lewis D. Campbell, Chaffee, Ezra Clark, Clawsou. Colfax, Comins, Covode, Cragin. Cumback, Damrell, Day, Dean, Dick, Dodd, Dunn, Durfee, Edie, Edwards, Emrie, Flagler, Henry M. Fuller. Galloway, Giddings, Gilbert, Granger, Grow, Robert B. Hall, Harlan, Harrison, Haven, Hickman, Holloway, Thomas R. Horton, Valentine B. Horton, Hughston, Kelsey, King, Knapp, Knight, Knowlton. Knox, Kunkel, Letter, Mace, Matteson, McCarty, Killian Miller, Moore, Morgan, Morrill, Mott, Nichols, Norton, Andrew Oliver, Packer, Parker, Pelton, Pennington, Perry, Pettit, Pike, Pringle, Purviance, Ritchie, Bobbins, Roberts, Sabin, Sage, Sapp, Scott, Sherman, Simmons, Spinner. Stranahan, Tappan, Tboringtou, Thurston, Todd, Trafton, Tyson, Valk, Wade, Wakeman, Walbridge, Waldron, Cadwalader C. Washburne, Elihu B. Washburne, Israel Washburne. Watson, Welch, Wells, Wiiitney, Williams, Wood, Woodruff, Woodworth.— 110. Nats.— Messrs. Aiken, Bark sdale, Bell, Hendley S. Bennett, Bocock, Bowie, Boyce, Branch, Burnett. Cadwalader, John P. Campbell. Carlile, Caruthers, Caskie, Howell Cobb, William- son R. W. Cobb, Cox, Craige, Crawford, Cullen, Davidson, Henry Winter Davis, Denver, Dowdell, Edmundson, English, Eustis, Evans, Faulkner, Florence, Foster, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Qoode, Greenwood. J. Morrison Harris, Sampson W. Harris, Thomas L. Harris, Herbert, Hoffman, Houston, George W. Jones, Rennet, Kidwell, Lake, Letcher, Lindley, Lumpkin, Alexander K. Marshall, Humphrey Marshall, Samuel S. Marshall, Maxwell, McMuUin, Smith Miller, Mill- son, Mordecai Oliver, Orr, Peck, Phelps, Porter, Powell, Puryear, Quitman, Reade. Ready, Ricaud, Richardson, Rivers. Puffin. Bust, Sandidge, Savage, Seward, Shorter, Samuel A. Smith, William Smith, William R. Smith, Sneed, Stephens. Stewart, Swope, Talbott, Taylor, Trippe. Under- wood, Vail, WaUer, Warner, Watkins, Winslow, Daniel B. Wright, John V. Wright, Zollicoffer.— 92. The second resolution, declaring Mr. Reeder to be entitled to a seat, was rejected by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas — Messrs. Albright, Allison. Barbour. Barclay, Henry Beunett, Benson, Billinghurst, Bliss. Bradshaw. Brenton, Buflinton, James II. Campbell, Chaffee, Ezra Clark, Claw- son, Colfax. Comins, Covode, Cragin, Cumback, Damrell, Day, Dean, Dick, Dickson, Dodd, Durfee, Edie, Emrie, Flagler, Galloway, Giddings, Gilbert, Grow, Robert B. Hall, Harlan, Holloway, Thomas It. Horton, Hughston, Kelsey, Knapp, Knight, Knowlton, Knox, Kunkel, Leiter, Mace, Matteson, McCarty. Killian Miller, Morgan, Morrill, Mott, Nichols, Norton, Andrew Oliver, Parker. Pelton, Perry, Pettit, Pike, Pringle, Purviance, Bobbins, Roberts, Sabin, Sage, Sapp, Sherman, Spinner, Stranahan, Tappau, Thorington, Thurs- ton, Todd, Trafton, Wade, Wakeman, Walbridge, Waldron, Cadwalader C. Washburne, Elihu B. Washburne, Israel Washburne, Watson, Welch, Wood, Woodruff, Woodworth. —88. Nays.— Messrs. Aiken, Ball, BarksdaU, Bell, Hendley S. Bennett, Bocock, Bowie, Boyce, Branch, Broom, Burnett, Cad- walader, John P. Campbell, Lewis D. Campbell, Carlile, Caruthers, Caskie, Howell Cobb, Williamson R. W. Cobb, Cox. Craige, Crawford, Cullen, Davidson, Henry Winter Davis, Denver, Dowdell, Dunn, Edmundson, Edwards, Eng- lish, Eustis, Evans, Faulkner, Florence, Foster, Henry M. Fuller, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Goode, Greenwood. J. Morrison Harris, Sampson W. Harris, Thomas L. Harris, Harrison, Haven, Herbert, Hickman, Hoffman, Valentine B. Horton, Houston. George W. Jones, Kennett, Kidwell, King, Lake, Letclier. Lindley. Lumpkin, Alexander K. Marshall, Hum- phrey Marshall, Samuel S. Marshall, Maxwell, McMullen, Smith Miller, Millson, Moore, Mordecai Oliver, Orr, Peck, Pennington, Phelps, Porter, Powell. Puryear, Quitman, Reade, Ready, Ricaud, Richardson, Ritchie, Rivers, Ruffin, Rust, Sandidge, Savage, Scott, Seward, Shorter, Simmons, Simuel A. Smith, William Smith. William R. Smith, Sneed, Stephens. Steioart. Swope, Talbott, Taylor, Trippe, Tyson, Underwood. Vail, Valk. Walker, Warner, Watkins, Wells, Whitney, Williams, Winslow, Daniel B. Wright, John V. Wright, ZOLLICOFFER. — 113. On the 6th of August, 1854, the Legisla- tive, Executive, and Judicial Appropriation Bill being before the House, the following votes were had relative to the judiciary of Kansas. The House proceeded to consider the fol- lowing amendment, as a proviso to the ap- propriations for Kansas, on which a separate vote had been asked : — Provided, That the money hereby appro- priated shall not be drawn from the treasury, or any part thereof, and the same, or any part thereof, shall not be paid out of any other appropriation made by Congress, until all criminal prosecutions now pending in any court of the territory of Kansas against any person or persons charged with treason against the United States, and all criminal prosecu- tions by information or indictment against any person or persons for any alleged violation or disregard of the professed laws of a body of men who assembled at the Shawnee Mis- sion in said territory, claiming to be the Legislative Assembly of the said territory, shall be dismissed by the court; and every person who is, or may be, restrained of his liberty by reason of such prosecution or pro- secutions, shall be released from confinement. The yeas and nays were called for, and ordered. The question was taken, and it was decided in the affirmative — yeas 84, nays 09, as fol- lows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Albright, Allison, Ball. Barbour. Barclay , Henry Bennett, Benson, Billinghurst, Bishop, Bliss, Brad- shaw, Brenton, Buflinton, James H. Campbell, Chaffee, Ezra Clark, Clawson, Colfax. Comins, Covode, Cragiu, Cumback, Damrell, Dean, Dick, Dodd, Durfee, Emrie, Flagler, Gallo- way, Giddings, Granger, Grow, Harlan, Holloway, Hugh- ston, Kelsey, King, Knapp. Knight, Knowlton, Knox. Kun- kel, Leiter, Matteson, McCarty, Killian Miller, Millward, Morgan, Morrill, Mott, Murray, Norton, Andrew Oliver, Parker, Pearce, Pelton, Pennington, Perry, Pettit, Pike, Pringle, Purviance, Ritchie, Robbins, Roberts, Sabin, Sapp, Sherman, Simmons. Spinner, Stanton, Stranahan, Tappan, Todd, Wade. Walbridge, Cadwalader C. Washburne, Elihu B. Washburne. IsraelWashburne, Watson, Wood, Woodruff, Woodworth. — 84. Nays.— Messrs. AUcen, Bocock, Bowie. Branch, Cadwalader, Lewis D. Campbell, Carlile, Caskie, Clingman, Williamson R. W. Cobb, Crawford, Henry Winter Davis, Dovidell, Dunn, Elliott, English, Eustis, Faulkner, Florence, Foster, Goode, Greenwood, Haven, Hickman, Valentine B. Horton, Houston, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Keitt, Kelly, Kidwell, Letcher, Lumpkin, Humphrey Marshall, Samuel S. Marshall, Maxwell, McMuUin, Smith Miller, Millson. Moore. Phelps, Porter. Quitman, Reade, Richardson, Rivers, Ruffin, Rtist, Sandidge, Savage, Seward, Shorter, William Smith, Sneed, Stewart, Swope, Taylor, Thurston, Tyson, Underwood, Valk, Warner, Watkins. Whitney, Williams, Wi?isknv, Daniel B. WrigU, John V. Wright, Zollicoffer.— 69. The next amendment was read, as fol- lows : — Add to the clause for defraying the expenses of the Supreme Court, &c, the following : — Provided, however, That no part of the money hereby appropriated shall be expended for prosecuting or detaining any person or persons charged with treason, or any other political offence in the territory of Kansas. Mr. Phelps demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken ; and it was de- cided in the affirm ative— yeas 82, nays 60, as follows : — Ye vs.— Messrs. Albright, Allison, Ball, Barbour, Barclay, Henry Bennett, Benson, Billinghurst, Bliss, Bradshaw, Brenton, Buflinton, James II. Campbell, Chaffee. Ezra Clark. Clawson. Colfax, Comins, Covode, Cragin, Cumback, Damrell, Dean, Dick, Dodd. Dunn. Emrie, Flagler, Giddings, Granger, Grow, Harlan, Hickman, Holloway, Valentine B. Horton, Hughston. Kelsey. King. Knight, Knowlton, Kun- kel. Matteson, McCarty. Killian Miller. Millward, Morgan, Morrill, Mott, Murray, Norton, Andrew Oliver, Parker, 394 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Peaie. Pelton. Pennington, Perry, Pettit, Pike, Pringle, Purriance. Ritchie, Robbins, Roberts, Sabin, Sapp, Simmons, Spinner, Stanton. Stranahan, Tappan, Thurston, X'odd, Trafton, Wade, Walbridge, Cadwalader C. Washburne, Kliliu B. Washburne, Israel Washburne, Watson, Wood, Wood- worth.— 82. Nays.— Messrs. Aiken, Hendley S. Bennett, Bishop, Bowie, Branch, John P. Campbell. Lewis D. Campbell, Carlii.e. Ca- ruthers, Cosine. Clingman, Williamson R. W. Cobb, Crawford, Henry Winter Davis, DowdeU, Edmundson, English, Flo- rence. Foster, Good?., Greenwood, Thomas L. Harris. II wen, Houston, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Keitt, Kelly, KidtoeU. Letcher, Lumpkin, Humphrey Marshall, Samuel 8. Marshall. Maxwell, MeMullin, Smith Miller. Millson, Pltelps, Powell. Quitman, Richardson, Rivers, Puffin, Rust, San- didge. Seward, Shorter, William Smith, Sneed. Stewart. Tay- lor, Tyson, Underwood, Warner, Watkins, Williams, Wins- low, Daniel B. Wright, John V. Wright, Zolucoffer.— 60. So the amendment was agreed to. The bill was passed as amended, the affirma- tive vote, on its passage, being the same as that on the last amendment, with the excep- tion of Messrs. Bennett of N. Y., and Dunn, who voted against the bill, and with the addi- tion of Messrs. Bishop, Campbell of 0., Knapp, Leiter, and Tyson. The following article, on the Kansas-Ne- braska Bill, said to be from the pen of one of the soundest constitutional lawyers of the state of Pennsylvania, is presented in such a plain, brief manner, as to be readily under- stood : — " The Constitution of the United States, Article 6, Sec. 2, declares that ' this Consti- tution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.' Slavery existed in Louisiana when it was a French and when it was a Spanish colony. On the 30th day of April, 1803, a treaty was made between France and the United States, ceding the territory of Louisiana to the latter, the third article of which is in the following words : "Article 3.— The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and, in the mean time, they shall be maintained and pro tected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess." The territory of Louisiana embraced all the territory now included in the states of Louisi- ana, Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa, and the territories of Kansas, Nebraska, and Minne- sota. So long as any portion of this territory remained territory, and had not been erected into a state, Congress could pass no law abolishing slavery in such territory — they had no jurisdiction of the subject. When any portion of that territory was erected into a state, the state so erected be- came a municipal government, and having jurisdiction of the subject, could abolish slavery, if they chose ; but no other power had any right so to do. It therefore follows, that the celebrated Kansas and Nebraska Bill, as it is called, in which Congress refused to enact any provision in relation to slavery, either to establish it or abolish it, and repealing so much of the Mis- souri Compromise as professed to legislate upon the subject by Congress, was in strict conformity to the provisions of the Constitu- tion of the United States, and the treaty of cession made with France." Inaugural Address of Gov. Geary of Kan- sas, Sept. 11, 1856. Gov. Geary, after alluding to the fact that the office was entirely unsought by him, said : — With a full knowledge of all the circum- stances surrounding the executive office, I have deliberately accepted it, and, as God may give me strength and ability, I will en- deavor faithfully to discharge its various re- quirements. When I received my commission I was solemnly sworn to support the Constitu- tion of the United States, and to discharge my duties as Governor of Kansas with fidelity. By reference to the Act for the organization of this territory, passed by Congress on the 30th day of March, 1854, I find my duties more particularly defined. Among other things, I am " to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The Constitution of the United States and the organic law of this territory, will be lights by which I will be guided in my executive cares. A careful and dispassionate examination of our organic act will satisfy any reasonable person that the provisions are eminently just and beneficial. If this act has been distorted to unworthy purposes, it is not the fault of its provisions. The great leading feature of that act is the right therein conferred upon the actual and bona fide inhabitants of this terri- tory " in the exercise of self-government, to determine for themselves what shall be their own domestic institutions, subject only to the Constitution and the laws duly enacted by Congress under it." The people, accustomed to self-government in the states from whence they came, and having removed to this terri- tory with the bona fide intention of making it their future residence, were supposed to be capable of creating their own municipal go- vernment, and to be the best judges of their own local necessities and institutions. This is what is termed " popular sovereignty." By this phrase we simply mean the right of tlie majority of the people of the several states and territories, being qualified electors, to regulate their own domestic concerns, and to make their own municipal laws. Thus un- derstood, this doctrine underlies the whole system of republican government. It is the great right of self-government to which our ancestors, in the stormy days of the revolu- tion, pledged " their lives, their fortunes., and their sacred honor." NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 39b A doctrine so eminently just should receive the willing homage of every American citizen. When legitimately expressed and duly ascer- tained, the will of the majority must be the imperative rule of civil action for every law- abiding citizen. This simple, just rule of action, has brought order out of chaos, and by a progress unparalleled in the history of the world, has made a few feeble infant colo- nies a giant confederated republic. No man, conversant with the state of affairs now in Kansas, can close his eyes to the fact that much civil disturbance has for a long time past existed in this territory. Various reasons have been assigned for this unfortu- nate condition of affairs, and numerous reme- dies have been proposed. The House of Representatives of the United States have ignored the claims of both gentle- men claiming the legal right to represent the people of this territory in that body. The Topeka constitution, recognised by the House, has been repudiated by the Senate. Various measures, each, in the opinion of its respective advocates, suggestive of peace to Kansas, have been alternately proposed and rejected. Men outside of the territory, in various sections of the Union, influenced by reasons best known to themselves, have endeavored to stir up in- ternal strife, and to array brother agains*- brother. In this conflict of opinion, and for the most unworthy purposes, Kansas is left to suffer, her people to mourn, and her prosperity is endangered. Is there no remedy for these evils ? Cannot the wounds of Kansas be healed and peace be restored to all her borders? Men of the North — men of the South — of the East and of the West, in Kansas — you, and you alone, have the remedy in your own hands. Will you not cease to regard each other as enemies, and look upon one another as the children of a common mother, and come and reason together ? Let us banish all outside influence from our deliberations, and assemble around our coun- cil board with the Constitution of our country and the organic law of this territory as the great charts for our guidance and direction. The bona fide inhabitants of this territory alone are charged with the solemn duty of" enacting her laws, upholding her government, maintaining peace, and laying the foundation for a future commonwealth. On this point let there be a perfect unity of sentiment. It is the first great step toward the attainment of peace. It will inspire con- fidence amongst ourselves, and insure the re- spect of the whole country. Let us show ourselves worthy and capable of self-govern- ment. Do not the inhabitants of this territory bet- ter understand what domestic institutions are suited to their condition — what laws will be most conducive to their prosperity and happi- ness — -than the citizens of distant, or even neighboring states ? This great right of regu- lating our own affairs and attending to our own business, without any interference from others, has been guarantied to us by the law which Congress has made for the organization of this territory. This right of self-government — this privilege guarantied to us by the organic law of our territory, I will uphold with all my might, and with the entire power committed to me. In relation to any changes of the laws of the territory which I may deem desirable, I have no occasion now to speak ; but these are sub- jects to which I shall direct public attention at the proper time. The territory of the United States is the common property of the several states or of the people thereof. This being so, no obstacle should be interposed to the free settlement of this common property while in a territorial condition. I cheerfully admit that the people of this territory, under the organic act, have the ab- solute right of making their municipal laws, and from citizens who deem themselves ag- grieved by recent legislation, I would invoke the utmost forbearance, and point out to them a sure and peaceable remedy. You have the right to ask the next legislature to revise any and all laws ; and, in the mean time, as you value the peace of the territory and the main- tenance of future laws, I would earnestly ask you to refrain from all violation of the present statutes. I am sure that there is patriotism sufficient in the people of Kansas to lend a willing obe- dience to law. All the provisions of the Con- stitution of the United States must be sacredly observed, all the acts of Congress having re- ference to this territory must be unhesitatingly obeyed, and the decisions of our courts re- spected. It will be my imperative duty to see that these suggestions are carried into effect. In my official action here, I will do justice at all hazards. Influenced by no other conside- rations than the welfare of the whole people of this territory, I desire to know no party, no section, no North, no South, no East, no West — rnothing but Kansas and my country. Gov. Geary then concluded his address, with an appeal to Providence to aid him in restor- ing peace to Kansas. Convention Act of Kansas. An act to provide for taking the census and election for delegates to Convention. Be it enacted by the Governor and Legisla- tive Assembly of the Territory of Kansas, as follows : — Sec. 1. That, for the purpose of making an enumeration of the inhabitants entitled to vote under the provisions of this act, an apportion- ment, and an election of members of a conven- tion, it shall be the duty of the sheriffs of the several counties of Kansas territory, and they are hereby required, between the first day of March and the first day of April, 1857, to make an enumeration of all the free male in- habitants, citizens of the United States over '596 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. twenty-one years of age, and all other white persons actually residing within their respect- ive counties ; and for this purpose shall have power to appoint one or more deputies to assist in such duties, not to exceed one in each municipal township, each of whom, before en- tering upon the duties of his office, shall take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to sup- port the Constitution of the United States, and faithfully and impartially discharge the duties imposed on him by this act, according to the best of his skill and judgment, which oath or affirmation shall be administered to them severally, and be duly certified by a judge or clerk of the District Court of the United States, or judge or clerk of the probate court for the several counties, or by a justice of the peace, and filed and recorded in the office of the secre- tary of the territory. Sec. 2. In case of any vacancy in the office of sheriff, the duties imposed upon such sheriff by this act shall devolve upon and be per- formed by the judge of probate court of the county in which such vacancy may exist, who may appoint deputies not to exceed one in each municipal township, and, in case the office of both sheriff and probate judge in any county shall be or become vacant, the gover- nor shall appoint some competent resident of such county to perform such duty, who shall have the same right to appoint deputies, take and subscribe the same oath, and perform all the requirements of this act as applied to sheriffs. Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of the sheriff, probate judge, or person appointed by the governor, as herein provided, in each county or election district, on or before the 10th day of April next, to file in the office of the probate judge of such county or election district a full and complete list of all the qualified voters resident in his said county or election district on the first day of April, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, which list shall exhibit, in a fair and legible hand, the names of all such legal voters. Sec. 4. It shall be and it is hereby made the duty of each probate judge, upon such returns being made, without delay to cause to be posted, at three of the most public places in each election precinct in his county or elec- tion district, one copy of such list of qualified voters, to the end that every inhabitant may inspect the same and apply to said probate judge to correct any error he may find there- in, in the manner hereinafter provided. Sect 5. Said probate judge shall remain in session each day, Sundays excepted, from the time of receiving said returns until the first day of May next, at such places as shall be most convenient to the inhabitants of the county or election district, and proceed to the inspection of said returns, and hear, correct, and finally determine according to the facts, without unreasonable delay, all questions con- cerning the omission of any person from said returns, or the improper insertion of any name on said returns ; and any other question nfl'ect- ing the integrity or fidelity of said returns, and for this purpose shall have power to administer oaths and examine witnesses and compel their attendance in such manner as said judge shall deem necessary. Sec. 6. That, as soon as the said list of legal voters shall thus have been revised and cor- rected, it shall be the duty of the _ several probate judges to make out full and fair copies thereof, and without delay furnish to the governor of the territory one copy and to the secretary of the territory one copy ; and it shall be the duty of the governor to cause copies thereof, distinguishing the returns from each county or election district, to be printed and distributed generally among the inhabit- ants of the territory ; and one copy shall be deposited with the clerk of each court of record or probate judge within the limits of said ter- ritory, and"one copy delivered to each judge of the election, and at least three copies shall be posted up at each place of voting. Sec. 7. It shall be the duty of the governor and secretary of the territory, so soon as the census shall be completed and returns made, to proceed to make an apportionment of the members for a convention among the different counties and election districts in said territory in the following manner: The whole number of legal voters shall be divided by sixty, and the product of such division, rejecting any fraction of a unit, shall be the ratio or rule of apportionment of members among the several counties or election districts ; and if any county or election district shall not have a number of legal voters thus ascertained equal to the ratio, it shall be attached to some adjoining county or district, and thus form a represen- tative district ; the number of said voters in each county or district shall then be divided by the ratio, and the product shall be the number of representatives apportioned to such county or district : Provided, That the loss in the number of members, caused by the frac- tions remaining in the several counties in the division of the legal voters thereof, shall be compensated by assigning to so many counties or districts as have the largest fractions an additional member for its fraction as may be necessary to make the whole number of repre- sentatives sixty. Sec. 8. An election shall be held for mem- bers of a convention to form a constitution for the state of Kansas, according to the ap- portionment to be made as aforesaid on the third Monday in June next, to be held at the various election precincts established in the territory, in accordance with the provisions ( f law on that subject; and at such election no person shall be permitted to vote unless his name shall appear upon said corrected list. Sec. 9. The board of county commissioners shall appoint the places of voting for their respective counties or election districts. They shall appoint three suitable persons to be judges of the election at each place of voting. They shall cause a notice of the places of holding elections in their respective counties NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. *9' or districts to be published and distributed in every election district or precinct ten days before the day of election. If any judge of election so appointed shall fail or refuse to perform the duties of said office, the legal voters assembled at the place and on the day appointed for said election shall have the power to fill such vacancy by election amongst themselves. Sec. 10. The judges of election shall each, before entering on the discharge of his duties, make oath or affirmation that he will faith- fully and impartially discharge the duties of judge of the election according to law, which oath shall be administered by any officer au- thorized to administer oaths. The clerks of election shall be appointed by the judges, and shall take the like oath or affirmation, to be administered by one of the judges or by any of the officers aforesaid. Duplicate returns of election shall be made and certified by the judges and clerks, one of which shall be de- posited with the board of county commission- ers for the county or district in which the election is held, and the other shall be trans- mitted to the secretary of the territory, and the one having the highest number of votes in his county or election district shall be the re- presentative for such county or district ; and, in case of a tie or a contest in which it can- not be satisfactorily determined who was duly elected, the convention when assembled shall order a new election, as herein provided. Sec. 11. Every bona fide inhabitant of the territory of Kansas on the third Monday of June, one thousand eight hundred and fifty- seven, being a citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years, and who shall have resided three months next before said election in the county in which he offers to vote, and no other person whatever, shall be entitled to vote at said election, and any person qualified as a voter may be a delegate to said convention, and no others. Sec. 12. All persons hereby authorized to take the census, or to assist in the taking thereof, shall have power to administer oaths and examine persons on oath in all cases where it may be necessary to the full and faithful performance of their duties under this act. Sec. 13. If any person, by menace, threats, or force, or by any other unlawful means, shall directly or indirectly attempt to influ- ence any qualified voter in giving his vote, or deter him from going to the poll, or disturb or hinder him in the free exercise of his right of suffrage at said election, the person so offending shall be adjudged guilty of a mis- demeanor, and punished by fine not less than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not less than three months nor more than six, or by both. Sec. 14. That every person not being a qualified voter according to the provisions of this act, who shall vote at any election within said territory, knowing that he is not entitled to vote, and every person who, at the same election, shall vote more than once, whether at the same or a different place, shall \>e adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor exceeding two hundred, or by imprisonment not less than three months nor exceeding six, or both. Sec. 15. Any person whatsoever who may be charged with holding the election herein authorized who shall wilfully and knowingly commit any fraud or irregularity whatever, with the intent to hinder or prevent or defeat a fair expression of the popular will in the said election, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished by fine not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not less than six months nor more than twelve months, or both. Sec. 16. The delegates thus elected shall assemble in convention at the capitol of said territory on the first Monday of Septembei next, and shall proceed to form a constitution and state government, which shall be repub- lican in its form, for admission into the Union, on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever, by the name of the State of Kansas. Sec. 17. Said committee, when assembled, shall elect a presiding officer, and all other officers necessary for the transaction of their business, and the members and officers of said convention shall be entitled to receive the same compensation as the members and officers of the Legislative Assembly of Kansas Territory, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated. Sec. 18. All sheriffs and other officers, for the discharge of the duties required of them by this act, shall be entitled to receive four dollars for each day they are necessarily employed. Sec. 19. Doniphan shall constitute the first election district, Brown and Nemaha the second, Atchison the third, Leavenworth the fourth, Jefferson the fifth, Calhoun the sixth, Marshall the seventh, Riley the eighth, John- son the ninth, Douglas the tenth, Shawnee, Richardson and Davis the eleventh, Lykins the twelfth, Franklin the thirteenth, Weller, Breckenridge, Wise and Madison the four- teenth, Butler and Coffey the fifteenth, Linn the sixteenth, Anderson the seventeenth, Bour- bon, McGee, Dorn and Allen the eighteenth, Woodson, Wilson, Godfrey, Greenwood and Hunter the nineteenth. Sec. 20. All votes given at the election herein provided for shall be viva voce. Letter of Att'y Gen. Isacks thereon : Washington City, March 25. To the Editor of the Union. Sir: In your issue of the 21st instant, in which the act of the Legislative Assembly of Kansas Territory providing for the formation of a state constitution was published, you copied also an article from the New York Journal of Commerce, which called in question 398 THE TOLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. the propriety of the course of that body in not oroviding for a reference of the constitution to the people, and stated that a failure so to do was, in the judgment of that paper, " a mani- fest defect." Being somewhat acquainted with the im- pressions under which the Assembly acted, I trust I may be pardoned in saying a word in explanation of their view of the matter. The committees in which the bill originated were of opinion that the Assembly had no power to dictate to the convention (which, when assembled, would represent the sover- eignty of the people) what course should be pursued on that or any other subject. If the Assembly had power to command a reference of the constitution to the people, that body certainly had the right to make other requirements, and thus might have dictated provisions on any other subject. There can be no doubt of a reference of the constitution to the people, and that the objec- tion urged by the Journal of Commerce will be removed. A. J. ISACKS. Act of Territorial Legislature of Kansas repeal- ing what are known as the obnoxious acts. Be it enacted by the Governor and Legisla- tive Assembly of the Territory of Kansas, Sec. 1st, That so much of the 11th section of an act entitled an act to regulate elections as provides that any person challenged as a voter may be required to take an oath or affirmation that he will sustain the provisions of the sev- eral acts of Congress in that section specified, be, and the same is hereby, repealed. Sec. 2. All officers hereafter elected or ap- pointed to any office of honor, trust, or profit, under the laws of this territory, shall, before entering upon the duties of such office, take and subscribe an oath to support the Consti- tution of the United States and the provisions of an act to organize the territories of Ne- braska and Kansas, and faithfully to demean himself in office, and no other. Sec. 3. All attorneys-at-law, obtaining a license in this territory, shall take and sub- scribe an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of an act to organize the territories of Nebraska and Kansas, and faithfully and honestly to demean himself in his practice. Sec. 4. All acts and parts of acts inconsist- ent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed. This act to take effect and be in force from and after its passage. TnoiiAS Johnson, President of the Council. AVm. G. Matthias, Speaker of the House. I hereby certify that the within is a true and correct copy of the enrolled bill. Thomas C. Hughes, Chief Clerk Council. Lecompton, K. T., Feb. 14, 1857. Be it enacted by the Governor and Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Kansas, That the twelfth section of an act, entitled " An act to punish offences against slave property," be, and the same is hereby, repealed. Thomas JonxsoN, President of the Council. Wm. G. Mathias. Speaker of the House. I hereby certify that the within is a true and correct copy of the enrolled bill. Thomas C. Hughes, Chief Clerk Council. Lecompton, K. T., Feb. 14, 1857. Address of Hon. F. P. Stanton, Secretary and Acting Governor. To the people of the territory of Kansas : — Fellow citizens: — The Hon. Ptobert J. Wal- ker, present governor of the territory, ac- cepted his appointment from the President upon condition that he should not be required to leave Washington until the 11th of May next. Circumstances beyond his control ren- der it impossible for him to start before that day; he may, therefore, be expected here about the middle of next month, and will then assume the executive authority of the territory. During the absence of the governor, by the organic law of the territory, the whole duties and responsibilities of the executive are de- volved upon me by virtue of my commission as secretary. In assuming to exercise the functions of this high office, at this critical juncture in the affairs of the territory, it is not inappropriate that I should briefly indicate the course which I shall feel it my duty to pursue. The government of the United States re- cognises the authority of the territorial gov- ernment in all matters which are within the scope of the organic act of Congress and in- sistent with the Federal Constitution. I hold that there can be no other rightful authority exercised within the limits of Kansas, and I shall proceed to the faithful and impartial ex- ecution of the laws of the territory, by the use of all the means placed in my power, and which may be necessary to that end. The government especially recognises the territorial act which provides for assembling a convention to form a constitution with a view- to making application to Congress for admis- sion as a state into the Union. That act is regarded as presenting the only test of the qualification of voters for delegates to the con- vention, and all preceding repugnant restric- tions are thereby repealed. In this light the act must be allowed to have provided for a full and fair expression of the will of the people through the delegates who may be chosen to represent them in the constitutional conven- tion. I do not doubt, however, that, in order to avoid all pretext for resistance to the peace- ful operation of this law the convention itself will, in some form, provide for submitting the great distracting question regarding their NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 399 social institution, -which has so long agitated the people of Kansas, to a fair vote of all the actual bona fide residents of the territory, with every possible security against fraud and vio- lence. If the constitution be thus framed, and the question of difference thus submitted to the decision of the people, I believe that Kansas will be admitted by Congress, without delay, as one of the sovereign states of the American Union, and the territorial authorities will be immediately withdrawn. I need scarcely say that all the power of the territorial executive will be exerted, with en- tire impartiality, to prevent fraud, to suppress violence, and to secure to every citizen a fair opportunity for the safe and peaceful exercise or his elective privilege. It will be no less the duty than the earnest desire and great pleasure of the governor, or acting governor of the ter- ritory, to carry out, in good faith, the policy avowed by the President of the United States in his recent inaugural address, in which he declares it to be " the imperative and indis- pensable duty of the government of the United States to secure to every resident inhabitant the free and independent expression of his opinion by his vote. This sacred right of each individual must be preserved," and, "that being accomplished, nothing can be fairer than to leave the people of a territory, free from all foreign interference, to decide their own des- tiny for themselves, subject only to the Consti- tution of the United States." Nothing is wanting but to secure the confi- dence of the people of all parties in the sin- cerity of the declared intention of the territo- rial executive, to carry out these principles in good faith, in order to induce the co-operation of all good men in the pending measures for adopting a state constitution. The principles themselves cannot fail to be acceptable to the sober judgment of the people; and I ardently hope, for the sake of the paramount interests involved, that the necessary confidence will not be withhel'd. The deplorable events which have marked the history of the territory up to this time have doubtless left their natural results of enmity and heart-burnings among the people, as also upon the criminal records of the territorial courts. Indictments have been found against many of those who acted in a military capa- city under the authority of the territorial go- vernment, for acts and excesses alleged to be wholly illegal and unjustifiable. On the other hand, similar prosecutions have been insti- tuted against those who resisted the territorial authorities, and who undertook to retaliate for the alleged wrongs committed against them. It is my deliberate opinion that, in order to promote peace and harmony, and to secure the future repose of the people, there ought to be a general amnesty in reference to all those acts, on both sides, which grew out of the po- litical contest, and which were not corruptly aud feloniously committed for personal gain, and to gratify individual malignity. This measure, if adopted at all, ought to be adopted generously, without any consideration of the origin of the difficulty, and without question as to the party which may be respon- sible for the wrong. It will involve no con- cession or advantage to either party, but will be merely an act of economy, designed to ob- literate, as far as possible, from the hearts of the people, all memory of the disastrous and lamentable contest which has heretofore deso- lated this unhappy territory. If it shall have that effect, though it may pardon some in- stances of gross wrong and outrage, it will tend to calm the excited passions of the peo- ple, and to prevent similar occurrences in the future. It will be a measure of conciliation and peace, and will leave the people free from apprehension in the future, so that they can safely devote themselves to those important labors which are designed to make this terri- tory a great, prosperous, and happy state. Fred. P. Stanton, Secretary and Acting Governor. Lecompton, 17th April, 1857. Correspondence between a committee of Free State men and Acting Governor Stanton upon the mode of election of delegates to the State Convention. Lawrence, K. T., April 25. Hon. F. P. Stanton, Acting Governor of Kansas Territory. Dear Sir : In your address to the people of Lawrence last evening, we understood you to say in substance, that you would enforce the laws enacted by a legislature elected by the people of an adjoining state until they should be repealed; also, if the laws are unjust or distasteful our remedy is the ballot box. History has indelibly recorded the fact which Gen. Maclean admitted, in our pre- sence, last evening, that the ball-otrbox was taken from the people of Kansas territory, on the 30th March, 1855, and has not to this day been returned. From that time until the pre- sent the people have had no voice whatever in making laws or in selecting officers to ad- minister them, notwithstanding the world- wide declaration by the administration at Washington, and its friends elsewhere, that the people should be perfectly free to regu- late their institutions in their own way, sub- ject only to the Constitution of the United States. AVe are now invited to participate in an election of delegates to a constitutional con- vention to meet in September next, to frame a constitution and state government. We are told that the election law is a good one ; that the voice of the actual settlers can be heard at the polls, and that justice will be meted out to all parties. We regret that the past con- duct of the officers to superintend this election has not been such as to permit us to believe that they will secure a fair vote of the people ; and the" fact that many well known citizens in Kansas are omitted from the registry list, and that as well known citizens and residents 400 THE TOLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of Missouri are registered, is conclusive proof to us that a fair election is not intended, and will not be permitted by the officers who have thus far had the matter in charge. But if a fair election is intended, notwithstanding the body of men calling it was not elected by the people of Kansas; and notwithstanding the people have already formed a constitution, of which a large majority approve, we, the un- dersigned, are willing to overlook the past, and go into the election of delegates to a con- stitutional convention, should a convention of the people of Kansas concur, if the following course will be adopted by the officers of the election, to wit : — • First. — Two persons shall be elected in each township or district to correct the registry list — one by the Pro-Slavery and one by the Free State party, who shall proceed in company to take the census, and register all legal voters ; and the probate judges shall correct the first lists, and the appointment of delegates shall be made according to the returns thus made. Second. — Four judges of election shall be selected for each voting precinct, two by the Pro-Slavery and two by the Free State party ; and the names of three of said judges shall be required to a certificate of election to entitle a person to a seat in the convention. We think your excellency will at once per- ceive that some such course must be pursued to correct the list, or no correction can be made. We are informed by credible reports that in some districts, non-residents to the number of thousands have already been regis- tered, while actual Free State settlers have been refused ; and how else can the lists be corrected than by a re-taking of the census by some person or persons who have regard for an oath ? Testimony of a negative character can avail nothing, and to obtain positive testi- mony with reference to the residence of those enlisted from another state would be impossi- ble in the short time remaining before the election. That you have the power to take any course you may think proper to secure a fair election, we have no doubt. It is not material that the letter of the law calling the election should be strictly followed, indeed no law at all is requi- site, so that the will of a majority of the people can be ascertained. Congress can give legality fcc a constitution formed in accordance with a previous territorial act or without one, and we trust your excellency will restore the ballot- In ix to the people of Kansas in all its purity at any risk of informality in minor and non- essential provisions of the election regulations. Very respectfully, Your obedient servants, C.Robinson, G.W.Smith, Win. Hutchinson, Geo. F. Earle, Edward Clark, Joseph Cracklin, Ephraim Nute, Jr., G. Jenkins, John Hutchinson, S. S. Emory, G. C. Brackett, John II. Wakefield, E. D. Ladd, J. A. Finley. C W. Babcook, Executive Office, 1 Lecompton, K. T., April 30, 1857. j Gentlemen : Yours of the 25th inst. reached me only by last night's mail. I proceed with- out delay to reply to the proposition you make in reference to the election about to be held for delegates to a constitutional convention. As I take a different view of the laws of the territory from that which you express, it will be impossible for me to consent to any new proceeding in opposition to that which has been sanctioned by the legislative autho- rities. I did not hear from Gen. Maclean any such admission as you represent him to have made. That gentleman spoke only of his individual action in the particular mentioned, and whether that action was right or wrong, or whether it occuiTed in that individual instance only, or in a thousand others, by men either from Missouri or Massachusetts, it could not invalidate the laws which now prevail in the territory. If I believed — as I do not believe — your assertion that the laws of Kansas were " enacted by a legislature elected by the people of an adjoining state," it would still be impossible for me to set them aside — the attempt to do so would be an act of gross usurpation, not less objectionable in its char- acter and effects than the fraudulent inter- ference which you attribute to the people of Missouri. I must, therefore, say to you in the most explicit language, that I can do nothing which denies the authority and va- lidity of the laws enacted within this ter- ritory. Congress alone has power to abrogate them. I have no authority over the probate judges. It is not my province to advise them in rela- tion to the performance of their judicial func- tions. Yet it will not be improper for me to say that it would be very judicious and be- coming in them to obtain every possible infor- mation from respectable men of both parties, in order to enable them to correct the list of voters. If such impartial men of their own will and within the time limited by law, could take a new census and present it to the pro- bate judges with sufficient proof of its fair- ness and accuracy, I think the probate judges would be bound to adopt it and return it to the governor as the true list legally corrected. I should be sorry to see any probate judge in the territory refuse to receive the sworn testi- mony of two respectable men, differing in politics, as to any matter within their know- ledge, connected with the residence of citizens, and their qualifications as voters. ' I do not believe such a wrong can possibly have oc- curred, and I therefore say that if you had been desirous of obtaining a correct list of voters for the coming election, you had it in your power to accomplish that object in per- fect conformity with the law. It is not my purpose to reply to your state- ment of facts. I cannot do so from any per- sonal knowledge enabling me either to admit or deny them. I may say, however I have JNEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 40J heard statements quite as authentic as jour owu, and in some instances from members of your own party, to the effect that your politi- cal friends have very generally, indeed almost universally, refused to participate in the pend- ing proceedings for registering the names of the legal voters. In some instances they have given fictitious names, and in numerous others they have refused to give any names at all. You cannot deny that your party have hereto- fore resolved not to take part in the registra- tion, and it appears to me that without in- dulging ungenerous suspicions of the integri- ty of officers, you might well attribute any errors and omissions of the sheriffs to the ex- istence of this well known and controlling fact. I forbear to say anything of the un- reasonableness of your requirement that we shall set aside the law in order to accomplish what you have refused to do in obedience to its provisions, but I will be most happy to learn that you, gentlemen, and your party friends generally, have been at work in earn- est with a view to enable the probate judges to present a true and perfect list of the legal voters of the territory. You have had power to correct the lists — if you have failed to do it, the fault will be your own. In reference to your proposition to appoint four judges of election at every place of voting, I have to say that the law very wisely author- izes only three. The governor has nothing to do with their appointment. It is not in my power, therefore, to adopt your suggestions in this particular. If I had any authority in the matter, I would, in every instance, appoint as judges of election one Republican of your party, one National Democrat in favor of a free state, and one National Democrat in favor of making a slave state : this would be quite as fair and impartial a mode of proceeding as e ver is, or indeed can be adopted by political parties in any country. I most sincerely hope the probate judges may adopt this sug- gestion, or any other which may better avail to secure a perfectly fair and independent ex- pression of the popular will. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, Your obedient servant, Fred'k P. Stanton, Secretary, and Acting Governor of Kansas Territory. To C. Robinson, Wm. Hutchinson, Edward Clark, and others. Inaugural Address of the Hon. Robert J. Walker, Governor of Kansas, on the 27th of Mat, 1857. Governor "Walker, after alluding to the cir- cumstances under which he accepted the posi- tion of Governor of Kansas, proceeded to say : Under our practice the preliminary act of framing a state constitution is uniformly performed through the instrumentality of a convention of delegates chosen by the people themselves. That convention is now about to be elected^ by you under the call of the terri- torial legislature, created and so recognised 26 by the authority of Congress, and clothed by it in _ the comprehensive language of the organic law with full power to make such an enactment. The territorial legislature, then, in assembling this convention, were fully sus- tained by the act of Congress, and the autho- rity of the convention is distinctly recognised in my instructions from the President of the United States. Those who oppose this course, cannot aver the alleged irregularity of the territorial legislature, whose laws in town and city elections, in corporate franchises, and on all other subjects but slavery, they acknow- ledge by their votes and acquiescence. If that legislature was invalid, then are we without law or order in Kansas, without town, city, or county organization, all legal and judicial transactions are void, all titles null, and anarchy reigns throughout our borders. _ It is my duty, in seeing that all constitu tional laws are fairly executed, to take care, as far as practicable, that this election of dele- gates to the convention shall be free from fraud or violence, and that they shall be pro- tected in their deliberations. The people of Kansas then are invited by the highest authority known to the Constitu- tion^ to participate freely and fairly in the election of delegates to frame a constitution and state government. The law has per- formed its entire appropriate function, when it extends to the people the right of suffrage : but it cannot compel the performance of that duty. Throughout our whole Union, however, and wherever free government prevails, those who abstain from the exercise of the right of suffrage, authorize those who do vote to act for them in that contingency, and the ab- sentees are as much bound under the law and Constitution, where there is no fraud or vio- lence, by the majority of those who do vote, as although all had participated in the elec- tion. Otherwise, as voting must be voluntary, self-government would be impracticable, and monarchy or despotism would remain as the only alternative. You should not console yourselves, my fel- low-citizens, with the reflection, that you may, by a subsequent vote, defeat the ratification of the constitution. Although most anxious to secure to you the exercise of that great con- stitutional right, and believing that the con- vention is the servant, and not the master of the people, yet I have no power to dictate the proceedings of that body. I cannot doubt, however, the course they will adopt on this subject. But why incur the hazard of the preliminary formation of a constitution by a minority, as alleged by you, when a majority, by their own votes, could control the forming of that instrument ? But it is said that the convention was not legally called, and that the election will not be freely and fairly conducted. The terri- torial legislature is the power ordained for this purpose by the Congress of the United States, and in opposing it, you resist the au- thority of the federal government. The le»- 402 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. gislature was called into being by the Congress of 1854, and is recognised in the very latest Congressional legislation. It is recognised by the present Chief Magistrate of the Union, just chosen by the American people, and many of its acts are now in operation here by universal assent. As the Governor of the Territory of Kansas, I must support the laws and the Con- stitution, and I have no other alternative under my oath, but to see that all constitutional laws are fully and fairly executed. I see in this act calling the convention, no improper or unconstitutional restrictions upon the right of suffrage. I see in it no test oath or other similar provisions objected to in rela- tion to previous laws, but clearly repealed as repugnant to the provisions of this act, so far as regards the election of delegates to this con- vention. It is said that a fair and full vote will not be taken. Who can safely predict such a result? Nor is it just for a majority, as they allege, to throw the power into the hands of a minority, from a mere apprehension (I trust entirely unfounded) that they will not be permitted to exercise the right of suffrage. If, by fraud or violence, a majority should not be permitted to vote, there is a remedy, it is hoped, in the wisdom and justice of the con- vention itself, acting under the obligations of an oath, and a proper responsibility to the tri- bunal of public opinion. There is a remedy, also, if such facts can be demonstrated, in the refusal of Congress to admit a state into the Union under a constitution imposed by a mi- nority upon a majority by fraud or violence. Indeed, I cannot doubt that the convention, after having framed a state constitution, will submit it for ratification or rejection, by a majority of the then actual bona fide resident settlers of Kansas. Gov. Walker then says, that with the above views well known to the President and Cabi- net, and approved by them, he accepted the appointment of governor. His instructions from the President through the Secretary of State sustain " the regular legislature of the territory" in " assembling a convention to form a constitution," and they express the opinion of the President that "when such a constitution shall be submitted to the people of a territory, they must be protected in the exercise of their right of voting for or against that instrument; and the fair expression of the popular will must not be interrupted by fraud or violence." And Gov. W. then repeats his clear conviction, that unless the conven- tion submit the constitution to the vote of all the actual resident settlers in Kansas, and the election be fairly and justly conducted, the constitution will be, and ought to be, rejected by Congress. After directing attention more impressively to other questions of local im- portance, and commenting upon the future of the territory, the governor says : — I cannot too earnestly impress upon you the necessity of removing the slavery agitation from the halls of Congress, and Presidential conflicts. It is conceded that Congress has no power to interfere with slavery in the states Avhere it exists, and if it can now be estab- lished, as is clearly the doctrine of the Consti- tution, that Congress has no authority to inter- fere with the people of a territory on this subject, in forming a state constitution, the question must be removed from Congressional and Presidential elections. This is the principle affirmed by Congress in the act organizing this territory, ratified by the people of the United States in the re- cent election, and maintained by the late de- cision of the Supreme Court of the United States. If this principle can be carried into successful operation in Kansas, — that her people shall determine what shall be her social institutions, — the slavery question must be withdrawn from the halls of Congress, and from our Presidential conflicts, and the safety of the Union be placed beyond all peril : whereas, if the principle should be defeated here, the slavery agitation must be renewed in all elections throughout the country, with increasing bitterness, until it shall eventually overthrow the government. It is this agitation which, to European powers, presents the only hope of subverting our free institutions, and, as a consequence, destroying the principle of self-government throughout the world. It is this hope that has already inflicted deep injury upon our country, exciting monarchical or despotic in- terference with our domestic as well as foreign affairs, and inducing their interposition, not only in our elections, but in diplomatic inter- course to arrest our progress, to limit our in- fluence and power, depriving us of great ad- vantages in peaceful territorial expansion, as well as in trade with the nations of the world. Indeed, when I reflect upon the hostile position of the European press during the recent election, and their exulting predictions of the dissolution of our Union as a conse- quence of the triumph of a sectional candidate, I cannot doubt, that the peaceful and perma- nent establishment of these principles now being subjected to their final- test in Kansas, will terminate European opposition to all those measures which must so much increase our commerce, furnish new markets for our products and fabrics, and by conservative peaceful progress, carry our flag and the em- pire of our Constitution into new and adjacent regions indispensable as a part of the Union to our welfare and security, adding coffee, sugar, and other articles to our staple exports, whilst greatly reducing their price to the con- sumer. Nor is it only in our foreign intercourse that peace will be preserved, and our prosperity ad- vanced, by the accepted fact of the permanence of our government, based upon the peaceful settlement of this question in Kansas ; but at home, the same sentiment will awaken re- newed confidence in the stability of our insti- tutions, give a new impulse to all our industry, and carry us onward in a career of progress and prosperity, exceeding even our most san- NEBRASKA »AND KANSAS. 400 guine expectations ; a new movement of Eu- ropean capital will flow in upon us for per- manent investment, and a new exodus of the European masses, aided by the pre-emption principle, carry westward the ad vancing column of American states in one unbroken phalanx to the Pacific. And let me ask you, what possible good has been accomplished by agitating in Congress and in Presidential conflicts the slavery ques- tion ? Has it emancipated a single slave or improved their condition? Has it made a single state free, where slavery otherwise would have existed ? Has it accelerated the disappear- ance of slavery from the more northern of the slaveholding states, or accomplished any prac- tical good whatever ? No, my fellow-citizens, nothing but unmitigated evil has already en- sued, with disaster still more fearful impend- ing for the future, as a consecpience of" this agitation. There is a law more powerful than the legislation of man, more potent than passion or prejudice, that must ultimately determine the location of slavery in this country ; it is the isothermal line, it is the law of the ther- mometer, of latitude or altitude, regulating climate, labor, and productions, and as a con- sequence, profit and loss. Thus even upon the mountain heights of the tropics, slavery can no more exist than in northern lati- tudes, because it is unprofitable, being un- suited to the constitution of that sable race transplanted here from the equatorial heats of Africa. Why is it that in the Union slavery recedes from the North and progresses South ? It is this same great climatic law now opera- ting for or against slavery in Kansas. If the elevated plains of Kansas, stretching to the base of our American Alps — the Rocky Moun- tains — and including their eastern crest crowned with perpetual snow, from which sweep over her open prairies those chilling blasts reducing the average range of the ther- mometer here to a temperature nearly as low as that of New England, should render slavery unprofitable here, because unsuited to the tro- pical constitution of the negro race, the law above referred to must ultimately determine that question here, and can no more be con- trolled by the legislation of man, than any other moral or physical law of the Almighty. Especially must this law operate with irre- sistible force in this country, where the num- ber of slaves is limited and cannot be increased by importation, where many millions of acres of sugar and cotton lands are still unculti- vated, and, from the ever augmenting demand, exceeding the supply, the price of those great staples has nearly doubled, demanding vastly more slave labor for their production. If, from the operation of these causes, slavery should not exist here, I trust it by no means follows that Kansas should become a state controlled by the treason and fanaticism of abolition. She has, in any event, certain constitutional duties to perform to her sister states, and especially to her immediate neigh- bor — the slave-holding state of Missouri. Through that great state, by rivers and rail- roads, must flow to a great extent our trade and intercourse, our imports and exports. Our entire eastern front is upon her border ; from Missouri come a great number of her citizens ; even the farms of the two states are cut by the line of state boundary, part in Kan- sas, part in Missouri ; her citizens meet us in daily intercourse, and that Kansas should become hostile to Missouri, an asylum for her fugitive slaves, or a propagandist of abolition treason, would be alike inexpedient and unjust, and fatal to the continuance of the American Union. In any event, then, I trust that the constitution of Kansas will contain such clauses as will for ever secure to the state of Missouri the faithful performance of all con- stitutional guarantees, not only by federal, but by state authority, and the supremacy within our limits of the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States on all constitu- tional questions be firmly established. Upon the south Kansas is bounded by the great Southwestern Indian Territory. This is one of the most salubrious and fertile por- tions of this continent. It is a great cotton growing region, admirably adapted by soil and climate for the products of the South, embracing the valleys of the Arkansas and Red River, adjoining Texas on the south and west, and Arkansas on the east, and it ought speedily to become a state of the Ame- rican Union. The Indian treaties will con- stitute no obstacle any more than precisely similar treaties did in Kansas, or their lands, valueless to them, now for sale, but which, sold with their consent and for their benefit like the Indian lands of Kansas, would make them a most wealthy and prosperous people, and their consent on these terms would be most cheer- fully given. This territory contains double the area of the state of Indiana, and if neces- sary, an adequate portion of the western and more elevated part could be set apart exclu- sively for these tribes, and the eastern and larger portion be formed into a state, and its lands sold for the benefit of these tribes (like the Indian lands of Kansas), thus greatly pro- moting all their interests. To the eastern boundary of this region on the state of Arkan- sas, run the railroads of that state ; to her southern limits come the great railroads from Louisiana and Texas, from New Orleans and Galveston, which will ultimately be joined by railroads from Kansas, leading through this Indian Territory, connecting Kansas with New Orleans, the Gulf of Mexico, and with the Southern Pacific Railroad, leading through Texas to San Francisco. It is essential to the true interests, not only of Kansas, but of Louisiana, Texas and Ar- kansas, Iowa and Missouri, and the whole region west of the Mississippi, that this co- terminous Southwestern Indian Territory should speedily become a state, not only to supply us with cotton, and receive our pro- ducts in return, but as occupying the area 404 THE TOLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. over which that portion of our railroads should run, which connect us with New Or- leans and Galveston, and by the Southern route with the Pacific. From her central po- sition, through or connected with Kansas, must run the Central, Northern, and Southern routes to the Pacific, and with the latter, as well as with the Gulf, the connexion can only be secured by this Southwestern Territory be- coming a state, and to this Kansas should direct her earnest attention as essential to her prosperity. Our country and the world are regarding with profound interest the struggle now im- pending in Kansas. Whether we are compe- tent to self-government, whether we can decide this controversy peacefully for ourselves by our own votes without fraud or violence, whether the great princijiles of self-government and state sovereignty can be carried here into suc- cessful operation, are the questions now to be determined, and upon the plains of Kansas may now be fought the last great and decisive battle, involving the fate of the Union, of state sovereignty, of self-government, and the liber- ties of the world. If you could, even for a brief period, soften or extinguish sectional passions or prejudice, and lift yourselves to the full realization of the momentous issues intrusted to your decision, you will feel, that no greater responsibility was ever devolved on any people. It is not merely shall slavery exist in or disappear from Kansas, but shall the great principle of self-government and state sovereignty be maintained or subverted. State sovereignty is mainly a practical princi- ple in so far as it is illustrated by the great sovereign right of the majority of the people in forming a state government to adopt their own social institutions, and this principle is disregarded whenever such decision is sub- verted by Congress, or overthrown by exter- nal intrusion, or by domestic fraud or vio- lence. All those who oppose this principle, are the enemies of state rights, of self-govern- ment, of the Constitution and the Union. Do you love slavery so much, or hate it so in- tensely, that you would endeavor to establish or exclude it by fraud or violence, against the will of the majority of the people ? What is Kansas with or without slavery, if she should destroy the rights and Union of the states ? Where would be her schools, her free acade- mies, her colleges and university, her towns and cities, her railroads, farms, and villages, without the Union, and the principles of self- government ? Where would be her peace and prosperity, and what the value of her lands and property ? Who can decide this question for Kansas, if not the people themselves ? and if they cannot, nothing but the sword can be- come the arbiter. On the one hand, if you can and will decide peacefully this question yourselves, I see for Kansas an immediate career of power, pro- gress, and prosperity, unsurpassed in the his- tory of the world. I see the peaceful estab- lishment of our state constitution, its ratifica- tion by the people and our immediate admis- sion into the Union, the rapid extinguishment of Indian title, and the occupancy of those lands by settlers and cultivators ; the diffusion of universal education : pre-emptions, for the actual settlers, the state rapidly intersected by a net work of railroads ; our churches, schools, colleges, and university, carrying westward the progress of law and religion, liberty and civilization ; our towns, cities, and villages, prosperous and progressing, our farms teem- ing with abundant products, and greatly ap- preciated in value, and peace, happiness, and prosperity smiling throughout our borders. With proper clauses in our constitution, and the peaceful arbitrament of this question, Kansas may become the model state of the American Union. She may bring down upon us from North to South, from East to West, the praises and blessings of every patriotic American, and of every friend of self-govern- ment throughout the world. She may record her name on the proudest page of the history of our country, and of the world, and as the youngest and last born child of the American Union, all will hail and regard her with re- spect and affection. On the other hand, if you cannot thus peacefully decide this question, fraud, vio- lence, and injustice will reign supreme through- out our borders, and we will have achieved the undying infamy of having destroyed the lib- erty of our country, and of the world. We will become a by-word of reproach and oblo- quy ; and all history will record the fact, that Kansas was the grave of the American Union. Never was so momentous a question submit- ted to the decision of any people ; and we cannot avoid the alternatives now placed be- fore us of glory or of shame. May that overruling Providence who brought our forefathers in safety to Jamestown and Plymouth, who watched over our colonial pupilage ; who convened our ancestors in har- monious councils, on the birthday of American independence ; who gave us Washington, and carried us successfully through the struggles and perils of the revolution ; who assembled in 1787 that noble band of patriots and states- men from North and South who framed the Federal Constitution; who has augmented our numbers from three millions to thirty millions, has carried us from the western slope of the Alleghenies, through the great valleys of the Ohio, Mississippi, and Missouri, and now sa- lutes our standard on the shores of the Pacific, rouse in our hearts a love of the whole Union, and a patriotic devotion to the whole country — may it extinguish or control all sectional passions and prejudice, and enable us to con- duct to a successful conclusion the great expe- riment of self-government now being made within our boundaries. Is it not infinitely better that slavery should be abolished or established in Kansas, rather than that we should become slaves, and not permitted to govern ourselves? Is the absence or existence of slavery in Kansas paramour 6 NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 405 to the great questions of state sovereignty, of self-government, and of the Union ? Is the sable African alone entitled to your sympathy and consideration, even if he were happier as a freeman than as a slave, either here or in St. Domingo, or the British West Indies, or Spanish America, where the emancipated slave has receded to barbarism, and approaches the lowest point in the descending scale of moral, physical, and intellectual degradation ? Have our white brethren of the great Ameri- can and European race no claims upon our attention ? Have they no rights or interests entitled to regard and protection ? Shall the destiny of the African in Kansas exclude all considerations connected with our own happi- ness and prosperity ? And is it for the hand- ful of that race now in Kansas, or that may be hereafter introduced, that we should sub- vert the Union, and the great principles of self-government and state sovereignty, and imbrue our hands in the blood of our country- men ! Important as this African question may be in Kansas, and which it is your solemn right to determine, it sinks into insignificance compared with the perpetuity of the Union, and the final successful establishment of the principles of state sovereignty and free gov- ernment. If patriotism, if devotion to the Constitution and love of the Union, should not induce the minority to yield to the majo- rity on this question, let them reflect that in no event can the minority successfully deter- mine this question permanently, and that in no contingency will Congress admit Kansas as a slave or free state, unless a majority of the people of Kansas shall first have fairly and freely decided this question for themselves by a direct vote on the adoption of the constitu- tion, excluding all fraud or violence. The minority, in resisting the will of the majority, may involve Kansas again in civil war, they may bring upon her reproach and obloquy, and destroy her progress and prosperity ; they may keep her for years out of the Union, and in the whirlwind of agitation, sweep away the government itself. But Kansas never can be brought into the Union with or without slavery, except by a previous solemn decision, fully, freely, and fairly made by a majority of her people in voting for or against the adoption of her state constitution. Why, then, should this just, peaceful, and constitu- tional mode of settlement meet with opposi- tion from any quarter ? Is Kansas willing to destroy her own hopes of prosperity merely that she may afford political capital to any party, and perpetuate the agitation of slavery throughout the Union ? Is she to become a mere theme for agitators in other states, the theatre on which they shall perform the bloody drama of treason and disunion ? Does she want to see the solemn acts of Congress, the decision of the people of the Union in the recent election, the legislative, executive, and judicial authorities of the country all over- thrown, and revolution and civil war inaugu- rated throughout her limits ? Does she want to be bleeding Kansas" for the benefit of political agitators within or out of her limits, or does she prefer the peaceful and quiet arbit- rament of this question for herself? What benefit will the great body of the people of Kansas] derive from these agitations ? They may for a brief period give consequence and power to political leaders and agitators ; but it is at the expense of the happiness and wel- fare of the great body of the people of this territory. Those who oppose slavery in Kansas do not base their opposition upon any philanthropic principles, or any sympathy for the African race. For in their so-called constitution, framed at Topeka, they deem that entire race so inferior and degraded, as to exclude them all forever from Kansas, whether they be bond or free, thus depriving them of all rights here, and denying even that they can be citizens of the United States, for if they are citizens they could not be constitutionally exiled or excluded from Kansas. Yet such a clause inserted in the Topeka constitution was submitted by that convention for the vote of the people, and ratified here by an overwhelming majority of the anti-slavery party. The party here, therefore, has, in the most positive manner, affirmed the constitutionality of that portion of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, declaring that Africans are not citizens of the United States. This is the more important, inasmuch as this Topeka constitution was ratified with this clause inserted by the entire Republican party in Congress, thus distinctly affirming the re- cent decision of the Supreme Court of the Union, that Africans are not citizens of the United States, for, if citizens, they may be elected to all offices, state and national, in- cluding the Presidency itself; they must be placed upon a basis of perfect equality with the whites, serve with them in the militia, on the bench, the legislature, the jury box, vote in all elections, meet us in social intercourse ; and intermarry freely with the whites. This doctrine of the perfect equality of the white with the black in all respects whatsoever, social and political, clearly follows from the position that Africans 'are citizens of the United States. Nor is the Supreme Court of the Union less clearly vindicated by the posi- tion now assumed here by the published creed of this party, that the people of Kansas, in forming their state constitution (and not Con- gress), must decide this question of slavery for themselves. Having thus sustained the court on both the controverted points decided by that tribunal, it is hoped they will not approve the anarchical and revolutionary proceedings of other states, expunging the Supreme Court from, our system by depriving it of the great power for which it was created, of expounding the Constitution. If that be done, we can have, in fact, no unity of government or fun- damental law, but just as many ever varying 406 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. constitutions as passion, prejudice, and local interests may, from time to time, prescribe in the thirty-one states of the Union. I have endeavored heretofore faintly to fore- shadow the wonderful prosperity which would follow at once in Kansas, the peaceful and final settlement of this question. But if it should be in the power of agitators to prevent such a result, nothing but ruin will pervade our territory. Confidence will expire, and law and order will be subverted. Anarchy and civil war will be re-inaugurated among us. All property will greatly depreciate in value. Even the best farms will become almost worthless. Our towns and cities will sink into decay. Emigration into our territory will cease. A mournful train of returning settlers with ruined hopes and blasted fortunes, will leave our borders. All who have purchased property at present prices will be sacrificed, and Kansas will be marked by universal ruin and desolation. Nor will the mischief be arrested here. It will extend into every other state. Despots will exult over the failure here of the great principles of self-government, and the ap- proaching downfall of our confederacy. The pillars of the Union will rock upon their base, and we may close the next Presidential con- flict, amid the scattered fragments of the Con- stitution of our once happy and united people. The banner of the stars and stripes, the emblem of our country's glory, will be rent by con- tending factions. We shall no longer have a country. The friends of human liberty in other realms will shrink despairing from the conflict. Despotic power will resume its sway throughout the world, and man will have tried in vain the last experiment of self-government. The architects of our country's ruin, the assassins of her peace and prosperity, will share the same common ruin of all our race. They will meet, whilst living, the bitter curses of a ruined people, whilst history will record as their only epitaph : They were the destroy- ers of the American Union, of the liberties of their country and of the world. But I do not despair of the Republic. My hope is in the patriotism and intelligence of the people ; in their love of country, of liberty, and of the Union. Especially is my confidence unbounded in the hardy pioneers and settlers of the West. It was such settlers of a new state devoted to the Constitution and the Union, whom I long represented in the Senate of the United States, and whose rights and interests it was my pride and pleasure there, as well as in the Treasury Department, to protect and advocate. It was men like these whose rifles drove back the invader from the plains of Orleans, and planted the stars and stripes upon the victorious fields of Mexico. These are the men whom gold cannot corrupt, nor foes intimidate. From their towns and villages, from their farms and cottages, spread over the beautiful prairies of Kansas, they will come forward now in defence of the Con- stitution and the Union. These are- the glori- ous legacy they received from our fathers, and they will transmit to their children the price- less heritage. Before the peaceful power of their suffrage, this dangerous sectional agita- tion will disappear, and peace and prosperity once more reign throughout the borders. In the hearts of this noble band of patriotic set- tlers, the love of their country and of the Union is inextinguishable. It leaves them not in death, but follows them into that higher region, where, with Washington and Franklin and their noble compatriots, they look down with undying affection upon their country, and offer up their fervent prayers that the Union and the Constitution may be perpetuated. For recollect, my fellow citizens, that it is the Con- stitution that makes the Union, and unless the immortal instrument, bearing the name of the Father of his Country, shall be maintained entire in all its wise provisions and sacred guarantees, our free institutions must perish. My reliance also is unshaken upon the same overruling Providence which has carried us triumphantly through so many perils and conflicts, which has lifted us to a height of power and prosperity unexampled in history, and, if we shall maintain the Constitution and the Union, points us to a future more glorious and sublime than mind can conceive or pen describe. The march of our country's destiny, like that of His first chosen people, is marked by the foot-prints of the steps of God. The Constitution and the Union are " the cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night," which will carry us safely under his guidance through the wilderness and bitter waters, into the promised and ever extending fields of our country's glory. It is His hand which beckons us onward in the pathway of peaceful progress and expansion of power and renown, until our continent, in the distant future, shall be covered by the folds of the American banner, and, instructed by our example, all the nations of the world, through many trials and sacri- fices, shall establish the great principles of our constitutional confederacy of free and sovereign states. R. J. Walker. United States of America, Territory of Kansas. To tlie Legal Voters and Elective Officers oj Kansas : Whereas the following returns of the census taken under the act of the Legislative As- sembly, entitled " An act to provide for the taking of a census and the election of delegates to Convention," passed the 19th of February, 1857, have been made to me, to wit : — Di3t. Counties. No. of legal voters). Whole p-apulatioa. 1. Doniphan .... 1086 4120 2. Brown 206 no returns. •• Nemaha .... 140 512 3. Atchison .... 804 2807 4. Leavenworth . . . 1837 5529 5. Jefferson .... 555 no returns. 6. Calhoun .... 291 885 7. Marshall .... 206 415 8. Riley 363 no returns. •• I'oMewatoBMB . . 206 noreturna. NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 407 800 3727 1352 1S21 2622 9. Johnson .... 496 IU. Douglas .... 1318 11. Shawnee .... 283 " Kichardson ... — " Davis — 12. Lykens 413 13. no returns. 14. no returns. 15. no returns. 16. Linn 413 17. no returns. 18. Bourbon, McGee, Horn, and Allen . 645 . . . Total 9251 Now, therefore, I, Frederick P. Stanton, Se- cretary and Acting Governor, do hereby pro- claim that, according to the provisions of the said act, and the census returns made in pur- suance thereof, and upon a proper apportion- ment among the legal voters of the several districts aforesaid, they are respectively en- titled to elect to the convention provided for in said law the number of delegates herein as- signed to them ; that is to say : — To the 1st District — Doniphan county, 7 delegates. 2d " Brown and Nemaha, 2. 3d " Atchison county, 5. 4th " Leavenworth, 12. 5th " Jefferson, 4. 6th " Calhoun, 2. 7th " Marshall, 1. 8th " Kiley and Pottawatomie, 4. 9th " Johnson, 3. 10th " Douglas, 8. 11th " Shawnee, Richardson, and Davis, 2. 12th " Lykens, 3. 16th " Linn, 3. 18th " Bourbon, McGee, Dorn, and Allen, 4. The proper officers will hold the election for delegates to the said convention on the third Monday of June next, as directed by the law aforesaid, and in accordance with the appor- tionment herein made and declared. In testimony whereof I have hereunto sub- scribed my name and affixed the seal of the territory, at Lecompton, this the 20th May, 1857. Fred. P. Stanton. *On the 1st of Dec, 1856, John W. Whitfield having again been elected a delegate from Kansas, the following proceedings took place in the House of Representatives : — Mr. Phelps. I hold in my hand the cre- dentials .of John W. Whitfield, elected as a delegate from the territory of Kansas to this session of Congress. Mr. Whitfield is present, and I desire that the oath of office be admin- istered to him. I will ask the clerk, however, first to read the credentials. The credentials were read, as follows : — United States of Amreica, Territory of Kansas : This is to certify that John W. Whitfield was duly elected a delegate to the second session of the thirty-fourth Con- gress of the United States from the territory of Kansas, at an election held on the first Monday of October, 1856. In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my hand, and caused to be affixed the seal of the terri- [L.8.] tory. Done at Lecompton, this 8th day of October, 1856. John W. Geart, Governor of Kansas territory. By the Governor : Daniel Woodson, Secretary. On the 9th of Dec, the House decided that Gen. Whitfield should be sworn in, as follows : * These proceedings should have followed Gov. Geary's Message; but were inadvertently omitted. Teas.— Messrs. Aiken, Akers, Allen, Barksdale, BtU. Hend- ley S. lit inuit, Bococh; Bowie, Boyce, Branch. Brinks, Broom, Burnett. Cadwalader. John 1'. CAMPBELL, Cai:lilk, Caruthers, Caskie, Clingman, Williamson JR. W. Cobb, Cox, Crawford, Cullen; Davidson, Henry Winter Davis, Jacob C. Davis, Denver, Dowdell, Ektmundsan, Elliott, English, Etheridge, Eustis, Evans, Faulkner, Florence, Foster, Thomas J. D. Ful- ler, Garnctt, Gnode, Greenwood, Augustus Hall. J. Morrison Harris, Sampson W. Harris, Thomas L. Harris, Harrison, Herbert, Hickman, Hoffman, Houston, Jewett, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Keitt, Kelly, Kennett. Kidwtll, Lake, Letcher, Lindley, Lumpkin, Alexander K. Marshall, Hum- phrey Marshall, Samuel S. Marshall, Maxwell, McMullin, McQueen, Smith Miller, Millson, Moore, Morrison, Mordecai Oliver, Orr, Packer, Paine, Feck, Phelps, Porter, Powell, Puryear, Quitman. Ready, Ricaud, Rivers, Puffin, Rust, Sandidge, Savage, Shorter, Samuel A. Smith, William Smith, William R. Smith, Sneed, Stephens, Swope, Talbott, Taylor, Trippe, Tysou, Underwood, Vail, Vale, Walker, Warner, Watkins, Wells, Wheeler, Whitney, Williams, Winslow, Jolm V. Wright, Zollicoffer. — 112. Nays — Messrs. Albright, Allison, Ball, Barbour, Barclay, Henry Bennett, Benson, Billinghurst, Biigbam, Bishop, Bliss, Bradshaw, Brenton, Buflinton, Burlingame, James II. Campbell, Lewis D. Campbell, Chaffee, Bayard Clarke, Ezra Clark, Clawson, Colfax. Comins, Covode, Cragin, Cum- back, Damrell, Timothy Davis, Day, Dean, De Witt, Dick, Dodd, Durfee, Edie, Edwards, Emrie, Flagler, Galloway, Giddings, Gilbert, Granger, Grow, Robert B. Hall, Harlan, Haven, Hodges, Holloway, Thomas R. Horton, Valentine B. Horton, Howard, Hughstou, Kelsey, King, Knapp, Knight, Knowlton, Knox, Kunkel, Leiter, Mace, Matteson, McCarty, Killian Miller, Millward, Morgan, Morrill, Mott, Murray, Nichols, Norton, Andrew Oliver, Parker, Pcarce, Pelton, Pennington, Perry, Pettit, Pike, Pringle, Purviance, Ritchie, Robbins, Roberts, Robison, Sabin, Sapp, Scott, Sher- man, Simmons, Spinner, Stanton, Stranahan, Tappan, Thorington, Thurston, Todd, Trafton, Wade, Wakeman, Walbridge, Wsldron, Cadwalader C. Washburne, Elihu B. Washburne, Israel Washburne, Welch, Woodruff, Wood- worth.— 108. An Item of History. A piece of unwritten history, connected with the legislation on the Kansas-Nebraska bill, will find an appropriate place here. It will be recollected that the motipn of Mr. Cutting of N. Y., by which the Senate bill, organizing the territories of Nebraska and Kansas, was committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, on the 21st of March, 1854, gave rise to a good deal of bad feeling between some of the friends of the bill, who voted against that mo- tion, and those of them that voted for it. It was freely insinuated that these representa- tives claiming to be the friends of the measure, who voted for that motion, were at heart op- posed to the bill. These gentlemen who had so voted, and who afterwards gave the bill their support, justified its commitment to the Committee of the Whole House upon the ground that, unless the bill was freely discuss- ed in the House before it was brought to a vote, the people could not become thoroughly acquainted with its merits, and would be apt, in the Northern states, to make up a hasty judgment in opposition to it, well calculated to defeat its sanction by them, and to bury, politically, those representatives from the North who were giving it their support. The result of the commitment of the bill, and the bad feeling which ensued, was a caucus of its friends, held a few nights subsequent, in the Committee on Foreign Relations room of tho 408 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. House of Representatives, where there were in attendance some 98 members of both Houses, and where the subject was fully discussed. Mr. Wm. H. Witte, of Pennsylvania, and others, opposed the bringing of the discussion on the bill to too early a close. The folly of such a course of action upon a measure em- bracing so vital a principle as that involved, destroying as it did a compromise, in behalf of which the prejudices of the Northern peo- ple were so highly excited, became apparent to the meeting, and it was determined that the discussion should be full and ample, and that when it reached that standard, then, and not till then, should the bill be brought to a vote. The caucus appointed Mr. Stephens of Ga., Mr. Olds of Ohio, Mr. Witte of Penn., Mr. Bocock of Virginia, Mr. English of Indiana, and Mr. Kerr of North Carolina, a commit- tee to superintend the progress of the bill, to arrange the debate in its favor, and attend to all matters tending to promote its safe transit through the House. These gentlemen did jus- tice to the positions thus assigned them, and to their efforts may be attributed to a great extent the success which attended it. The wise policy of discussion triumphed. There were more speeches made by the opponents of the bill than by its friends, which completely precluded them from complaining of any ap- plication of the gag to their right of discussion, and thus deprived them of what would have been, in their hands, a potent instrument to excite opposition to the measure. On the 2d of Feb., 1858, the President com- municated the following message to Congress : To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States : I have received from J. Calhoun, Esq., pre- sident of the late constitutional convention of Kansas, a copy, duly certified by himself, of the constitution framed by that body, with the expression of a hope that I would submit the same to the consideration of Congress, " with the view of the admission of Kansas into the Union as an independent state." In compli- ance with this request, I herewith transmit to Congress, for their action, the constitution of Kansas, with the ordinance respecting the pub- lic lands, as well as the letter of Mr. Calhoun, dated at Lecompton on the 14th ultimo, by which they were accompanied. Having re- ceived but a single copy of the constitution and ordinance, I send this to the Senate. A great delusion seems to pervade the pub- lic mind in relation to the condition of parties in Kansas. This arises from the difficulty of inducing the American people to realize the fact that any portion of them should be in a state of rebellion against the government under which they live. When we speak of the affairs of Kansas, we are apt to refer merely to the existence of two violent political parties in that territory, divided on the question of slavery, just as we speak of such parties in the states. This presents no adequate idea of the true state of the case. The dividing line there is not between two political parties, both acknowledg- ing the lawful existence of the government, but between those who are loyal to this gov- ernment and those who have endeavored to destroy its existence by force and by usurpa- tion — between those who sustain and those who have done all in their power to overthrow the territorial government established by Congress. This government they would long since have subverted had it not been protected from their assaults by the troops of the United States. Such has been the condition of affairs since my inauguration. Ever since that period a large portion of the people of Kansas have been in a state of rebellion against the govern- ment, with a military leader at their head of a most turbulent and dangerous character. They have never acknowledged, but have con- stantly renounced and defied, the government to which they owe allegiance, and have been all the time in a state of resistance against its authority. They have all the time been endea- voring to subvert it and to establish a revolu- tionary government, under the so-called Topeka constitution, in its stead. Even at this very ment the Topeka legislature are in session. Whoever has read the correspondence of Gov- ernor Walker with the State Department, re- cently communicated to the Senate, will be convinced that this picture is not overdrawn. He always protested against the withdrawal of any portion of the military force of the United States from the territory, deeming its presence absolutely necessary for the preser- vation of the regular government and the exe- cution of the laws. In his very first despatch to the Secretary of State, dated June 2, 1857, he says : " The most alarming movement, how- ever, proceeds from the assembling on the 9th June of the so-called Topeka legislature, with a view to the enactment of an entire code of laws. Of course it will be my endeavor to pre- vent such a result, as it would lead to inevi- table and disastrous collision, and, in fact, re- new the civil war in Kansas." This was with difficulty prevented by the efforts of Governor Walker ; but soon thereafter, on the 14th of July, we find him requesting General Harney to furnish him a regiment of dragoons to pro- ceed to the city of Lawrence — and this for the reason that he had received authentic intelli- gence, verified by his own actual observation, that a dangerous rebellion had occurred, "in- volving an open defiance of the laws and the establishment of an insurgent government in that city." In the governor's despatch of July 15, he informs the Secretary of State " that this move- ment at Lawrence was the beginning of a plan, originating in that city, to organize insurrec- tion throughout the territory ; and especially i in all towns, cities, or counties where the repub- NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 409 lican party have a majority. Lawrence is the hotbed of all the abolition movements in this territory. It is the town established by the abolition societies of the east, and whilst there are respectable people there, it is filled by a considerable number of mercenaries who are paid by abolition societies to perpetuate and diffuse agitation throughout Kansas, and pre- vent a peaceful settlement of this question. Having failed in inducing their own so-called Topeka state legislature to organize this insur- rection, Lawrence has committed it herself, and, if not arrested, the rebellion will extend throughout the territory." And again : " In order to send this commu- nication immediately by mail, I must close by assuring you that the spirit of rebellion per- vades the great mass of the republican party of this territory, instigated, as I entertain no doubt they are, by eastern societies, having in view results most disastrous to the government and to the Union ; and that the continued pre- sence of General Harney here is indispensable, as originally stipulated by me, with a large body of dragoons and several batteries." On the 20th July, 1857, General Lane, under the authority of the Topeka convention, under- took, as Governor Walker informs us, " to organize the whole so-called free state party into volunteers, and to take the names of all who refuse enrolment. The professed object is to protect the polls at the election in August, of the new insurgent Topeka state legislature." " The object of taking the names of all who refuse enrolment is to terrify the free state conservatives into submission. This is proved by recent atrocities committed on such men by Topekaites. The speedy location of large bodies of regular troops here, with two batteries, is necessary. The Lawrence insurgents await the development of this new revolutionary military organization," &c, &c. In the governor's despatch of July 27th, he says that "General Lane and his staff every- where deny the authority of the territorial laws, and counsel a total disregard of these enactments." Without making further quotations of a simi- lar character from other despatches of Gover- nor Walker, it appears by a reference to Mr. Stanton's communication to General Cass, of the 9th of December last, that the " important step of calling the legislature together was taken after I [he] had become satisfied that the election ordered by the convention on the 21st instant could not be conducted without collision and bloodshed." So intense was the disloyal feeling among the enemies of the gov- ernment established by Congress, that an elec- tion which afforded them an opportunity, if in the majority, of making Kansas a free state, according to their own professed desire, could not be conducted without collision and blood- shed ! The truth is, that, up till the present moment, the euemies of the existing government still udhere to their Topeka revolutionary constitu- tion aud government. The very first para- graph of the message of Governor Robinson, dated on the 7th of December, to the Topeka legislature, now assembled at Lawrence, con- tains an open defiance of the Constitution and laws of the United States. The governor says : " The convention which framed the constitution at Topeka originated with the people of Kan- sas Territory. They have adopted and ratified the same twice by a direct vote, and also indi- rectly through two elections of state officerg and members of the state legislature. Yet it has pleased the administration to regard the whole proceeding revolutionary." This Topeka government," adhered to with such treasonable pertinacity, is a government in direct opposition to the existing government prescribed and recognised by Congress. It is a usurpation of the same character as it would be for a portion of the people of any state of the Union to undertake to establish a separate government, within its limits, for the purpose of redressing any grievance, real or imaginary, of which they might complain, against the legitimate state government. Such a prin- ciple, if carried into execution, would destroy all lawful authority and produce universal anarchy. From this statement of facts, the reason be- comes palpable why the enemies of the govern- ment authorized by Congress have refused to vote for delegates to the Kansas constitutional convention, and also afterwards on the ques- tion of slavery submitted by it to the people. It is because they have ever refused to sanc- tion or recognise any other constitution than that framed at Topeka. Had the whole Lecompton constitution been submitted to the people, the adherents of this organization would doubtless have voted against it, because, if successful, they would thus have removed an obstacle out of the way of their own revolutionary constitution. They would have done this, not upon a considera- tion of the merits of the whole or any part of the Lecompton constitution, but simply because they have ever resisted the authority of the gov- ernment authorized by Congress, from which it emanated. Such being the unfortunate condition of affairs in the territory, what was the right, as well as the duty, of the law-abiding people? Were they silently and patiently to submit to the Topeka usurpation, or adopt the neces- sary measures to establish a constitution under the authority of the organic law of Congress ? That this law recoguised the right of the people of the territory, without any enabling act from Congress, to form a state constitu- tion, is too clear for argument. For Congress " to leave the people of the territory perfectly free," in framing their constitution, " to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States," and then to say that they shall not be permitted to proceed and frame a constitution in their own way, without an ex- press authority from Congress, appears to be almost a contradiction in terms. It would be 410 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. much more plausible to contend that Congress had no power to pass such an enabling act, than to argue that the people of a Territory might be kept out of the Union for an indefi- nite period, and until it might please Congress to permit them to exercise the right of self- government. This would be to adopt not " their own way," but the way which Congress might prescribe. It is impossible that any people could have proceeded with more regularity in the forma- tion of a constitution than the people of Kan- sas have done. It was necessary, first, to ascertain whether it was the desire of the peo- ple to be relieved from their territorial de- pendence and establish a state government. For this purpose, the territorial legislature, in 1855, passed a law " for taking the sense of the people of this territory upon the expedi- ency of calling a convention to form a state constitution" at the general election to be held in October, 1856. The "sense of the people" was accordingly taken, and they de- cided in favor of a convention. It is true that at this election the enemies of the territorial government did not vote, because they were then engaged at Topeka, without the slightest pretext of lawful authority, in framing a con- stitution of their own for the purpose of sub- verting the territorial government. In pursuance of this decision of the people in favor of a convention, the territorial legis- lature, on the 27th day of February, 1857, passed an act for the election of delegates on the third Monday of June, 1857, to frame a state constitution. This law is as fair in its provisions as any that ever passed a legisla- tive body for a similar purpose. The right of suffrage at this election is clearly and justly defined. "Every bona fide inhabitant of the territory of Kansas," on the third Monday of June, the day of the election, who was a citi- zen of the United States above the age of twenty-one, and had resided therein for three months previous to that date, was entitled to vote. In order to avoid all interference from neighboring states or territories with the free- dom and fairness of the election, provision was made for the registry of the qualified voters ; and, in pursuance thereof, nine thou- sand two hundred and fifty-one voters were registered. Governor Walker did his whole duty in urging all the qualified citizens of Kansas to vote at this election. In his in- augural address, on the 27th May last, he in- formed them that " under our practice the preliminary act of framing a state constitu- tion is uniformly performed through the in- strumentality of a convention of delegates shosen by the people themselves. That con- vention is now about to be elected by you under the call of the territorial legislature, created and still recognised by the authority of Congress, and clothed by it, in the compre- hensive language of the organic law, with full power to make such an enactment. The ter- ritorial legislature, then, in assembling this convention, were fully sustained by the act of Congress, and the authority of the convention is distinctly recognised in my instructions from the President of the United States." The governor also clearly and distinctly warns them what would be the consequences if they should not participate in the election. "The people of Kansas, then, (he says), are invited by the highest authority known to the Constitution, to participate, freely and fairly, in the election of delegates to frame a consti- tution and state government. The law has performed its entire appropriate function when it extends to the people the right of suffrage, but it cannot compel the performance of that duty. Throughout our whole Union, how- ever, and wherever free government prevails, those who abstain from the exercise of the right of suffrage authorize those who do vote to act for them in that contingency ; and the absentees are as much bound, under the law and constitution, where there is no fraud or violence, by the act of the majority of those who do vote, as if all had participated in the election. Otherwise, as voting must be vo- luntary, self-government would be impractica- ble, and monarchy or despotism would re- main as the only alternative." It may also be observed, that at this period any hope, if such had existed, that the Topeka constitution would ever be recognised by Con- gress, must have been abandoned. Congress had adjourned on the 3d March previous, hav- ing recognised the legal existence of the ter- ritorial legislature in a variety of forms, which I need not enumerate. Indeed, the delegate elected to the House of Representa- tives, under a territorial law, had been admit- ted to his seat, and had just completed his term of service on the day previous to my inauguration. This was the propitious moment for settling all difficulties in Kansas. This was the time for abandoning the revolutionary Topeka or- ganization, and for the enemies of the exist- ing government to conform to the laws, and to unite with its friends in framing a state constitution. But this they refused to do, and the consequences of their refusal to submit to lawful authority and vote at the election of delegates, may yet prove to be of a most deplorable character. Would that the re- spect for the laws of the land which so emi- nently distinguished the men oi the past gen- eration could be revived! It is a disregard and violation of the law which have for years kept the territory of Kansas in a state of almost open rebellion against its gov- ernment. It is the same spirit which has produced actual rebellion in Utah. Our only safety consists in obedience and conformity to law. Should a general spirit against its en- forcement prevail, this will prove fatal to us as a nation. We acknowledge no master but the law ; and should we cut loose from its re- straints, and every one do what seemeth good in his own eyes, our case will indeed be hope- less. The enemies of the territorial government NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 41l determined still to resist the authority of Con- gress. They refused to vote for delegates to the convention, not because, from circum- stances which I need not detail, there was an omission to register the comparatively few voters who were inhabitants of certain coun- ties of Kansas in the early spring of 1857, but because they had predetermined, at all hazards, to adhere to their revolutionary or- ganization, and defeat the establishment of any other constitution than that which they had framed at Topeka. The election was, therefore, suffered to pass by default ; but of this result the qualified electors who refused to vote can never justly complain. From this review, it is manifest that the Le- compton convention, according to every prin- ciple of constitutional law, was legally consti- tuted and was invested with power to frame a constitution. The sacred principle of popular sovereignty has been invoked in favor of the enemies of law and order in Kansas. But in what man- ner is popular sovereignty to be exercised in this country, if not through the instrumen- tality of established law? In certain small republics of ancient times, the people did assemble in primary meetings, passed laws, and directed public affairs. In our country this is manifestly impossible. Popular sover- eignty can be exercised here only through the ballot-box ; and if the people will refuse to exercise it in this manner, as they have done in Kansas at the election of delegates, it is not for them to complain that their rights have been violated. The Kansas convention, thus lawfully con- stituted, proceeded to frame a constitution, and, having completed their work, finally ad- journed on the 7th day of November last. They did not think proper to submit the whole of this constitution to a popular vote, but they did submit the question whether Kansas should be a free or a slave state to the people. This was the question which had convulsed the Union and shaken it to its very centre. This was the question which had lighted up the flames of civil war in Kansas, and had produced dangerous sectional parties through- out the confederacy. It was of a character so paramount in respect to the condition of Kan- sas as to rivet the anxious attention of the people of the whole country upon it, and it alone. No person thought of any other ques- tion. For my own part, when I instructed Governor Walker, in general terms, in favor of submitting the constitution to the people, I had no object in view except the all-absorb- ing question of slavery. In what manner the people of Kansas might regelate their other concerns was not a subject which attracted any attention. In fact, the general provisions of our recent state constitutions, after an ex- perience of eighty years, are so similar and so excellent that it would be difficult to go far wrong at the present day in framing a new constitution. I then believed, and still believe, that un- der the organic act, the Kansas convention were bound to submit this all important ques- tion of slavery to the people. It was never, however, my opinion that, independently of this act, they would have been bound to sub- mit any portion of the constitution to a popu- lar vote, in order to give it validity. Had I entertained such an opinion, this would have been in opposition to many precedents in our history, commencing in the very best age of the republic. It would have been in opposi- tion to the principle which pervades our insti- tutions, and which is every day carried out •into practice, that the people have the right to delegate to representatives, chosen by them- selves, their sovereign power to frame consti- tutions, enact laws, and perform many other important acts, without requiring that these should be subjected to their subsequent ap- probation. It would be a most inconvenient limitation of their own power, imposed by the people upon themselves, to exclude them from exercising their sovereignty in any lawful man- ner they think proper. It is true that the people of Kansas might, if they had pleased, have required the convention to submit the constitution to a popular vote ; but this they have not done. The only remedy, therefore, in this case, is that which exists in all other similar cases. If the delegates who framed the Kansas constitution have in any manner violated the will of their constituents, the people always possess the power to change their constitution or their laws, according to their own pleasure. The question of slavery was submitted to an election of the people of Kansas on the 21st December last, in obedience to the man- date of the constitution. Here, again, a fair opportunity was presented to the adherents of the Topeka constitution, if they were the majority, to decide this exciting question " in their own way," and thus restore peace to the distracted territory ; but they again refused to exercise their right of popular sovereignty, and again suffered the election to pass by de- fault. I heartily rejoice that a wiser and a better spirit prevailed among a large majority of these people on the first Monday of January ; and that theydid,on that day,voteunder the Le- compton constitution for a governor and other state officers, a member of Congress and for members of the legislature. This election was warmly contested by the parties, and a larger vote was polled than at any previous election in the territory. We may now reason- ably hope that the revolutionary Topeka or- ganization will be speedily and finally aban- doned, and this will go far towards the final settlement of the unhappy differences in Kansas. If frauds have been committed at this election, either by one or both parties, the legislature and the people of Kansas, un- der their constitution, will know how to re- dress themselves and punish these detestable but too common crimes without any outside interference. 412 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. The people of Kansas have, then, "in their own way," and in strict accordance with the organic act, framed a constitution and state government ; have submitted the all-important question of slavery to the people, and have elected a governor, a member to represent them in Congress, members of the state legis- lature, and other state officers. They now ask admission into the Union under this con- stitution, which is republican in its form. It is for Congress to decide whether they will admit or reject the state which has thus been created. For my own part, I am decidedly in favor of its admission, and thus terminating, the Kansas question. This will carry out the great principle of non-intervention recognised and sanctioned by the organic act, which de- clares in express language in favor of " non- intervention by Congress with slavery in the 6tates or territories," leaving " the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." In this manner, by localizing the question of slavery, and confining it to the people whom it immediately concerned, every patriot anxiously expected that this question would be banished from the halls of Congress, where it has always exerted a baneful influ- ence throughout the whole country. It is proper that I should briefly refer to the election held under an act of the territo- rial legislature, on the first Monday of Janu- ary last, on the Lecompton constitution. This election was held after the territory had been prepared for admission into the Union as a sove- reign state, and when no authority existed in the territorial legislature which could possibly destroy its existence or change its character. The election, which was peaceably conducted under my instructions, involved a strange in- consistency. A large majority of the persons who voted against the Lecompton constitution were at the very same time and place recog- nising its valid existence in the most solemn and authentic manner, by voting under its provisions. I have yet received no official information of the result of this election. As a question of expediency, after the right has been maintained, it may be wise to reflect upon the benefits to Kansas and to the whole country which would result from its immedi- ate admission into the Union, as well as the disasters which may follow its rejection. Do- mestic peace will be the happy consequence of its admission, and that fine territory, which has hitherto been torn by dissensions, will ra- pidly increase in population and wealth, and speedily realize the blessings and the comforts which follow in the train of agricultural and mechanical industry. The people will then be sovereign, and can regulate their own af- fairs in their own way. If a majority of them desire to abolish domestic slavery within the state, there is no other possible mode by which this can be effected so speedily as by prompt admission The will of the majority is su- preme and irresistible when expressed in an orderly and lawful manner. They can make and unmake constitutions at pleasure. It would be absurd to say that they can impose fetters upon their own power which they can- not afterwards remove. If they could do this, they might tie their own hands for a hundred as well as for ten years. These are funda- mental principles of American freedom, and are recognised, I believe, in some form or other, by every state constitution ; and if Congress, in the act of admission, should think proper to recognise them, I can perceive no objection to such a course. This has been done emphatically in the constitution of Kan- sas. It declares in the bill of rights that " all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their autho- rity and instituted for their benefit, and there- fore they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government in such manner as they may think proper." The great state of New York is at this moment governed un- der a constitution framed and established in direct opposition to the mode prescribed by the previous constitution. If, therefore, the provision changing the Kansas constitution, after the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four, could by possibility be con- strued into a prohibition to make such a change previous to that period, this prohibi- tion would be wholly unavailing. The legis- lature already elected may, at its very first session, submit the question to a vote of the people whether they will or will not have a convention to amend their constitution and adopt all necessary means for giving effect to the popular will. It has been solemnly adjudged by the high- est judicial tribunal known to our laws, that slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the Con- stitution of the United States. Kansas is, therefore, at this moment as much a slave- state as Georgia or South Carolina. Without this the equality of the sovereign states com- posing the Union would be violated, and the use aud enjoyment of a territory acquired by the common treasure of all the states would be closed against the people and the property of nearly half the members of the confederacy. Slavery can therefore never be prohibited in Kansas except by means of a constitutional provision, and in no other manner can this be obtained so promptly, if a majority of the peo- ple desire it, as by admitting it into the Union 1 under its present constitution. On the other hand, should Congress reject the constitution, under the idea of affording the disaffected in Kansas a third opportunity of prohibiting slavery in the state, which they might have done twice before if in the ma- jority, no man can foretell the consequences. If Congress, for the sake of those men who refused to vote for delegates to the convention when they mi^ht have excluded slavery from the constitution, and who afterwards refused to vote on the 21st December last, when they might, as they claim, have stricken slavery NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 413 from the constitution, should now reject the state because slavery remains in the constitu- tion, it is manifest that the agitation upon this dangerous subject will be renewed in a more alarming form than it has ever yet assumed. Every patriot in the country had indulged the hope that the Kansas and Nebraska act would put a final end to the slavery agitation, at least in Congress, which had for more than twenty years convulsed the country and en- dangered the Union. This act involved great and fundamental principles, and if fairly car- ried into effect will settle the question. Should the agitation be again revived, should the peo- ple of the sister states be again estranged from each other with more than their former bitter- ness, this will arise from a cause, so far as the interests of Kansas are concerned, more trifling and insignificant than has ever stirred the ele- ments of a great people into commotion. To the people of Kansas, the only practical diffe- rence between admission or rejection depends simply upon the fact whether they can them- selves more speedily change the present con- stitution if it does not accord with the will of the majority, or frame a second constitution to be submitted to Congress hereafter. Even if this were a question of mere expediency, and not of right, the small difference of time, one way or the other, is of not the least impor- tance, when contrasted with the evils which must necessarily result to the whole country from a revival of the slaver}' agitation. In considering this question, it should never be forgotten that, in proportion to its insignifi- cance, let the decision be what it may, so far as it may affect the few thousand inhabitants of Kansas, who have from the beginning re- sisted the constitution and the laws, for this very reason the rejection of the constitution will be so much the more keenly felt by the peo- ple of fourteen of the states of this Union, where slavery is recognised under the Consti- tution of the United States. Again : The speedy admission of Kansas into the Union would restore peace and quiet to the whole country. Already the affairs of this territory have engrossed an undue pro- portion of public attention. They have sadly affected the friendly relations of the people of the states with each other, and alarmed the fears of patriots for the safely of the Union. Kansas once admitted into the Union, the ex- citement becomes localized, and will soon die away for want of outside aliment. Then every difficulty will be settled at the ballot box. Besides — and this is no trifling considera- tion — I shall then be enabled to withdraw the troops of the United States from Kansas, and employ them on branches of service where they are much needed. They have been kept there, on the earnest importunity of Governor Walker, to maintain the existence of the terri- j torial government and secure the execution of ! the laws. He considered that at least two thousand regular troops, under the command ;f General Harney, were necessary for this purpose. Acting upon his reliable informa- tion, I have been obliged, in some degree, to interfere with the expedition to Utah, in order to keep down rebellion in Kansas. This has involved a very heavy expense to the govern- ment. Kansas once admitted, it is believed there will no longer be any occasion there for troops of the United States. I have thus performed my duty on this im- portant question, under a deep sense of re- sponsibility to God and my country. My public life will terminate within a brief period ; and I have no other object of earthly ambition than to leave my country in a peace- ful and prosperous condition, and to live in the affections and respect of my countrymen. The dark and ominous clouds which now ap- pear to be impending over the Union, I con- scientiously believe may be dissipated with honor to every portion of it by the admission of Kansas during the present sessionof Con- gress ; whereas, if she should be rejected, I greatly fear these clouds will become darker and more ominous than any which have ever yet threatened the Constitution and the Union. James Buchanan. Washington, Februanj 2, 1858. In the Senate the Message was referred to the Committee on Territories, and was the subject of the following reports on the 18th of February, 1858. Mr. Green made the following report : The Committee on Territories, to whom was referred the message of the President, com- municating a constitution for Kansas as a State, adopted by the convention which met at Lecompton, on Monday, the 4th of Sep- tember, 1857, having had the same under consideration, instruct me to report : — By the treaty with France, made on the 30th day of April, 1803, known as the Louisiana treaty, Kansas was acquired, with a special stipulation for the protection of the rights of the inhabitants, and for the admission of such states as might be formed out of that territory into the Union on an equal footing with the original states. This solemn treaty obligation has been heretofore faithfully observed, and the states of Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, and Iowa have been respectively admitted into the Union ; and another part of the territory acquired under that treaty, included in the pro- posed state of Minnesota, is now about to be likewise admitted. Kansas has the same right to expect the same treatment in the fulfilment of sacred treaty obligations, made with one of the first powers of the world. In view of these obligations, and in strict conformity with the uniform practice of the government in fulfilment thereof, citizens of the United States have settled in Kansas, under the just expectation of having a state organi- zation. And to protect the people,_ and enable them to prepare for such an organization, Con- gress, on the 30th day of May, 1851, passed 414 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. an act creating a government for that terri- tory. That act, following up the constant practice of the government and in fulfilment of the treaty with France, contemplates a changeof its form into that of a state, and for admission into the Union. Under the act of Congress aforesaid, a regu- lar territorial government was organized, and the people of the territory were thereby con- stituted a political community, with full powers of government, subordinate only to the Con- stitution of the United States, and proceeded to pass laws for the protection of persons and property, the validity of which cannot now be called in question. Soon after the territorial government went into operation, a party of disaffected persons formed combinations to resist the laws and to set at defiance both the territorial and United States governments. To that end they proceeded to form an organi- zation, and, although the population at that time amounted to less than twenty-five thou- sand inhabitants in the entire territory, and they, constituting a small minority of that number, yet, in order to resist the legal authori- ties under the color of law, got up an illegal assembly at Topeka, and actually pretended to organize a state government ; and this, too, without a congressional enabling act ; without the assent of the territorial legislature ; with- out a vote of the people authorizing the elec- tion of a convention; but in disregard of all. That same party has been persistent in its illegal efforts to maintain its own organization in violation of law, and to defeat and prevent the operation of all laws and the settlement of all questions affecting the peace of Kansas. To accomplish its ends they concocted and effected a secret military organization of their malcontents, pledged to resist the legal authori- ties, and actually received Sharpe's rifles and other arms and munitions of war, which were sent out from Massachusetts and other states by the so-called emigrant aid societies, to en- able them to maintain their forcible resistance to lawful authority. The societies had previ- ously sent out the worst part of the spurious population of Kansas for the professed and avowed object of excluding slavery from the territory. That attempt was justly regarded as offensive to the southern states. The people of the United States, through their represen- tatives in Congress, established the principle of strict non-intervention on the subject^ of slavery in the territories and states. The Su- preme Court subsequently sustained, by a solemn decision, the same principle. Therefore, for states, or societies chartered by states, or any other combinations, to under- take to effect an object that Congress, the Su- preme Court, and the American people have pronounced against, must, of necessity, have proved obnoxious. The action of these societies, in conjunction with their affiliated organizations in the Terri- tory of Kansas, created a general commotion throughout the country, as was to have been expected. Charges and complaints were made on both sides, and the whole subject was subsequently brought before Congress for consideration. The matter was fully investigated, and the regular, legal territorial government was completely sustained and endorsed. Every department - of the Federal government in which this question has been considered, has pronounced the same judgment in favor of the territorial authorities, and against the party resisting its laws. A report was made in the Senate on this subject by Mr. Douglas, the chairman of the committee charged with the investigation, in which he says : — [Here Mr. Green quotes all that part of Judge Douglas's report made in the last Con- gress, and to be found on pa.«;e 369 of this work, referring to the Emigrant Aid movement.] These extracts prove the character of the resisting party in Kansas, and illustrate its purposes from the beginning to the present time; while the report also fully sustains the regular, legal government, as before stated. Under these circumstances, and in this condi- tion of affairs, and with these express recogni- tions, the regular, legal territorial government continued to progress, and the population con- tinued to increase, until it was believed the time had arrived for admission into the Union, in acordance with the provisions of the Louisi- ana treaty, the uniform practice of government, the provisions of the organic act, and the just expectations of the people. On the — day of July, 1855, the regular legislature of the ter- ritory passed an act to take the sense of the people on the subject of forming a state gov- ernment, preparatory to admission into the Union; The election was held, and a large majority voted in favor of having a convention to adopt a constitution '; indeed, the vote was almost unanimous. In pursuance of which vote the territorial legislature, on the 19th day of February, 1857, passed a law for taking the census of the peo- ple, for making a registry of the voters, and for the election of delegates to the convention. This law is admitted to have been enacted by lawful authority, and to be regular, fair, and just in its provisions. Mr. Geary, then gov- ernor of Kansas, vetoed the bill calling the convention, for the reason that it did not require the constitution, when framed, to be submitted to a vote of the people for adoption or rejection. The bill, however, was reconsidered in each house, and passed by a two-thirds vote over the veto of the governor, and thus became a binding law in the territory. The legislature, no doubt, considered it a solemn duty to leave the people of the territory perfectly free, through their own delegates in convention assembled, to form and adopt their own con- stitution in their own way ; and hence did not undertake to dictate any single act to be per- formed by the people's representatives, whose authority" on such matters was greater than NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 415 that of the legislature. If the legislature could direct the convention what they should do on one subject, it might, with equal propriety, have given commands on all other subjects. This would have been a flagrant violation of all rules of right and of justice to the people. At the preceding election the people had directed the legislature to pass a law calling a convention of delegates, to be elected by the people for the purpose of adopting a constitu- tion, and if the legislature had gone beyond the performance of that ministerial act, which the people required, it would have been justly regarded as a violation of the people's rights, and an attempt to coerce the convention, which the people were about to elect to reflect their own will. The republican institutions of the United States are all based upon the repre- sentative principle. Instead of meeting in per- son, as did the people of Athens, in large tumul- tuous assemblies, where no certain decision on anything could be had, and where liberty itself was ultimately lost, the people of the several states of our happy Union have chosen rather to delegate authority to representatives, who should act for, and in the name and behalf of the people, in public political matters, either in making constitutions, or in the passage of laws for the regulations and government of society. This principle is observed in all our institutions, state and federal, and thus far in our history has proved faithful and efficient in protecting the rights of the people, and bene- ficial in avoiding the tumultuary mobs which disgraced the Grecian republics and some of our own larger cities. But whether the repre- sentative principle, or the personal association in assemblies, be the better system, it is not for the committee to decide. It is sufficient if either one be adopted and pursued by the people, as in the case of Kansas ; and the selection of the representative American sys- tem can be no valid objection to the action of the people in that regard. That representa- tive rule and principle has been perfected, in a great degree, under our institutions, and may almost be claimed as an American system. That the law providing for the convention afforded equal opportunities to all the citizens of Kansas to have a voice on the constitution, in and through the convention, cannot be de- nied. It provided : Sec. 1. Sheriffs are required, between the 1st of March and 1st of April, 1857, to make an enumeration ; have power to appoint depu- ties, who shall take oath, &c. Sec. 2. In case of vacancy in office of sheriff, the probate judge shall perform his duty ; and in case of vacancy in both, the governor shall appoint some competent resident to perform said duty. Sec. 3. Officers, as above, shall file in office of probate judge a complete list of all qualified voters resident in his county or district, on 1st of April, 1857. Sec. 4. Copies of said list to be posted in public places. Sec. 5. Probate judge to continue court from receipt of said returns to 1st of May, for the purpose of correcting them. Sec. 6. Lists of legal voters, as corrected, to be returned to the governor and secretary, and distributed generally. Sec. 7. Upon completion of census, appor- tionment of members to be made by the go- vernor and secretary, according to the regis- tered voters. Number of representatives to be sixty. Sec. 8. Election for members of the consti- tutional convention shall be held on the third Monday in June, and no one, unless registered, shall vote. Sec. 9. County commissioners shall appoint the places of voting, judges of elections, &c. Sec. 10. Judges of election are required to be sworn ; also the clerks, and duplicate returns of election shall be made and certified by them. Sec. 11. Every bona fide inhabitant of Kan- sas, on the third Monday of June, 1857, being a citizen of the United States, and over twenty- one years of age, whose residence in the county where he offers to vote shall have been three months next before said election, shall be entitled to vote. Sec. 12. Persons authorized to take the cen- sus to administer oaths, &c. Sec. 13 provides for the punishment of un- lawful attempts to influence voters. Sec. 14 provides punishment for illegal voting. Sec. 15 provides punishment for those who fraudulently hinder a fair expression of the popular vote. Sec. 16. Delegates are required to assemble in convention at the capital on the first Mon- day of September next. Sec. 17 provides for an election by the con- vention of its officers. Sec. 18 in relation to the salaries of sheriffs and other officers. Sec. 19 relative to the location of the elec- tion districts. Sec. 20 requires all votes to be viva voce. Sec. 21 gives a tabular form for the returns. Above bill passed over governor's veto on the 19th of February, 1857. A registry of the voters was accordingly taken, in pursuance of the act of the territo- rial legislature, so far as it was possible, under the peculiar state of things then existing, to do so. It appears that a portion of the in- habitants refused to be registered ; some gave fictitious names, and others prevented the offi- cers from complying with the law. Mr. Stanton, then acting governor of Kan- sas, says, on that subject: " It is not my purpose to reply to your statement of facts : I cannot do so from any personal knowledge enabling me either to admit or deny them. I may say, however, I have heard statements quite as authentic as your own, and in some instances from members of your own party (Republi- cans), to the effect that your political friends have very generally, indeed, almost universally, refused to participate in the. pending proceedings for registering the names of the legal voters. In some instances they have given fictitious names, and in numerous others they refused to give any names at all. You cannot deny that your party have here- 416 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tofore resolved not to take part in the registration, and it appears to me that, without indulging ungenerous suspi- cions of the integrity of officers, you might well attribute any errors and omissions of the sheriffs to the existence of this well known and controlling feet." But notwithstanding all these difficulties in making the registry of voters, 9251 names were legally returned in the following coun- ties and districts, viz: Doniphan, Brown, Ne- maha, Atchison, Leavenworth, Jefferson, Cal- houn, Marshall, Pottawatomie, Johnson, Douglas, Shawnee, Lykins, Linn, Bourbon, McGee, Dorn, Allen. In the following counties, Richardson, Da- vis, Franklin, Weller, Breckenridge, Wise, Madison, Butler, Coffey, Anderson, Woodson, Wilson, Godfrey, Greenwood, Hunter, no re- gistry was taken on account of the facts above stated. All of the last-named counties to- gether contained but a very small population or vote. It is believed, from the statement made by General Calhoun, now before the committee, that many of these counties did not contain ten votes, and all of them together not so many as 1500. The counties were marked out by a description of boundaries and named ; but some of them were without in- habitants, and many of them were attached to adjacent counties for civil and military pur- poses. All of them were equally provided for by the law calling the convention, and any omis- sions that may have occurred resulted from causes not in the control of the majority of the people. The largest vote ever had in the territory up to the 21st December last is about 12,000. So that it appears from the facts before the committee, notwithstanding the refusal to com- ply with the law on the part of those opposed to it, only about 3000, or less, could possibly have been omitted in the registration ; and even that omission was the result of their own acts. One whole month was afterwards allowed under the law, as before stated, for the cor- rection of the lists after due notice to the public, by adding to or striking off names improperly inserted or omitted; to be deter- mined on legal evidence submitted by any parties concerned, before a legal tribunal. In addition to which, it appears that the gov- ernor of the territory made every effort to in- duce the people to comply with the law calling the convention, and to give full force and effect to all its provisions. Thus, every opportunity was afforded to all the people of Kansas, to register their names, as legal voters, if they possessed the requisite qualifications. After the registration was closed, according to the law, Mr. Stanton, then governor of Kansas, made the appor- tionment of delegates amongst the several dis- tricts. The election was legally held, pursu- ant to the law. At the time this apportion- ment was made the governor knew as much concerning the counties and people not regis- tered, in consequence of acts which no law oould prevent, as since : and if the facts, as then presented, were fnir enough to justify the apportionment, it is now too late to mako any complaint against that action. The law allowed but sixty members for the conven- tion, and the governor, with the full know- ledge of the registration before him, appor- tioned the whole number amongst the districts and counties where the registry had been - made ; leaving it impossible for other counties not included in the registration by their own misconduct, and not attached to registered counties, to have any separate and independ- ent representation in the convention without a palpable violation of the law calling the con- , vention. The people had legally demanded this call of a convention, and the proper tribu- nal had made provision for it on terms ad- mitted to be fair, just and equal for all the people; and if by refusal to act, or other- mis- conduct, any portion feel aggrieved, they have no just cause of complaint ; nor should Con- gress pay any regard to complaints consequent upon their non-action. Speaking of this call of the convention, and of the convention itself, Mr. Stanton said, in an official document, to the people of the territory : " The government especially recognises the territorial act which provides for assembling a convention to form a con- stitution with a view to making application to Congress for admission as a state into the Union. That act is regarded as presenting the only test of the qualification of voters for delegates to the convention, and all preceding repugnant restrictions are thereby repealed. In this light the act must he allowed to have provided for a full and fair expression of the will of the people through the delegates who may be chosen to represent them in the constitutional convention. 1 do not doubt, however, that in order to avoid all pretexts for resist- ance to the peaceful operation of this law the convention itself will in some form provide for submitting the gnut distracting question regarding their social institution, whieh has so long agitated the people of Kansas, to a fair vote of the actual bona fide residents of the territory, with every possible security'against fraud and violence. If the consti- tution be thus framed, and the question of difference be thus submitted to the decision of the people, 1 believe that Kansas will be admitted by Congress, without delay, as one of the sovereign states of the American Union, ami the territorial authorities will be immediately withdrawn.'' This was the legal notification of the gover- nor to the people of Kansas before the elec- tion for delegates to the convention was had. Governor Walker, on the 27th May, still before the election, and with full knowledge of the registration and apportionment, said . "Under our practice the preliminary act of framing a state constitution is uniformly performed through the in- strumentality of a convention of delegates chosen by the people themselves. That convention is now about to be elected by you on the call of the territorial legislature, created and still recognised by Congress, and clothed by i". in the comprehensive language of the organic law, tvithjull power to make such an enactment. "The territorial legislature, then, in assembling this on- vention, were fully sustained by the act of Congress: and the authority of the convention is distinctly recognised in my instructions from the President of the Uuited States. * * " The people of Kansas, then, are invited by the highest authority known to the Constitution to participate freely and fairly in the election of delegates to form a constitution and state government. The law lias performed its entire appropriate functions when it extends to the people the right of suffrage, but caunot compel the performance of that duty." Here, also, by Governor Walker, _ we have the distinct recognition- of the legality of the convention to form the constitution, with a special invitation for all qualified to partici- pate therein. But, notwithstanding all this, NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 41- the same party which had sought to stir up strife and contention previously in the terri- tory, still continued their insurrectionary and revolutionary movements. Their conduct and their legal relation to the government may be understood from the following quotations made from the official papers of Governor Walker. Speaking of them he says : "And on the other side in favor of what was regarded by me as open rebellion, even many violent men, beaded by the priucipal delegates of the town of Lawrence, winch is the great seat of all the agitation that has disturbed the peace of the territory." ******* "Lawrence is the hot-bed of all the abolition movements in this territory. It is the town established by the abolition societies of the east; and whilst there are respectable people there, it is filled by a considerable number of mercenaries, who are paid by abolition societies to perpetuate and diffuse agitation throughout Kansas, and prevent a peaceful settle- ment of this question." * * * * * * * Again he says, 14th July : " I have received authentic intelligence that a dangerous rebellion has occurred in the city of Lawrence, in this terri- tory, involving an open defiance of the laws, and the esta- blishment of an insurgent government in that city." * * He further says : " Under these circumstances, you have proceeded to esta- blish a government for the city of Lawrence in direct defiance of the territorial government, and denying its existence and authority. You have imposed upon all those officers the duty of taking an oath to support this so-called state con- stitution, thus distinctly superseding, so far as in your power, the territorial government created bv the Congress of the United States." '• You have caused these proceedings to be printed in hand-bill form, and have distributed Uiem, as I am in- formed, throughout the territory, with a view to incite the other cities, towns, and counties of Kansas to establish insurrectionary governments, thereby placing the people of this territory, so far as in your power, in open conflict with the government of the United 8tates." * * * " Your evident purpose is thus to involve the whole terri- tory iu insurrection, and to renew the scenes of bloodshed aui civil war. Upon you. then, must rest all the guilt, and responsibility of this contemplated revolution." * * * '• You have, however, chosen to disregard the laws of Con- gress and of the territorial government, and have proceeded to create a local government of your own, based upon insur- rection and revolution. You are inaugurating rebellion and revolution." * * * "If the Lawrence rebellion is not put down, similar organizations, extending to counties as well as towns, will be carried into effect throughout the territory ; the object being to overthrow the territorial govern- ment, and inaugurate the Topeka state government even befwa the admission of Kansas as a state by Congress." This party formed a military organization without authority of law, or 'even the sem- blance of law, and received their munitions from the abolition societies of the east. The military commander of this illegal organiza- tion directed the name of each person to be taken who refused to be enrolled on his lists. In speaking of this, Governor Walker says, in his official letter : " Thi professed object is to protect the polls at the election In August of the new insurgent Topeka state legislature. The object of taking the names of all who refuse enrolment is to terrify the free state conservatives into submission. This is proved by recent atrocities committed on such men toy Topekaites. The speedy location of larire bodies of regular troops here, with two batteries, is necessary ; the Lawrence insurgents await the development of this new revolutionary military organization." ******* " You are aware that General Lane commanded the mili- tary expedition which made an incursion into this territory last year, and that the officers of the staff are all leading agitators for the overthrow of the territorial government. The object of this last requisition is believed to be to mark for persecution and oppression all those persons, and espe- cially free-state democrats, who refuse to unite in this mili- tary organization. The purpose is universally regarded to oo to establish a reian of terror." * * *• . * * 27 " A few weeks since one of these onservative democrats, who had committed no other offence than permitting th* use of his name as a candidate for the constitutional con- vention, was abused and injured in the most shocking man- ner, and the most revolting atrocities were committed upon His wife by some of the insurrectionary party. * * * * " It will be perceived that this military organization em- braces the whole territory, being arranged into four divisions and eight brigades. * * * '■ I am well satisfied that a large portion of the insurrectionary party in this territory do not desire a peaceful settlement of this question, but wish it to remain open, in order to agitate the country for years to come." * * * " August 18. The insurgent military orga- nization under General Lane is still progressing. Arms art being supjilkd and his troops drilled for action. We are threatened with the seizure of the polls, at various points, by these insurgent forces. When it is remembered that the Topeka party claim, to outnumber their opponents at least ten to one, the pretext for assembling these forces to protect the polls is evidently most fallacious." It thus appears to the committee, from oeficial evidence, that the opposition in Kan- sas to the Lecompton convention, consisted of persons engaged in insurrection, rebellion, and revolution. Some few are known to be citi- zens of the United States. Whether the others are citizens or aliens, whether in allegiance or not, they are all known to be enemies of the government, and openly engaged in attempts against law and order in the territory, and against the peace and quietude of society. Many have been shown by Governor Walker to be hired mercenaries, sent out by the aboli- tion societies of the east, and all working in concert to accomplish in Kansas what the Su- preme Court, and public sentiment, have de- cided Congress has no power to do ; that is, to prohibit slavery in the territory of Kansas, and more than that, prevent the people of the territory from exercising the privilege of de- ciding that question for themselves in their own way. To do which they have gotten up military organizations of a rebellious character ; have committed the most revolting outrages against persons and property ; threatening to deluge the land in blood ; alienating one section of the Union from the other, and endangering the existence of free government. Such are the characters — such are the ob- jects and dangerous results of the opponente of the Lecompton constitution. But, without regard to this insurrectionary movement, the regular legal convention of Kansas, in pursuance of law, assembled and adopted the constitution now before the com- mittee, which is thoroughly republican in form. Out of deference to those who might be opposed to African slavery, and to avoid all pretext of complaint on the part of oppo- nents, the convention, accepting the sugges- tion of Governor Stanton, submitted the ques- tion of slavery or no slavery to a direct vote of the bona fide inhabitants of the territory. That election was ordered for the 21st Decem- ber, 1857, when it was accordingly held, and resulted as follows: Constitution with slavery, . . . 6226 votes. Constitution without slavery . . . 569 votes. Making an aggregate of . . . . 6795 votes. An opportunity has consequently been at forded to the people of Kansaa to decide thia.- 418 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. question of slavery for themselves, and that decision is now before us vrith all the sanc- tions of law. No real or valid exception can be taken to any other part of the constitution. On this subject President Buchanan has well said, in his message : "In faot, the general provisions of our recent state con- stitutions, after an experience of eighty years, are so similar and so excellent, that it would be difficult to go far wrong at the present day in framing a new constitution." The constitution conforms precisely to what Governor Walker said would meet his most cordial approval, and that he should devote his whole time in addresses every day to the people of every county in the territory to in- sure its adoption. He says : " Adopt a constitution very similar to that of some of the southern states, securing the right to the slaves now in the territory, numbering probably from two to three hundred, but prohibiting the introducfton of auy more, excluding all free negroes; enforcing by most stringent provisions the execution of the fugitive slave law; securing the right of appeal in all constitutional cases to the Supreme Court of the United States; and requiring all officers of the govern- ment, legislative, executive, and judicial, the judges and inspectors of all elections, and the attorneys of all courts, to take an oath to support the constitution of the state and of the United States. Such a constitution, if submitted to a vote of the whole people, would, in my opinion, be adopted by a very considerable majority." It will be seen that the convention at Le- compton has adopted just such a constitution, with the single exception of the clause pro- hibiting the introduction of any more slaves ; and that clause has been submitted to a fair and direct vote of the people themselves, regis- tered and unregistered, thus leaving no possible pretence for complaint. It is well known that the only real matter of controversy in Kansas was the question of slavery. Evidence to that effect could be ac- cumulated almost without limit, establishing the fact. But the committee deem this unne- cessary, as the fact itself will hardly be dis- puted by any one. Such being the case, no reasonable ground of complaint can be found; for that question was submitted to all the bona fide inhabitants for decision, on the 21st De- cember. There is no pretence that any dis- tricts, counties, or persons were disfranchised at that election. Every qualified voter, whe- ther registered or not registered, had the unre- strained privilege of voting for or against slavery. Here, then, was the opportunity to settle the only existing difficulty, if it was de- sired. Would it not be very extraordinary to permit a factious portion of the people, in total disregard of the law, to stay wilfully from the polls, when, according to law, and according to the published notice of Governor Walker, they were equally bound as if they had voted, and then claim the privilege of having a re- submission ? If it were true, that they had, as they assert, a majority opposed to slavery, they could have voted out the clause sanctioning that institu- tion. By their own act the clause is retained ; and then they desire to reject the whole con- stitution because of the so-called obnoxious slavery clause, left in by their own wilful re- fusal to vote. Such wilfulness is not to be conciliated or tolerated in a country governed by laws. Suppose twenty additional opportu- nities should be afforded to the same people to vote on all these questions, who can guarantee that they will act better in the future than they have in the past? Who can say they will vote at all ? And if not, would not the same objection now made be as valid then as it is now, with reference to their non-action t It seems to be, however, but carrying out their known political design to prevent the peaceful settlement of the question. The only legal rule is, to adhere to the uni- form practice of all the constitutional govern- ments in the Union ; and an opportunity having been afforded to all of registering their names and voting, then, to decide according to the majority thus cast, whether some of the peo- ple have voted, or neglected or refused to vote. Governor Walker said to the people of Kansas in his official address : " Throughout our whole Union, and wherever free govern- ment prevails, those who abstain from the exercise of ttw rights of suffrage authorize those who do vote to act for them in"that contingency, and the absentees are as much bound under the law and constitution— when there is no fraud or violence — by the majority of tljose who do vote, as though all had participated in the election. Otherwise, as voting must be voluntary, self-government would be impracticable, and monarchy and despotism would remain as the only alternative." Admitting the truth of the proposition of Governor Walker, that those who abstain from voting authorize those who do vote to vote for them, it necessarily follows that the abolitionists of Kansas, if they are the majo- rity of the people, as they claim to be, are di- rectly responsible for the establishment of slavery in that territory. And whether they constitute the majority or minority, the deci- sion made is equally binding upon all. " Popular sovereignty" has been invoked by some to defeat the Lecompton constitution. It is even alleged by those objectors that nothing but a submission of the whole consti- tution to a direct vote of the people would be a compliance with the provisions of the Kansas- Nebraska act, which declares the people of that territory shall be perfectly free to form their domestic institutions in their own way. With this view of the subject the committee cannot agree. Surely it will not be contended that this provision of the Kansas organic law diminished the previous rights of the people in creating a state government. In all time past, since the declaration of independence, it has been uni- formly admitted, without a single exception, that the people had the right of choice either to form their constitutions by their agents elected for that purpose, or to reserve the right to ratify the constitution by a subse- quent direct vote of the people. In either case, and in both cases, it is the act of the people, and a full exercise of " popular sove- reignty." If, therefore, the Kansas act had taken away the right of the people to act through their agents, it would bo a limitation of their rights rather than an increase and improvement, as the friends of tha> measure NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 419 nave heretofore boasted. The people would, in that case, be confined to one tcay only in which to make a constitution, and would not be at liberty to choose their own tcay. Such a construction of the organic act is manifestly erroneous. Having thus given a historical account of the matter referred for their consideration, your committee will briefly review the whole subject, unembarrassed by details. They will look at the subject as it originated, as it has been for three years, and as it now is. The population of our country four years ago was principally confined, by treaty and by law, to the comparatively small region lying to the east of the river Mississippi. Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and part of Louisi- ana, were found on the western bank. Also, on the extreme southern flank, Texas ; and Minnesota on the northern. California and the settlements of Oregon were upon the Pacific coast ; in the centre, New Mexico and Utah. The immense country lying between our scanty settlements upon the Pacific and the western boundaries of Iowa, Missouri, and Arkansas, may be said, in general terms, and with the above exceptions, to have been un- occupied. Guarded by the Indian non-inter- course act and by Indian treaties, and without territorial organization, the country was ren- dered, by statutory prohibitions, an inaccessi- ble solitude, which pioneer settlers might not legally disturb. Further extensions of settle- ment to the westward were thus arrested by law. The western border of three or four states was the western border of the United States until we reached the top of the Sierra Nevada, and looked down upon the long and narrow settlements upon the shores of the Pa- cific. The border states had become dissatis- fied, and clamored for western expansion over the beautiful and fertile wilderness which, though extending for a continuous distance of a thousand miles, approached within three hundred miles of the Mississippi, was aban- doned by the government to the exclusive use of wild, semi-civilized, and vagrant Indian tribes. Unable longer to resist the demands of the west for the opening up to settlement of a country so contiguous, important, and valuable, and which had been neglected so long as to become a just cause of reproach to the government, Congress, in 1854, took into its serious consideration the justice and policy of organizing it into territories. But two difficulties were in the way of an organization : one was the question of Indian occupancy, the other that of African slavery. The first was easily adjusted : the second was the subject of long, heated, and angry discus- sion. More than one hundred speeches were delivered in Congress at that session upon the I slavery question. At length the whole country lying west of Missouri, Iowa, and Minnesota, east of Utah, Oregon, and Washington territo- ries, and north of the 37th and south of the 49th parallels of latitude, was organized into two territories, and named Kansas and Ne- braska. The law organizing these territories settled the slavery controversy, by providing that- the people of them might form their domestic in- stitutions in their own way, subject oiily to the Constitution of the United States ; and to ena- ble the people to do so without hindrance uf any kind, there was inserted in the act a clause repealing all laws establishing, regulating, or prohibiting slaveholding. This settlement greatly pleased one party, and greatly displeased the other. The defeated anti-slavery party professed to believe that Congress had power, and ought to exercise it, to exclude slave property from territory which had been acquired by the joint efforts and at the common expense of slaveholders and non- slaveholders. The victorious democratic party believed that Congress had no such power under the Constitution, and that it would be inequitable to exercise it if it had; and, also, that in this particular case, such an exercise of power would be a flagrant violation of the third arti- cle of the treaty with France, by which the country was acquired. Immediately after the passage of the act, people living in Missouri, upon the borders of Kansas, being well acquainted with the country, poured into that territory in large numbers, and appropriated many of the most fertile, best watered, and best timbered tracts. Many of these carried their slaves with them. On the other hand, prior to the final passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, but after its pas- sage became evident, certain members of Con- gress formed a secret association, which ulti- mately became public, to incite and aid the emigration into Kansas of persons opposed to the existence of slavery, for the express pur- pose of so carrying out its provisions as to cause an exclusion of the slave property of the southern states from the territory. This secret combination of politicians to perpetrate sectional injustice, was promptly followed by public ones, and moneys were collected in nu- merous places for the express purpose of aid- ing an effort to exclude southern property from Kansas. This sectional and fanatical purpose was, in practice, generally coupled with some one or more schemes of money making of a highly speculative character. This effort very naturally provoked counter efforts, and violent controversies between the assailants and the assailed followed. The creators of strife, as often is the case, were worsted. Of the voters on that occasion this maybe said: many were bad men. The scenes were, if possible, as disgraceful as those which have been such a scandalous reproach to the large cities of the Atlantic and Pacific states in violent, contested elections. Immediately after the first election, many of the voters belonging to each of the contend- ing parties, and among them the defeated can- didate for delegate to Congress, left the terri- 420 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tory, never to return. Few of the emigrants from the various states, other than those from the adjacent state of Missouri, who alone had easy and early facilities for making themselves comfortable, passed the winter in Kansas, and many of the settlers in Kansas from Missouri, passed the winter out of the territory. But with the spring, emigrants and disturbances returned to Kansas. During the whole of the second year (1855) it is believed the majority of the actual settlers in Kansas were emigrants from the adjoining state. But as the mass of the emigrants sent out to Kansas under the inspiration of the abolitionists were poorly fitted for labor in unbroken fields, and had to draw largely upon the aid of absent and fanatical friends for support, and as both the supported and the supporters were accustomed to wrangling and disputation, the territory was quickly filled with strife. And as local con- tention and violence increased, so did the heat and the contributions of the remote supporters, until the turmoil in Kansas on one side ma- tured into open defiance of all the laws of the territory. The mere handful of emigrants were ostentatiously furnished, even by reli- gious men, amid prayers and hymns, with de- structive weapons, and encouraged to set up an independent government. This was only not put into actual operation, probably, but for the firmness of the government officers, backed by the troops of the United States. For near three years these turbulent spirits, thus encouraged by the restless and fanatical elsewhere, have kept the territory in a state of anarchy and disorder. They have uni- formly disregarded the laws, so far as it has been possible for them to do so. When elec- tions were held, instead of peacefully partici- pating in them, they disturbed and annoyed the voters in every conceivable way, and ended in holding elections upon days, and in a manner, unauthorized by law, and expressly to contravene the law. When, at last, to end, if possible, these dis- orders and strifes, the legislature made provi- sion for a vote of the people upon the question whether a state government should be formed by the making and adopting of a constitution, these organized disturbers combined to pre- vent a full and fair vote. So, likewise, when the convention had been ordered by a regular vote of the people to be called, the armed mis- chief makers threw every obstacle in the way of a full registration of the settlers legally entitled to vote for members of the conven- tion ; and then, when their violent, illegal, and bloody efforts had been partially success- ful, they filled the country with their com- plaints that the registration, which they had resisted with arms, had not been full and fair ! And as the registration was not absolutely full and complete, they wished the people of the United States to infer that the election of the members of the convention was neither legal nor fair ! ! The people having, by direct vote, ordered the calling of a convention to form a constitution, the abolition agitators and disturbers refused to vote at the election of members of said convention, and then, af- ter an obstinate refusal, raised an outcry that the convention was unjustly constituted, inas- much as they were not represented therein. After the formation of a constitution, they cried out against the constitution upon the ground that they had not been allowed to vote for its ratification, though they knew be- fore the election of the convention, that the convention had been clothed with full author- ity to make a constitution ; they well knew that the bill providing for the election of members of the convention had been vetoed by the governor upon the express ground that it enabled the convention to make a constitu- tion, and that it had been made a law, after a full consideration of such veto. They knew that the governor and the officers of the terri- tory, in various ways, had made great exer- tions to induce them to go to the polls like honest, law-abiding citizens, and vote for men who would respect their wishes, and that they had refused to heed these solicitations. They also knew that the convention had not only afforded an opportunity for the good citi- zens who had registered themselves as voters according to law, to decide whether slavery should or should not be established in Kan- sas as a legal institution, but had also allowed even those bad men who had disobeyed the laws, and who had combined to prevent a full registration, to vote with the registered voters upon this vital question ; and they also knew that they refused to vote, even under such cir- cumstances, upon this proposition ! The convention was called by a direct vote of the people in direct pursuance of law ; the people, in pursuance of law, subsequently elected a convention to make a constitution ; and, in strict pursuance of all the forms ob- served by such conventions, that convention, thus legally called and thus legally elected, did make a constitution. That constitution, thus legally created, is, if recognised by Con- gress, the supreme law of Kansas, and can only be changed by the people of Kansas, who, through their legal representatives, have thus formally created it. No legislature of Kansas, after the people had, in pursuance of all the forms of law, called and elected a constitutional convention to make a constitu- tion, could legally interfere with it either to increase or to lessen its powers. The conven- tion, being the direct official representatives of the sovereignty of the people, could no more be restricted in its legitimate action by a legis- lature than could the people themselves be re- stricted had they been assembled, in person, in one great mass meeting, to make a consti- tution for their own government. Hence the work of that convention was final and com- plete, and must so remain, in all its parts, until changed by the people that called and elected the convention that made it. The vote on the single clause submitted on the 21st De- cember, 1857, was a final vote ; the conven- tion itself, if re-assembled, could neither NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 421 change the constitution nor order a second vote. The power with which it was intrusted by the people is exhausted. Its members are now only private citizens, and, like other pri- vate citizens, must obey each and every re- quirement of the constitution which they se- verally helped to create. Far less can a thereto unauthorized executive, judiciary, or legislature change, alter, modify, or nullify the constitution made by the. people through their selected representatives — representa- tives elected by the people themselves, and clothed with special, direct, and positive au- thority for that, and for no other purpose. Good citizens, and representatives of good citizens, cannot, consistently, do anything ex- pressly to uphold violaters of law and known disturbers of the public peace. It is alike im- politic and unjust to grant the turbulent de- mands of the disorderly, be they few or ma- ny ; it is wrong to aid them to overturn a con- stitution made by the law-abiding supporters of the government and laws of Kansas. The more especially, when the habitual disturbers would not have any cause of complaint of any kind, as they themselves loudly assert, if they had listened to the earnest counsels of the President of their country, and the governor of their territory, and exercised their right, and honestly performed their duty by voting upon either of three occasions — 1st, when the vote was taken upon calling a convention ; 2d, when the convention was elected ; 3d, when the question was submitted whether the slavery clause should or should not be retained in the constitution. If the abolitionists were in a majority, as they so loudly boast, and would not vote against the establishment of slavery in Kansas, but allowed those who would vote to establish it, they have no just cause of complaint. If they were in a mino- rity, as there is reason to believe, they have no cause of complaint ; for the majority of the people voting, in accordance with the theories of all, ought to rule. Notwithstanding the noisy and incessant claims of the abolitionists to be considered a majority of the people of Kansas, the truth of those claims remains to be shown. Having been abundantly supplied with superior arms, such as Sharpe's rifles, Colt's revolvers, and bowie knives, and been trained for two or three years to their use, and to move in concert and in masses, the idle and the lawless men sent into Kansas by the fanatics of New England have become dan- gerous and formidable. But their numbers have been, it is believed, greatly exaggerated ; their power consists in their superior organi- zation and arms, and in their being supported in idleness. When called upon to vote for or against the calling of a convention to form a constitution, these mercenaries of political priests did not venture to measure strength at the polls with the democratic party of Kansas, but allowed the election to go by default. So, again, when the members of the conven- tion were elected, the abolitionists shrunk from the contest. So, also, when the question came up whether there should or should not be a clause retained in the constitution allowing slavery to be established in Kansas, they again shrunk from the contest, conscious of their weakness, or from sinister political design. It is possi- ble there may be a majority of the citizens of Kansas from the non-slaveholding states, but all of them are not abolitionists or fanatics on the slave question. Why this continued ab- sence of the abolitionists from the polls if they had the real strength with which to take pos- session of the legislature, and thus peacefully end all difficulties by having everything their ; ' own way V At the late election of state officers they ex- erted their strength in union with certain fa- voring elements, and so close was the contest, even when thus aided, that the result is as yet unknown. The only election they ever carried was that which was held last fall, and their success is readily accounted for without resorting to the supposition that the abolitionists compose a majority, or even a fourth, of the voters of Kansas. As to their vote upon the constitution, given upon the 4th of January last, two weeks after the day appointed by the only competent au- thority to appoint a day, little need be said, for it was utterly irregular, and was thrown upon a day other than the legal one, for the purpose of casting contempt upon the go- vernment. Votes cast without lawful author- ity upon a question decided, and with a pur- pose to unfavorably affect what is lawful, orderly, and right, are entitled to no conside- ration at the hands of those who do not claim to favor lawlessness and anarchy. That men who habitually set all law at de- fiance, and who consider all restraint upon their wishes as tyranny, should report that they have cast ten thousand votes against a con- stitution, when, upon the same day, and at the same places, they were able to rally in favor of their candidates for office not so many voters by three or four thousand, will surprise no one, and influence no one. As good citizens, it was their duty to have voted on the lawful election day ; as turbulent persons, they chose to vote two weeks afterwards ; hence, had they numbered millions, their numbers would not conceal nor palliate, far less justify, their open disregard and contempt of law. Some consider the submission of a constitu- tion to a vote of the people for ratification as necessary to its validity. In this opinion the committee do not concur. The people may assemble, as in ancient days, in mass meet- ing, and make a constitution ; they may elect representatives to make one for them ; or they may elect representatives to draft one to be sub- mitted to them for approval or rejection. The last method is most approved of during the past few years, though formerly the second method was very generally resorted to. The calling of the constitutional convention of Kansas is generally conceded to have been strictly legal. The election of its members is 422 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. also admitted to have been legal. Is it not logical to infer that a convention legally called, legally elected, and clothed with au- thority to make a constitution, can no more be interfered with by governor, judge, or le- gislator, either to increase or to diminish its powers, or to alter, modify, or nullify its acts, than the people could be interfered with had they assembled en masse, instead of by repre- sentatives ? The legislature of a state may not altei or annul the constitution thereof unless thereto specially authorized by the peo- ple. No election of officers under a constitution, no vote on the adoption of a constitution, held on a day prior, or on a day subsequent, to the day fixed by the lawfully constituted author- ities, is considered valid in any state, or in any territory, or in any city, county, or town in the United States* no matter how few or how many persons may engage in the lawless proceed- ing. No man can be chosen president, or governor, or mayor, or justice of the peace, but upon the days appointed by law ; and, ex- cept by lawless and shameless desperadoes in Kansas, nowhere in the United States has this doctrine been practically controverted. If the monstrous practices of the bold, bad men of Kansas, now an exception, are to be erected into a rule, how long will it be ere some auda- cious sectional faction will find a pretence for holding a presidential election on a day other than that appointed by the law ? And when elections are held without law by factionists, and on a day subsequent to the day appointed by law, their candidates will always have most votes ; the legal candidates will by them be pronounced the " minority candidates," and the irregular and illegal ones will be called the "majority candidates." Then will follow strife, bloodshed, and civil war. Eights, it must ever be borne in mind, can be best and must surely upheld by strict adherence to law ; outrages and crimes are easiest committed and best protected in the midst of civil commotion. There is no real and true safety to our liber- ties and institutions but in a strict adherence to the spirit and the letter of our constitutions and laws ; and there is no danger to our peace and our Union that we cannot easily escape if we will conscientiously adhere to them. "Who ever heard of a legislature, other than that of Kansas, which had the presumption to appoint a day, open polls, and request the people to vote for or against a constitution which had been finally adopted by the people two weeks before, and which nobody could change but the people, and they only by a for- mal action to that direct end? The action on the constitution on the 21st December, 1857, was final action, and that instrument was, on that day, a completed one; it can be changed, as all state constitutions can be ; but, until formally and lawfully changed, it is valid : and its turbulent opponents will find that the validity of that fundamental law cannot be affected by a town meeting harangue, or by an irregular vote ordered by a rash body of heated partisans. Many generous persons who are quite indis- posed to countenance the violence and contu- macy of the abolitionists sent into Kansas, for the purpose of excluding therefrom all property not pleasing to them and their abettors, urge that something might be done to lessen the hard- ships that will fall upon them in the event of the admission of Kansas into the Union with the constitution made at Lecompton ; that, although it is true the abolitionists violently op- pose registration, would not vote at elections, held sham elections on days subsequent to those appointed by law, and even refused to vote against the establishment of slavery at a time when they professed to believe their doing so would have excluded it, and thus have peace- fully settled the question to their own satis- faction, yet. they consider it would be too severe to compel such contumacious citizens, even though it is their own fault, to live under a constitution which, however grievous its pro- visions may prove to be, they cannot change, without resorting to revolution, until the year 1864. To such, without resorting to the ready answer that Congress has no power to modify or alter a state constitution, and has expressly stipulated that the people of Kansas shall be permitted to form their own institutions, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, two replies may be given. The first one is this : The clause complained of in the Lecomp- ton constitution, in this connexion, is in these words : " Sec. 14. After the year 1864, whenever the legislature shall think it necessary to amend, alter, or change this constitution, they sb:ill recommend to the electors at the next general election, two-thirds of the members of each house concurring to vote for or against calling a convention, and if it shall appear that a majority of all citizens of the state have voted for a convention, the legislature shall at its next regular session call a convention, to consist of as many members as there may be in the house of representatives aS the time, to be chosen in the same manner, at the same places, and by the same electors that choose the representa- tives; said delegates so elected shall meet within three months after said election, for the purpose of revising, amending, or changing the constitution, but no alteration shall be made to affect the rights of property in the owner- ship of slaves." That this provision is not objectionable to the abolitionists, in fact, and is now urged by them and their friends only for popular effect, is proved by the overwhelming fact that the abolitionists of Kansas inserted in their " Topeka Constitution " the following more objectionable provision, viz.: " Amendments to the Constitution. — Art. XVI. — See. 1. All propositions for amendments to the constitution shall bt> made by the General Assembly. '■Sec. 2. Aconcurrenceof two-thirds of the members elected to each house shall be necessary, after which such proposed amendments shall be entered upon the journals with the yeas and nays ; and the Secretary of State shall cause the same to be published in at least one newspaper in each county in the state where a newspaper is published, for at least six months preceding the next election for senators and representatives, when such proposed amendment shall be again referred to the legislature elected next succeeding said publication. If passed by the second legislature by a majority of two-thirds of the members elected to each bouse, such amendments shall be republished, as aforesaid, for at NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 423 least six months prior to the next general election, nt which election such proposed amendments shall be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection, and it" the majority of the electors voting at such election shall adopt such amendments, the same shall become a part of the constitu- tion. "Sec. 3. 'When more than one amendment is submitted at the same time, they shall be so submitted as to enable the electors to vote upon each amendment separately. f See. 4. No convention for the formation of a new consti- tution shall be called, and no amendment to the constitu- tion shall be. by the General Assembly, made before the year 1865, nor more than once in five years thereafter." The second reply is this : Suppose the griev- ance real, and that it ought to be redressed, it is unnecessary for Congress to unlawfully in- terfere for that purpose, inasmuch as the Le- compton convention has provided a full, lawful, and perfect remedy for every conceivable griev- ance, and placed that remedy in the unrestrict- ed hands of the majority of the people, by in- serting in the Constitution of Kansas the fol- lowing distinct and unequivocal recognition of power, viz : " All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit, and therefore they have at all times an in- alienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government in such manner as they may think proper." The abolitionists of Kansas have thus far Bought power by methods unknown to the law and by violence, and not through the peaceful agency of the ballot-box. Claiming to have a majority of the voters of the territory, and therefore able to elect legislatures and conven- tions, they yet ask Congress to wrongfully do for them what they may, at legal times and legal places, rightfully do for themselves, that is, change or abolish their constitution. And in case Congress refuse to comply with their unconstitutional demand, they threaten to afflict the country with an attempt at blood- shed and revolution. Unless Congress will do for them what they assert they are numerous enough to do for themselves, but which they wilfully refuse to do, they threaten to plunge the country into civil war. This conduct is so exceedingly unreasonable as to force the con- viction upon the mind that they are conscious of being in a hopeless minority, and only ex- pect to be able to compass their unwarrantable ends by extorting them, from the general love of peace and quiet. If your committee are not greatly mistaken, those reckless men misjudge the American people, and will be required to seek peaceful methods for the redress of all their grievances, whether they be real or ima- ginary. The committee do not approve the ordinance accompanying the constitution ; and report against its allowance ; but they do not regard it as any part of the constitution, nor will its approval or disapproval by Congress affect the validity of that constitution if the state be ad- mitted into the Union as recommended. In conclusion, this committee is of opinion that when a constitution of a newly formed btate, created out of our own territory, is pre- sented to Congress for admission into the Union, it is no part of the duty or privilege of Congress either to approve or disapprove the constitution itself, and its various provisions, or any of them, but simply to see whether it be the legal constitution of the new state ; whe- ther it be republican in form ; whether the boundaries proposed be admissible ; and whe- ther the number of inhabitants be sufficient tt justify independent state organization. Believing that the paper presented is the legal Constitution of Kansas, that it is repub- lican in its form, that the boundaries proposed by it are admissible, and conceding the suffi- ciency of the population, the committee recom- mend the admission of Kansas into the Union upon the constitution presented, and report a bill accordingly. Mr. Collamer, from the Committee on Ter- ritories, submitted the following as the views of the minority on the constitution of Kansas, adopted by the convention which met at Le- compton on Monday, the 4th of September, 1857: Congress has passed laws in relation to slavery in the territories at all periods of its existence. When the territory was held by grant or treaty that in no way affected slavery, and where such an institution existed, if at all, to a very limited extent, there Congress entirely prohibited it. If slavery existed, and especially if the territory was holden by a title or treaty which forbade abolition, there slavery was suffered to continue ; but even there Congress often adopted measures to pre- vent or check further additions, and often, and before 1820, the taking of slaves into a terri- tory for sale was forbidden. It is most observable, however, that in no case was the condition of a territory, as to slavery, ever left to be a matter of contention to the people therein. It was regarded as a question of too much interest to the whole country to be left to local legislation. At no period in our history has it ever, by any par- ty, been insisted that the people were not nt liberty to arrange this matter, like all others, in their own way, in the formation or altern- ation of their state constitution. In all the territories north of the Ohio slavery was ut- terly forbidden by Congress from time to time, as they were formed, and in pursuance of the ordinance of 1787. In Mississippi, in 1798, Congress prohibited the importation of slaves, which they could not do in the states until 1808. This was direct intervention. In 1804, in Orleans territory (Louisiana,) Congress adopted three express provisions on slavery. Slaves were forbidden to be brought in, ex- cept with the owner's family, to settle. They were not to be imported from beyond the United States ; none were to be taken there, in any manner, if imported after 1798. For breach of either of these provisions the slaves were declared free. This was plenary inter- vention. In 1820 was passed the Missouri compro- mise, by which Missouri was admitted as a slave state, and all slavery was forever forbid- 424 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. den north of 36° 30' in the country ceded to us by France. This was done by the south- ern vote by a large majority, with a small minority of the north, and so a southern measure. This settled the condition of all the territory we then owned, and was the bond of peace on the subject for more than one-third of a century. When Texas was acquired, the same position, by a line on 36° 30', was made for peace. When, by arrangement with Great Britain, we obtained the exclusive right to Oregon, it was formed into a territory, and slavery ut- terly prohibited. After our acquisition by the treaty of peace with Mexico, difficulty and trouble on this subject was renewed. In 1850, this was arranged by the admission of Califor- nia as a free state, and forming New Mexico and Utah into territories, with the right, when forming state constitutions, at the proper time, to be admitted either with or without slavery, as such constitution should provide. This was also a southern measure ; and it, together with the former measures then in force, again settled the condition of all our ter- ritory as to slavery. It was claimed and sus- tained asa finality of this subject. In 1854 a measure was adopted, at the claim of the slaveholding states, by which, in effect, both and all the settlements were broken up, and the whole policy of the government on this subject changed. The country south of 36° 30 / — Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida — obtained from Spain, had been made into slave states : but the country north of that line was mostly unsettled, Iowa only having been formed therefrom. The Kansas- Nebraska act was passed, the Missouri com- promise line declared inoperative, and the subject of slavery was professedly turned over to the people who should go and inhabit that country. This was an invitation to all men to enter this field of competition for free or slave institutions ; and it was to be expected that the friends and promoters of these two systems would make vigorous exertions in the struggle, and that settlement, by friends of each, would be highly stimulated by all lawful means. Hence associations and societies have been put in operation, both north and south, to promote such settlement by their respective friends. This was, however, neither unlawful nor censurable. That provision of the Kansas act is as follows : " The eighth section of the act preparatory to the admis- sion of Missouri into the Union (which being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the states and territories, as required by the legis- lation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measure) is hereby declared inoperative and void, it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into said territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of March (5. 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery." Without now inquiring into the propriety, expediency, or moral justice of this law, clear it is that it contains the plighted public faith of this nation that the people of Kansas shall have the right of self-government consistent with the Constitution. Plighted public faith and just laws, how ever, secure no rights to men. These are found only in the just and fair execution of such laws : and we will now briefly inquire how that has been done in relation to that people. Have they been permitted to exercise their promised freedom, even in the initiation of the government provided for them ? The governor of Kansas having, in pursu- ance of law, divided the territory into dis- tricts, and procured a census thereof, issued his proclamation for the election of a legisla- tive assembly therein, to take place on the 30th day of March, 1855, and directed how the same should be conducted, and the returns made to him, agreeably to the law establish- ing said territory. On the day of election, large bodies of armed men from the state of Missouri appeared at the polls in most of the districts, and, by most violent and tumultuous carriage and demeanor, overawed the defence- less inhabitants, and by their own votes elect- ed a large majority of the members of both houses of said assembly. On the returns of said election being made to the governor, pro- tests and objections were made to him in rela- tion to a part of said districts ; and as to them, he set aside such, and such only, as by the returns appeared to be bad. In relation to others, covering, in all, a majority of the two houses, equally vicious, in fact, but apparently good by a formal returns, the inhabitants thereof, borne down by said violence and intimi- dation, scattered and discouraged, and labor- ing under apprehensions of personal violence, refrained and desisted from presenting any protest to the governor in relation thereto, and he, then uninformed in relation thereto, issued certificates to the members who ap- peared by said formal returns to have been elected. In relation to those districts which the gov- ernor so set aside, orders were by him issued for new elections. In one of these districts the same proceedings were repeated by men from Missouri, and in others not, and certifi- cates were issued to the persons elected. This legislative assembly, so elected, assem- bled at Pawnee on the 2d day of July, 1855, that being the time aud place for holding the meeting, as fixed by the governor, by author- ity of law. On assembling, the houses pro- ceeded to set aside and reject those members so elected on said second election, except in the district where the men from Missouri had, at said election, chosen the same persona they had elected at the said first election, and they admitted all of the said first-elected mem- bers. A legislative assembly, so created by mili- tary force, by a foreign invasion, in violation of the organic law, was but a usurpation No act of its own, no act or neglect of the gover- nor, could legalize or sanctify it. Its own NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 425 decisions as to its own legality are, like its laws, but the fruits of its own usurpation,which no governor could legitimate. That territorial legislature passed the fol- lowing law : " See. 11. If any person print, write, introduce into, pub- lish, or circulate, or cause to be brought into, printed, written, published, or circulated, or shall knowingly aid or assist in bringing into, printing, publishing, or circulating, within this territory, any book, paper, pamphlet, magazine, hand-bill, or circular, containing any statements, arguments, opinions, sentimeuts. doctrines, advice, or innuendo, calcu- lated to promote a disorderly, dangerous, or rebellious dis- affection among the slaves iu this territory, or to induce such slaves to escape from the service of their masters or to resist their authority, he shall be guilty of a felony, and be punished by imprisonment and hard labor for a term not less than five years. " Sec. 12. If any free person, by speaking or by writing, assert or maintain that persons have not the right to hold slaves in this territory, or shall introduce into this territory, print, publish, write, circulate, or cause to be introduced into this territory, written, printed, published, or circulated, in this territory, any book, paper, magazine, pamphlet, or circular, containing any denial of the right of persons to hold slaves in this territory, such person shall be deemed guilty of felony, and punished by imprisonment at hard labor for a term of not less than two years." And further providing, that no person, " conscientiously opposed to holding slaves," shall sit as a juror in the trial of any cause founded on a breach of the foregoing law. They further provided, that all officers and at- torneys should be sworn not only to support the Constitution of the United States, but also to support and sustain the organic law of the terri- tory and the fugitive slave laws ; and that any person offering to vote shall be presumed to be entitled to vote until the contrary is shown ; and if any one, when required, shall refuse to take oath to sustain the fugitive slave laws, he shall not be permitted to vote. Although they passed a law that none but an inhabi- tant, who had paid a tax, should vote, yet they required no time, of residence necessary, and provided for the immediate payment of a poll- tax ; so providing, in effect, that on the eve of an election the people of a neighboring state could come in, in unlimited numbers, and, by taking up a residence of a day or an hour, pay a poll-tax, and thus become legal voters, and then, after voting, return to their own state. They thus, in practical effect, provided for the peo- ple of Missouri to control elections at their pleasure, and permitted such only of the real inhabitants of the territory to vote as are friendly to the holding of slaves. They permitted no election of any of the offi- cers in the territory to be made by the people thereof, but created the offices and filled them, or appointed officers to fill them for long pe- riods, and provided that the next annual elec- tion should be holden in October, 1856, and the Assembly to meet in January, 1857 ; so that none of these laws could be changed until the lower House might be changed, in 1850 ; but the Council, which is elected for two years, could not be changed so as to allow a change of the laws or officers until the ses- sion of 1858, however much the inhabitants of the territory might desire it. These laws, made by an Assembly created by a foreign force, are but a manifestation of the spirit of oppression which was the parent of the whole transaction. They were obviously made to oppress and drive out all who were inclined to the exclu- sion of slavery ; and if they remained, to silence them on this subject, and subject them to the will and control of the people of Missouri. These are the laws which the President says must be enforced by the army and whole power of this nation. The people of Kansas, thus invaded, sub- dued, oppressed, and insulted, seeing their territorial government (such only in form) perverted into an engine to crush them in the dust, and to defeat and destroy the professed object of their organic law, by depriving them of the " perfect freedom" therein provided ; and finding no ground to hope for rights in that organization, they proceeded, under the guar- antee of the Unit-ed States Constitution, " peace- ably to assemble to petition the government for the redress of (their) grievances." They saw no earthly source of relief but in the formation of a state government by the peo- ple, and the acceptance and ratification thereof by Congress. It is true that, in several instances in our political history, the people of a territory have been authorized by an act of Congress to form a state constitution, and, after so doing, were admitted by Congress. It is quite obvious that no such authority could be given by the act of the territorial government. That clear- ly has no power to create another government paramount to itself. It is equally true that, in numerous instances in our history, the people of a territory have, without any previous act of Congress, proceeded to call a convention of the people by their delegates ; have formed a state constitution, which has been adopted by the people, and a state legislature assem- bled under it, and chosen Senators to Congress, and then have presented said constitution to Congress, who has approved the same, and re- ceived the Senators and members of Congress who were chosen under it before Congress had approved the same. Such was the case of Tennessee ; such was the case of Michigan, where the people not only formed a state con- stitution without an act of* Congress, and with- out any act of the territorial government, but they also put the state government into full operation, and superseded the territorial gov- ernment, and it was approved by Congress by receiving it as a state. This was then sustained in the Senate by the present President Buchanan, who there declared that any act of the territorial legis- lature for the calling a convention to form a constitution, would be an act of usurpation. The people of Florida formed their consti- tution, without any act of Congress therefor, six years before they were admitted into the Union. When the people of Arkansas were about form- ing a state constitution without a previous act of Congress, in 1835, the territorial gov- ernor applied to the President on the subject, who referred the matter to the Attorney-Gen- 426 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. eral, and his opinion, as then expressed and published, contained the following : "It is not in the power of the General Assembly of Arkansas to pass any law for the purpose of electiug mem- bers to a convention to form a constitution and state govern- ment, nor to do any other act, directly or indirectly, to create such government. Every such law, even though it were approved by the governor of the territory, would be null and void; if passed by them, notwithstanding bis veto, by a vote of two-thirds of each branch, it would still be equally void." He further decided that it was not rebellious or insurrectionary, or even unlawful, for the people peaceably to proceed, even without an act of Congress, in forming a constitution, and that the so forming a state constitution, and so far organizing under the same as to choose the officers necessary fur its representation in Congress, with a view to present the same to Congress for admission, was a power which fell clearly within the right of the people to assemble and petition for redress. The peo- ple of Arkansas proceeded without an actof Congress, and were received into the Union accordingly. If any rights were derived to the people of Arkansas from the terms of the French treaty of cession, they equally extended to the people of Kansas, it being a part of the same cession. In this view of the subject, the people as- sembled at Topeka, in said territory, by dele- gates chosen in the several counties, hv public meetings assembled for that purpose, in Sep- tember, 1855, who formed a constitution which was submitted to the people for their ratifica- tion or rejection, and which was duly ratified by a large majority of all who thought proper to vote, being, as we believe, a majority of all the voters then in the territory. Under that constitution an election of a governor and legislature was made, and offi- cers appointed, and an organization made, for the purpose of .petitioning Congress for admis- sion to the Union ; and a memorial was made and presented to Congress, with said consti- tution, for that purpose. That memorial or petition for the admission of Kansas as a state, under the Topeka con- stitution, formed as before stated, and so pre- sented to Congress, though agreed to by the House of Representatives, was rejected by the Senate. The investigation, the evidence, and the facts, as to the invasion and subjuga- tion of Kansas at the March election of 1855, as presented by the committee of the House of Representatives, appointed for such investi- gations, fully discloses its enormity and out- rage, as before stated, and shows that the in- vasion extended to every election district but one, yet the Senate entirely refrained from investigation, and all redress for that people failed. No provision was made to correct the wrong, and they were left to suiter under the oppres- sion of the tyrannical laws and usurped power of the unscrupulous minority which force and fraud had there installed in official position, with the power and army of the United States pledged to sustain them. Thus ended the ses- sion of Congress in the summer of 1856. In that summer this usurped power in Kansas was exercised over the people there in the same spirit in which it originated, and, as manifested in the laws before mentioned, to drive the Free State people from the territory, and prevent their emigration thereto. Aided by the people in Missouri, who had first subju- gated the territory, and by others like minded, under pretended color of the laws so made, freedom of speech was crushed, printing presses were destroyed, and pillage, conflagation, and murder, spread over the land. Every attempt at self-defence by the Free State people was pronounced "constructive treason," and large numbers were long imprisoned and guarded by United States troops therefor. Many of the people were compelled to flee, and the Missouri river, the usual means of access to the territory, was blockaded, and emigrants prevented from proceeding. Thus closed the gloomy autumn of 1856, and during the succeeding winter a large part of the peo- ple were dependant for their necessary supplies on the charitable contributions of the people of distant states. In October, 1856, a terri- torial election for members of its House of Representatives occurred; but persecuted, scat- tered, and imprisoned, and the oppression of the tyrannical statutes of test oaths and gag laws continuing, entirely deprived the Free State people from any participation therein, and so the usurpation continued. The people who had formed the Topeka con- stitution for presentation to Congress, and which they presented to Congress, not despair- ing of the justice of their country, and yet hoping that Congress might accept it, contin- ued from time to time their provisional organ- ization under the same, in order again to present the same, and the same has again been submitted to the people for ratification, and all invited to participate therein ; and the same was again ratified by the majority of all who thought proper to vote in August, 1857. But no government under the same has ever, in any respect, been attempted to be put in operation, or the same in any manner been asserted against the existing officers of the United States, or its laws, including that estab- lishing Kansas Territory. It was, and ever has been, preliminary and provisional, subject to the action of Congress. It is'indeed true that a large part, and probably a large major- ity, of that people were attached to that con- stitution, which they have repeatedly request- ed Congress to accept, but that they have ever attempted, in any act or spirit of rebellion, forcibly to put in operation a government under it, is entirely untrue; although indi- vidual wishes or ultimate purposes to such an end, on some possible contingencies, have, at times, been expressed. It is, however, true that the people have ever regarded the acts of the territorial legislation, so usurped as afore- said, as utterly without legal force, and have not held themselves bound in obedience there- to ; and the same have been in effect generally NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 427 inoperative in the territory, except so far as enforced by United States troops. In February, 1857, the territorial legislature passed a law for the election of a convention to form a constitution for Kansas, as a state, with a view to apply to Congress for admis- sion. This was done without any act of Con- gress for that purpose, Congress having re- cently refused to pass such a law, though recommended by the President ; and the pro- ceeding was therefore, though not unlawful, in no way authoritative, and its result entitled to the consideration of Congress only so far as it was sanctioned by the votes and ex- pressed the free will of the people of the territory, or a majority thereof, in a full elec- tion, fairly conducted. Such a result could not be ascertained but by subjecting the con- stitution to the full and unconditional vote of the whole people for ratification or rejection. This is more especially true when conflicting opinions on the subject are well known to exist, as was the case with this territory. A large part of the people, and, from what sub- sequently occurred, it is apparent a large majority of the people, did not participate in the election of these delegates ; and a sufficient reason for that course was found in these con- siderations : 1st. The supervision and returns of the election were in power of men appointed by a legislature in whose election a large part of the people never participated, in whom, for this cause, and from the manner in which they conducted elections, they had no confi- dence. 2d. The United States officers there, the go- vernor and secretary, had no control over these judges of the election. 3d. The territorial legislature, in directing the election of delegates to the convention, had provided for the taking of a census for the apportionment of delegates, and making a voting list in the several counties. This was, by accident or design, very imperfectly done in any county, and in almost one-half of the counties, some of which were among the most populous in the territory, it was entirely ne- glected, and therefore a large part of the peo- ple were entirely prevented from acting. 4th. The people v\ ere often, repeatedly, and officially assured by the governor and secreta- ry, whom they regard as the organs of the general government, that the constitution, when formed, must be and should be sub- mitted unconditionally to the whole actual resident people, for their ratification or rejec- tion. Under these circumstances, relying on these official assurances, they awaited quietly that day, and promised opportunity to exer- cise their acknowledged inalienable right to vote on their own constitution. The result has shown that this was an unreliable security, for the constitution, as formed by the con- vention, was by them never so submitted to the people, but in the conditional and decep- tive manner hereafter described. The con- vention, so elected, met in September, 1857, at Lecompton, and adjourned until after the territorial election of a legislature in October, 1857. The mass of the people of that territory have always placed confidence in the fidelity and integrity of the governors whom the President has appointed, whenever the same have been long enough in the territory, from personal acquaintance with its people and condition, to become disabused of the delusion in relation to them which seems to be enter- tained and cherished with so much pertinacity by the dominant power in Washington. When Governor Walker and acting Governor Stan- ton had personally and clearly ascertained — as Governor Reeder and Governor Geary had done before them — that the great body of the people, including most of its worthy and reli- able inhabitants of both political parties, truly regarded themselves as oppressed and domi- neered over by a small and unscrupulous minority, inaugurated by violence and perpe- tuated by fraud, backed and supported by United States dragoons, and that this great body of the people had, with long forbearance, waited for a fair opportunity peaceably, at the ballot-box, to manifest their opinions and their strength, and reclaim their rights, then it was that they honestly resolved to endeavor to give to that people such an opportunity, as far as they were able. They proceeded indus- triously and faithfully to exhort the people to participate in the election of a territorial legis- lature in October, 1857. not under the terri- torial acts, but under the laws of Congress, and gave the most authoritative assurances of freedom and fairness. That people knew, indeed, that the supervision and control of the election was in the hands of officers never appointed by them or the governor, and not under their control, and that they were subject to being outvoted by voters, by such officers admitted to vote, from Missouri, or by the insertion of fictitious votes, or by false return". Unwilling, however, to be longer taunted from abroad with the charge of cowardly or factious inaction, and relying on the assurances of the governor, and their own well-known superi- ority of numbers, they generally concluded to proceed to the polls, and attempt once more to exercise their rights under the laws of Con- gress. And what does the result disclose? It shows that, notwithstanding many declined to vote, lest thereby they should impliedly recognise as lawful the existing usurpation, over 11,000 votes were cast, and a free state legislature elected. In the next place, the result showed that all the apprehensions of that people as to fraudulent voting and re- turns, under the auspices of these judges of the elections, were well-founded. We are well informed by Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton, that votes to the amount of 1600 in one case, and over 1000 in another, came cer- tified from precincts where, from personal ex- amination, they found a limited population of but a few hundred. A large part of these votes were obviously fictitious ; and those re* 428 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. turns were set aside, being informally certified. Had not this been done by the governor, the original usurpation would again have been renewed and perpetuated by fraud. The result of this election was regarded by all candid men there as settling the condition of Kansas, and, accordingly, when the con- vention assembled at Lecompton, on its ad- journment, it was difficult to obtain even a bare majority to constitute a quorum. A majority of this quorum, but not of whole elected delegates, proceeded with the spirit of desperation to defeat and evade the well- known and clearly-expressed will of the peo- ple, and, by ingenious devices and cunning forms, to fasten upon them a state constitu- tion abhorrent to their feelings, and at the same time redeem, in a delusive form only, the pledges which had been given that it should be submitted to the people. In order to evade and frustrate the will of that people, thus impose upon them a constitution against their consent, five, apparently certain legal securities, were to be evaded or demolished. 1st. The constitution with slavery must not be submitted to the people in any such way that a majority could reject it; and yet it must be submitted to them, to redeem pledges and keep up appearances of fairness. 2d. The conduct of Governor Walker having shown that he would not prostitute his official duty by aiding in the success of fictitious votes and illegal returns, a course must be taken to avoid any use of his official action. 3d. The use of the legal officers for conducting the elections and making returns must be avoided, as they might be subjected to penalties if guilty of fraud, and possibly the new territorial legis- lature might make appointment of honest men. 4th. In order to supersede the legislature, so recently elected by the people, and restore power to the usurpation it had overcome, it ■was necessary so to make the apportionment of representatives, under the proposed state government, as to overcome the actual free state majority, now well known to exist, and keep the supervision of the election out of their hands. 5th. To so arrange it as to render any action of the new legislature unavailable, and to perpetuate the laws which the long-conti- nued usurpation had adopted. To effect these purposes, the convention ad- dressed themselves with unscrupulous inge- nuity, and whether with success, it remains for Congress to determine. They framed a constitution establishing slavery in two forms : First, for perpetuating in slavery all slaves then in the territory, and their progeny, and prohibiting abolition. Se- cond, allowing their unlimited introduction with their owners for settlement. They then provided for submitting this constitution to the people, professedly for their approval or rejec- tion, on the 21st day of December, 1857 ; but in this form only, that they might vote " the constitution with slavery," or " the constitu- tion with no slavery." If the former had a majority, the whole constitution was adopted ; if the latter had a majority, it rejected only that clause allowing the further importation of slaves. They were not allowed to vote against the constitution ; so it was to be adopted, however objectionable, and to be a slavehold- ing state in any event. In this manner, the first object was to be effected. They provided that the election was to be conducted and returns made by men appointed by the president of the convention (Calhoun), after the convention had closed, and thereby he out of office, and the returns to be made to him. Thus was the governor got rid of, and the second object effected. This mode of making and using supervisors, or judges of election, unknown to law, secured the third object. The provision by them that such men should be subjected to prosecution for frauds, &c, was an idle show of legislation, entirely inoperative. To secure the fourth purpose, the convention based their apportion- ment of representatives in the state election, to take place in January, 1858, upon the samo spurious, fraudulent, and fictitious votes so returned and rejected in the late territorial election. To secure the fifth object they pro- vided that all laws then existing (not those existing when the state should be admitted) should remain in force until repealed by a state legislature, under the constitution. The great mass of the people, unwilling to be the dupes of such trickery, declined voting in the manner proposed, on that constitution, De- cember 21, 1857 ; and the territorial legisla- ture was assembled by the call of acting Gov- ernor Stanton. A vote was taken on the 21st December, by the men appointed by Calhoun, who returned to him that there were cast some G000 votes, adopting the constitution with slavery, as formed. What proportion of these votes, or of those cast for the delegates, were fraudulent and spurious, we have no certain means of determining, as the Senate has de- clined instructing or authorizing the commit- tee to obtain full information, or clothing them with the means for that purpose. We have, however, the authority of the presiding officers of the two branches of the legislature, who were present at the counting of the votes on the constitution, by invitation of said Cal houn, for saying that not more than two thou- sand of these were cast by legal voters of the territory. The territorial legislature, so assembled by acting Governor Stanton, passed an act pro- viding that the people, on the 4th of January, 1858, should cast their votes on said constitu- tion, either for it with slavery, for it without slavery, or against the constitution. That vote was taken, and the vote against the constitution was more than ten thousand majority. The convention provided for the election of state officers and a legislature under the con- stitution on the 4th day of January, 1858, but it was to be conducted by the same men so ap- pointed by said Calhoun, and the returns made to him. As to the voting at this state election, NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 429 the Free State people were much divided in opinion. A large number declined to vote, as they feared the so doing would be unfairly in- sisted on by their opponents as a ratification of the constitution, to which they were opposed. A part of the Free State people, who had thus voted against the constitution, apprehending, more especially from what was contained in the President's annual message, that Congress might admit Kansas as a state, and with this constitution, even though contrary to the will of the majority of the people there ; and un- willing, in that event, to leave the state offi- cers and legislature in the hands of the mi- nority who framed and adopted that constitu- tion, proceeded to vote at the election of those state officers, at the polls conducted by the men so appointed by said Calhoun. The returns of this election have been made to said Calhoun, but, as the committee have received no power to institute inquiry into the true character of that election, we are unable to say how far the well-prepared arrange- ments for successful imposition have been car- ried into execution with impunity. From what has been disclosed by the inves- tigations before the territorial legislature, we feel authorized to believe that the preparations to defeat the will of that people have been ex- tensively executed, and their ultimate results depend on the action of said Calhoun in a capacity unknown as a legal officer, and in no way subject to a prosecution or impeachment. That he will be faithful to the ultimate pur- poses for which he has so long and unscrupu- lously labored — that is, the making of Kan- sas a permanent slaveholding state, whether its people desire it or not — we have little reason to doubt, so far as he can do it with impunity. The territorial government of Kansas was never organized as provided in its organic act — that is, by its own people — but was usurped by a foreign force, conquered, subdued by arms, and a minority installed in power, which has ever since been sustained by the general government, instead of being examined into and corrected. This has been done and sus- tained to establish and perpetuate slavery. The Lecompton constitution is the result of this proceeding, and is contrary to the will of a great majority of that people legally ex- pressed ; and the proceeding of Congress, at its discretion, to consummate this protracted atrocity, and especially for such a purpose, is a violation of the fundamental principle of republican government, and can produce no permanent repose or satisfaction. The people of this territory, in the late ter- ritorial election, have reclaimed their rights, and that territorial government is for the first time now moving peaceably on its legitimate sphere of promised freedom. This Lecompton constitution and its adop- tion was concocted and executed to supersede this triumph of justice. To admit it by Con- gress, is but to give success to fraud and en- couragement to iniquity ; and to turn over that people, not to an election fairly and le- gally conducted, but to such state officers and legislators as said Calhoun shall hereafter pro- claim, and on such contingency as he shall determine ; and his long, mysterious, and in- excusable indecision and reserve, but encou- rages expectation in both parties, one of which is certainly doomed to disappointment. J. CoLIiAMER. B. F. Wade. Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Terri- tories, submitted the following minority re- port: I am constrained to withhold my assent from the conclusion to which the majority of the committee have arrived, for the reason, among other things, that there is no satisfac- tory evidence that the constitution formed at Lecompton is the act and deed of the people of Kansas, or that it embodies their will. In the absence of all affirmative evidence that the Lecompton constitution does "meet the senso of the people to be affected by it," and in op- position to the overwhelming majority record- ed against it at a fair and valid election held in pursuance of law on the 4th day of January, 18&8, it is argued that the Lecompton conven- tion was duly constituted with full authority to ordain a constitution and establish a govern- ment, and, consequently, the proceedings of that convention must be presumed to embody the popular will, although such presumption may be rebutted and overthrown by the most conclusive evidence to the contrary. Inasmuch, then, as the right of Congress to accept the Lecompton constitution and impose it upon the people of Kansas, in opposition to their known wishes and recorded votes, rests solely upon the assumption that the proceed- ings were technically legal and regular, and that the regularity of the proceedings must be made to override the popular will, it becomes important to inquire whether the convention was duly constituted and clothed with_ full power to ordain a constitution and establish a state government, to the exclusion of the or- ganic act and territorial government estab- lished by Congress. It is conceded that, on the 19th day of Feb- ruary, 1857, the territorial legislature passed a law providing for the election of delegates to a convention to form a constitution and state government ; and that the convention, when assembled in pursuance of said act, was vested with all the power which it was competent for the territorial legislature to confer, and which, by the terms of the act was conferred on the convention, and no more. Did that territorial act have the legal effect to authorize the con- vention to abrogate or suspend the territorial government established by Congress, and sub- stitute a state government in its place ? This committee, in their reports, have al- ways held that a territory is not a sovereign power ; that the sovereignty of a territory is in abeyance, suspended in the United States in 430 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. trust for the people when they become a state ; that the United States, as the trustee, cannot be divested of the sovereignty, nor the terri- tory be invested with the right to assume and exercise it, without the consent of Congress. By the Kansas-Nebraska act the people of the territory were vested with all the rights and privileges of self-government, on all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent with and in obedience to the organic act ; but they were not authorized, at their own will and pleasure, to resolve themselves into a sovereign power, and to abrogate and annul the organic act and territorial government established by Con- gress, and to ordain a constitution and state government upon their ruins without the con- sent of Congress. It would seem, from his special message, that the President is under the impression that the Kansas-Nebraska act, from the date of its passage, on the 30th of May, 1854, when there were not five hundred white inhabitants in the whole country, authorized the people of those territories, respectively, or " any por- tion of the same," at their own sovereign will and pleasure, " to proceed and form a consti- tution in their own way, without an express authority from Congress ;" and to suspend the authority of the territorial legislature, at least to the extent of depriving it of the power to submit a constitution to the people for ratifi- cation or rejection, before it should be deemed the act and deed of the people of Kansas. With the most profound respect for the opinions of the President, I must be pardoned for expressing my firm convictions that neither the provisions of* that act, nor the history of the measure, nor the understanding of its authors and supporters at the time of its en- actment, or at any period since, justifies or permits the construction which the President has placed upon it. It is certain that Presi- dent Pierce, who signed and approved the Kansas-Nebraska act, and whose administra- tion was a unit in support of the measure at the time of its enactment, did not understand that it authorized the people of each or either of those territories " to proceed and form a constitution in their own way without an ex- press authority from Congress," from the fact that on the 24th day of January, 1850, he sent a special message to Congress, in which he recommended an enabling act for Kansas as the appropriate legislative remedy for the evils complained of in that territory. His re- commendation is in these words : "This, it seems to me, can be best accomplished by pro- viding that, when the inhabitants of Kansas may desire it, and shall be <>f sufficient numbers to constitute a state, a convention of delegates, duly elected by the qualified voters, shall assemble to frame a constitution, and thus prepare, through regular and lawful means, for its admission into the Union as a state. I respectfully recommend the enactment of a laiv to that effect. •• I recommend, also, that a special appropriation be made to defray any expense which may become requisite in the execution of the laws or the maintenance of public order in the territory of Kansas."' The message of President Pierce, containing this recommendation, was referred to the Com- mittee on Territories by the Senate, and, after full examination and mature deliberation, this .•■■mmittee, on the 12th day of March, 1856, made an elaborate report in explanation and vindication of the principles, provisions, and policy of the Kansas-Nebraska act, and arrived at the conclusion that " the recommendation of the President furnished the appropriate and - legitimate mode of conducting the principles, provisions, .and policy of the act to a success- ful and final consummation, by the passage of an act of Congress authorizing the people of Kansas to hold a convention and form a . constitution and state government, when the inhabitants of Kansas may desire it, and shall be of sufficient numbers to constitute a state." The committee, in their report, respond to the President's recommendation in the follow- ing language : " In compliance with the first recommendation, your com- mittee ask leave to report a bill, authorizing the legislature of the territory to provide by law for the election of dele- gates by the people, and the assembling of a convention to form a constitution and state government, preparatory tc their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, as soon as it shall appear, by a census to be taken under the direction of the governor, by the authority . of the legislature, that the territory contains 93,420 inhabi- tants, that being the number required by the present ratio of representation for a member of Congress." Thus it appears that the committee who wrote and reported the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and the President who approved and imparted vitality to it by his signature, did not mean by that act to authorize or recognise the right of the people of a territory, with a few hundred or even a few thousand population, whenever they pleased to form a constitution and state government, " without an express authority from Congress ;" but on the contrary, it clearly appears that the authors of the act under- stood, and intended it to be construed and executed, as meaning that while the people of those territories remained in a territorial condition, they should exercise and enjoy all the rights and privileges of self-government, in conformity with the organic act, and that, when they should have the requisite number " to constitute a state," and should desire it, Congress would give its assent, in a subse- quent act, to authorize them to form a consti- tution and state government, and to come into the Union on an equal footing with the origi- nal states in all respects whatever. President Pierce did not specify the number which he deemed necessary to constitute a state ; nor did the Cincinnati convention, on the " cele- brated occasion" referred to by the President in his annual message, designate the precise number which would entitle " the people of all the territories, including Kansas and Ne- braska," to " form a constitution with or with- out slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other states ;" but it is evident, from the language employed, that they did not understand the right of admission to have accrued from the date of the organization of each territory, nor when there should be a few hundred or a few NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 431 thousand inhabitants, nor at whatever time the people of the territory should feel disposed to claim the privilege, Avithout reference to numbers ; but when, in the language of Presi- dent Pierce, they should " be_ of sufficient num- bers to constitute a state ;" or, in the language of the Cincinnati platform, as appears in the extract copied into the annual message of the President, "whenever the number of their in- habitants justifies it ;" or, in the language of the Committee on Territories, in the report to which I have referred, so soon as it shall ap- pear, by a census, " that the territory contains ninety-three thousand four hundred and twen- ty inhabitants — that being the number required bij the present ratio of representation for a member of Congress." So it appears that each of these authorities (if I may be permitted to use such a term in this connection) excludes the idea that a territory may proceed to form a constitution and state government whenever it pleases without the consent of Congress, and irrespective of the number of its inhabi- tants, and sustains the position that a terri- tory is not entitled to admission, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, until it contains population enough to consti- tute a state, and that it is the province of Con- gress, instead of the territory, to determine what that number shall be. While the Con- stitution of the United States does not, in terms, prescribe the number of inhabitants requisite to form a state of the Union ; yet, in view of the fact that representation in the House of Representatives is to be in the ratio of federal population, and that each state, no matter how small its population, is to be allowed one representative, it is apparent that the rule most consistent with fairness and jus- tice towards the other states, and in harmony with the general principles of the Federal Constitution, is that which, according to the ratio of population for the time being, is suffi- cient for a representative in Congress. A reference to the debates which have occurred in all the cases touching the sufficiency of population in the admission of a state will show that the discussion has always proceeded on the supposition that the rule I have indi- cated was the true one ; and the effort has been, on the one side, to prove that the proposed state had sufficient population, and, on the other, that it had not the requisite numbers to entitle it to admission, in substantial compli- ance with that rule. In view of these facts, I respectfully but firmly insist that neither the principles ner the provisions of the Kansas- Nebraska act, nor of the Cincinnati platform, justifies the assertion that it was the intention to abrogate this wise and just rule, and estab- lish in lieu of it the principle that "all the territories, including Kansas and Nebraska," have a right, whenever they please, and with whatever population they may happen to pos- sess, '• to proceed and form a constitution in their own way, without an express authority from Congress," and demand admission into the Union on tho plea that the organic act was an enabling act. I do not insist that Congress, in the exercise of a sound discre- tion, may not depart from the rule to which 1 have referred, and make an exceptional case of a territory under peculiar circumstances, as the Senate proposed and the House of Repre- sentatives refused to do with Kansas in July, 1856 ; but in such a case, if any can be shown in our history, it must be regarded as a con- cession by Congress, and not the recognition of a right in the territory. That the Senate concurred with. President Pierce and the Com- mittee on Territories, that the Kansas-Ne- braska act did not authorize the people of those territories to proceed and form a state constitution, whenever they chose, without the consent of Congress ; and that the passage of an enabling act by Congress was the appro- priate and legitimate mode of carrying into effect the principles, provisions, and policy of the Kansas-Nebraska act, when those territo- ries, respectively, should have the requisite population to entitle them to admission into the Union as states, according to the princi- ples of the Federal Constitution, as guarantied by the treaty acquiring the country from France, is made apparent by the fact that on the 2d day of July, 1856, in pursuance of the said recommendation of the President and re- port of the committee, the Senate passed an enabling act for Kansas, entitled, " An act to authorize the people of the territory of Kansas to form a constitution and state government, preparatory to their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original slates." I quote from Senate Journal, page 414 : " Ordered, That the bill be engrossed, and read a third time. '•The said bill was read the third time. "On the question, Shall the bill pass? "It was determined in the affirmative : yeas 33; nays 12. " On motion by Mr. Seward, " The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the sena- tors present. " Those who voted in the affirmative are — " Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Bell of Tennessee, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Brodhead, Brown, Cass, Clay, Crit- tenden, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatriek, Geyer, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Pratt, Pugh. Reid, Sebas- tian. Siidell. Stuart, Thompson of Kentucky, Toombs, Toucey, Waller, Wright, Yulee. " Those who voted in the negative are — " Messrs. Bell of New Hampshire, Collamer, Dodge, Dur- kee. Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Seward, Trumbull, Wade, Wilson. " So it was " Resolved. That the bill pass, and that the title thereof be as aforesaid." From this official record, it appears that no senator voted against the enabling act for Kansas in 1856, who had either advocated or voted for the Kansas-Nebraska act in 1854. While it is proper to remark that those sena- tors who did vote against this enabling act justified their opposition upon the ground that the provisions of the bill, and the time and circumstances under which it was proposed to press it, were not in accordance with their views of public policy and duty, and not upon the ground that the organic act was a sufficient enabling act to authorize the people of the ter- ritory to ordain a constitution whenever they pleased. Greater significance and importance 432 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. are imparted to these recommendations, re- ports and votes in favor of an enabling act for Kansas, in view of the fact that, a few months previously, the territorial legislature had taken the preliminary step for calling the Lecompton convention, by ordering an election to be held a few months thereafter for or against the con- vention ; while the effect, as well as the de- sign, of the enabling act thus recommended by the President and passed by the Senate, would have been, if it had passed the House and be- come a law, to arrest and put an end to this irregular and unauthorized proceeding on the part of the territorial legislature, and to sub- stitute in place of it a regular and legal mode of proceeding under the authority of Congress. Had the enabling act become a law, whereby the people of Kansas would have been author- ized to assume and exercise the sovereign power of establishing a constitution and state government, the proceeding would have been regular, lawful, and in strict conformity with the true intent and meaning of the Kansas- Nebraska act. Then the people of Kansas would have become a sovereign power, clothed with full authority to establish a constitution and state government in their own way, sub- ject only to the Constitution of the United States. But if the proposition be true, that sovereign power alone can institute govern- ments, and that the sovereignty of a territory is in abeyance, suspended in the United States in trust for the people when they become a state, and the sovereignty cannot be divested from the hands of the trustee and vested in the people of the territory without the assent of Congress, it follows as an unavoidable con- sequence that the Kansas legislature, by the act of February 19, 1856, did not, and could not, confer upon the Lecompton convention the sovereign power of ordaining a constitu- tion for the people of Kansas in the place of the organic law passed by Congress. The conven- tion seem to have been conscious of this ab- sence of sovereign power on their part, and seeks to supply the deficiency by referring the constitution to the people at an election on the 21st of December last, "for ratification or rejection," with the further provision that "this constitution shall take effect and be in force from and after its ratification by the people, as hereinbefore provided." I will quote some of the provisions on this point : '• Before this constitution be pent to Congress, asking admission into the Union as a state, it shall be submitted to all the white male inhabitants of this territory for ap- proval or disapproval, as follows," &c. And again : " At which election the constitution formed by this con- vention shall be submitted to all the white male inhabitants of the territory of Kansas in said territory upon that day. and over the age of twenty-oue years, for ratification or rejection, in the following manner and form,'' &c. And further : " Sec. 16. This constitution shall take effect and be in force from and after the ratification by the people, as hereinbefore provided." From these provisions it is clear that the wuvention did not openly assert and exercise ' I the authority to ordain and establish the con- stitution by virtue of any sovereign power vested in that body, but referred it to the peo- ple for ratification or rejection, under the sup- position that the popular will expressed through the ballot-box might impart vitality and validity to it. But before the time arriv- ed for holding the election on the ratification or rejection of the constitution as provided by the convention, the territorial legislature inter- posed its authority by the passage of a law providing that said constitution should be sub- mitted to the people for ratification or rejection at a fair election, to be held in conformity with the laws of the territory, on the 4th day of January, 1858. The reasons for this legis- lative interposition, by which the vote on the constitution was in effect to be postponed from the 21st of December to the 4th of January, and then held and conducted and the returns made in the manner prescribed by law, may be deduced from the following facts : 1. That while the convention recognised the right of the people of Kansas to " ratify" or " reject" said constitution, and provided that it should not take effect, nor be submitted to Congress for acceptance, until so ratified at an election to be held for the purpose of " rati- fication" or " rejection," yet the mode of sub- mission prescribed by the convention was such as to render it impossible for the people to re- ject it at said election even if there should be but one person offering to vote for it and twenty thousand against ; since no person was to be permitted to vote unless he would vote foi the constitution, and those who should offer to vote against the constitution were to be ex- cluded from the polls, and deprived of the privilege of voting at all at said election. 2. That the mode of submission prescribed by the convention did not fairly present the question to the people, to be decided at that election, whether Kansas should be a slave holding or a non-slaveholding state, for the reason that while there was known to be many pro-slavery men residing in the territory who were anxious to vote in favor of making Kan- sas a slaveholding state, but were at the the same time irreconcilably opposed to that constitution ; and while it was also known that there were many free-state men resident in the territory who were equally opposed to the constitution, whether the slavery clause should be retained or excluded; yet the convention had provided, in effect, that no pro-slavery man should vote in favor of making Kansas a slaveholding state, unless he at the same time recorded his vote in favor of the constitution ; nor should any free-state man vote in favor of making Kansas a free state, unless he at the same time would record his vote in favor of the constitution. 3. That inasmuch as the convention did not possess any legislative power, it could not pre- scribe, and did not attempt to provide any penalties or punishments for illegal and fraudu- lent voting, or for false and fraudulent returns, except by a vague and vain reference to tho territorial laws.. NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 433 4. That the schedule of the constitution had taken the whole management of said election out of the hands of the territorial officers and placed it into the hands of commissioners, judges, and clerks, to be appointed by and under the authority of the president of the convention ; and even if the territorial laws could be construed as applicable to the per- sons so appointed to conduct this election, yet fraudulent and spurious and forged returns could be made with impunity, as had been the case in other elections, for the reason that, by some singular omission or inadvertence, the election laws of the territory failed to provide any penalties or punishment for such of- fences. Do not these facts furnish sufficient reasons to justify the territorial legislature in inter- Eosing its authority, as it did on the 17th of December, in the passage of a law, which, in effect, postponed the election on the ratifica- tion or rejection of the constitution until the 4th of January, and provided that on that day a fair election should be held, at which every legal voter in the territory might record his vote for or against the constitution, and for or against the slaver}- article, freely and uncon- ditionally, and also made wise and effective provision to protect the ballot-box and returns from fraud and violence ? The result of the election of the 4th of Jan- uary on the ratification or rejection of the Lecompton constitution was officially announc- ed by the governor and presiding officers of the two houses of the legislature of the territory, in the following proclamation: " In accordance with the provisions of an act entitled ' An act submitting the constitution framed at Lecompton under the act of the Legislative Assembly of Kansas Territory entitled ' An act to provide for taking a census and election of delegates to a convention,' passed February 19, a.d. 1S57, the undersigned announce the following as the official vote of the people of Kansas Territory on the questions as therein submitted on the 4th day of January, 1S58 : »b9 a >> i a % Counties. Fiinst tl compto stitutio the I pton co itution l slaver the I pton co witho avery. Ui q; g t- S a os <^ 8 £8 % * ^ ID Leavenworth 1,997 10 3 Atchison .... 536 4 Doniphan .... 561 1 2 187 2 Nemaha .... 238 1 Marshall .... 66 287 I Pottawatomie 207 Calhoun .... 249 Jefferson .... 377 1 Johnson .... 392 2 35S 1 1 510 X 3 Bourbon .... 268 55 Douglas .... 1,647 21 o Franklin .... 304 Anderson .... 177 Alien 191 1 4 Shawnee .... 832 28 3 Coffee 463 4 Woodson .... 50 Richardson .... 177 1 Breckenridge . . . 191 Madison .... 40 21 Total .... 10,226 138 24 28 " Some precincts have not yet sent in their returns, but the above is the complete vote received to this date. "J. W. DKNVER, '• Secretary and Acting Governor. "C. W. BABCOCK, " President of the Council. "G. W. DEITZLER, •' Speaker of the House of Representatives. '•January 26, 1858." From this official proclamation, it appears that the Lecompton constitution was repudia- ted and rejected by the people of Kansas at that election by a clear majority of ten thou- sand and sixty-four (10,064) votes. It is proper, however, to remark, that not- withstanding the legislature had provided by law that the vote on the ratification or rejec- tion of the constitution should take place on the 4th day of January, the friends of that instrument, in disregard of the law, held an election on the. 21st of December, under the pretended authority of the convention ; and that it appears from a proclamation, signed by C. W. Babcock, president of the council, and by G. W. Deitzler, speaker of the house of re- presentatives in the territory, who were pre- sent by invitation of John Calhoun, president of the convention, at the counting of the votes, that six thousand one hundred and for- ty-three (6,143) votes were returned for " the constitution with slavery," and that five hun- dred and eighty-nine (589) votes were returned for "the constitution with no slavery," showing a majority of five thousand five hundred and seventy-four (5,574) votes cast at that election for " the constitution with slavery," as pre- sented to Congress for adoption. It is also stated in the same proclamation, that "more than one-half of this majority was cast at those very sparsely settled pre- cincts in the territory, two of them in th« Shawnee reserve, on land not opened for set- tlement, viz. : Oxford, Johnson county . Shawnee, Johnson county Kickapoo, Leavenworth county 1,266 729 1.017 Total 1.012 " From our personal knowledge of the settlements in and around the above places, we have no hesitation in saying that the great bulk of these votes were fraudulent; and taking into view the other palpable but less important frauds, we feel safe in saying, that of the whole vote polled, not over two thousand were legal votes polled by the citizens of the territory." But assuming this election to have been fair and valid, although not held and conducted according to law, and assuming the returns to have been genuine, and the voters to have been all citizens of the territory, notwith- standing the recent developments of the enor- mous frauds at the polls and in the returns — assuming all this, let us see how the matter stands when we compare the result of the two elections : At the election on the 4th of January, the majority against the constitution was . . . 10,064 At the election on the 21st of December, the majority in favor of the constitution, as presented to Congress, was Showing a clear majority against the constitu- tion, on comparison of the returns of the two elections, and supposing each to have been fair and legal, of 5,574 4,490 434 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. If, from this calculation, we deduct thefraud- ulent votes, according to the statement of the presiding officers of the two houses of the le- gislature, who were present at the opening of the polls and the counting of the votes, by the invitation of the president of the convention, and we have a majority of more than eight thousand, or four to one of all the legal vo- ters of Kansas in opposition to the constitu- tion. The manner in which the advocates of the Lecompton constitution hope to avoid the force of this overwhelming verdict against it by the people of Kansas, is explained in the fol- lowing passage from the recent special mes- sage of the President of the United States, which contains all that he says on the subject: "It is proper that I should briefly refer to the election held under an act of the territorial legislature, on the first Monday of January last, on the Lecompton constitution. This election was held after the territory had been prepared for admission into the Union as a sovereign state, and when no authority existed in the territorial legislature which could possibly destroy its existence or change its character. The election, which was peaceably conducted under my instructions, involved a strange inconsistency. A large majority of the persons who voted against the Lecompton constitution were, at the very same time aud place, recog- nising its valid existence in the most solemn and authentic manner, by voting under its provisions. I have yet received no official information of the result of this election." It is to be regretted that, on the 2d day of February, the President had received no official information of the result of the election held on the 4th day of January, which were pub- lished in the " proclamation " to which I have referred, and were republished in the newspa- pers of this city and of New York as early as the 30th of January, from which proclamation the President would have learned, if he had received it, that the people of Kansas had re- pudiated and rejected the Lecompton constitu- tion by more than ten thousand majority at that election. It seems, however, that the President attaches no importance to this over- whelming vote of the people against the con- stitution, for the reason that he supposes " this election was held after the territory had been prepared for admission into the Union as a sovereign state, and when no authority existed in the territorial legislature which could pos- sibly destroy its existence or change its char- acter." By what authority had the territory been prepared for admission into the Union"? Certainly not by the authority of Congress, for I have already shown that Congress with- held its assent when asked by President Pierce, in a special message, to grant it. Was it by authority of the territorial legislature ? It is a peculiar doctrine that a territorial legis- lature may assemble a convention without the assent of Congress, and empower the conven- tion, when assembled, to abrogate or impair the authority of the territorial government established by Congress, of which the legisla- ture is a constituent part. This question does not now arise for the first time in the history of our country. It arose under the adminis- tration of General Jackson, on the right of the territorial legislature of Arkansas " to prepare that territory for admission into the Union as a sovereign state, without any express author- ity from Congress ;" and, after mature delibe- ration, General Jackson delivered the decision of his administration upoq the proposition, through Mr. Butler, his Attorney-General. I quote from the opinion : "To suppose that the legislative powers granted to the General Assembly include the authority to abrogate, alter, or modify the territorial government established by the act of Congress, and of which the Assembly is a constituent part, would be manifestly absurd. The act of Congress, so far as it is consistent with the Constitution of the United States and with the treaty by which the territory, as a part of Louisiana, was ceded to the United States, is the supreme law of the territory; it is paramount to the power of the territorial legislature, and can only be revoked or altered by the authority from which it emanated. The General As- sembly and the people of the territory are as much bound by its provisions, and as incapable of abrogating them, as the legislatures and people of the American States are bound by and incapable of abrogating the Constitution of the United States. It is also a maxim of universal law, that when a particular thing is prohibited by law, all means, attempts, or contrivances to effect such thing are also pro- hibited. Consequently, it is not in the power of the General Assembly of Arkansas to pass any law for the purpose of electing members to a convention to form a constitution and state government, nor to do any other act, directly or indirectly, to create such new government. Every such law, even though it were approved by the governor of the territory, would be null and void; if passed by them, not- withstanding his veto, by a vote of two-thirds of each branch, it would still be equally void." Thus it appears that, under the administra- tion of General Jackson, the doctrine obtain- ed — and I have never heard its correctness questioned until the present session of Con- gress — that a convention assembled under the authority of a territorial legislature, " without an express authority from Congress," had no right or power to prepare the territory for ad- mission iuto the Union as a sovereign state, and thereby abrogate or impair the authority of the territorial legislature over all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the organic act. If this view of the subject be correct, it follows, necessarily, that the Lecomp- ton convention, in forming the constitution, did not by that act, and could not by any act, im- pair, diminish, or restrain the authority of the territorial legislature ; and hence, that the con- stitution formed at Lecompton, and presented to Congress for acceptance, should be consid- ered and treated like any other memorial or petition, which Congress may accept or reject, or disregard, according to the facts and cir- cumstances of the case. This point was also considered and decided by General Jackson's administration in the Arkansas case, as appears by the following extract from the same opinion of Attorney-General Butler: "But I am not prepared to say that all proceedings on this subject, on the part of the citizens of Arkansas, will be illegal. They undoubtedly possess the ordinary privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. Among these is the right of the people 'peaceably to assemble an* to petition the government for the redress of grievances.' In the exercise of this right, the iu'iabitants of Arkansas may peaceably meet together in primary assemblies, or in conventions chosen by such assemblies, for the purpose of petitioning Congress to abrogate the territorial government, and to admit them into the Union as an independent state. The particular form which they may give to their petition cannot be material, so long as they confine themselves to the mere right of petitioning, and conduct all their pro- ceedings in a peaceable manner. And as the power of Con- gress over the whole subject is plenary and unlimited, they may accept any constitution, however framed, which. in their judgment, meets the tense of tte people to be affect** NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 435 by it. If, therefore, the citizens of Arkansas think proper to accompany theii petition by a written constitution, framed and agreed on liy their primary assemblies, or by a convention of delegates chosen by such assemblies, I per- ceive, no legal objection to their power to do so, nor to any measures which may bo taken to collect the sense of the people in respect to it; provided, always, that such measures be commenced and prosecuted in a peaceable manner, in strict subordination to the existing territorial government, and in entire subserviency to the power of Congress to adopt, reject, or disregard them at their pleasure. '•It is. however, very obvious that all measures com- menced and prosecuted with a design to subvert the terri- torial government, and to establish and put in force in its place a new government, without the consent of Congress, will be unlawful. The laws establishing the territorial go- vernment must continue in force until abrogated by Con- gress; and, in the meantime, it will be the duty of the governor, and of all the territorial officers, as well as of the President, to take care that tbey are faithfully executed." If we apply the principles to Kansas which received the sanction of General Jackson and his administration in the Arkansas case, it be- comes apparent that the Lecompton convention had the right to assemble under the protection of that clause of the Constitution of the United States which secures to the people the right " peaceably to assemble, and to petition gov- ernment for the redress of grievances ;" and, in the exercise of this right of petition, they might pray " Congress to abrogate the terri- torial government, and to admit them into the Union as an independent state," provided " they confine themselves to the mere right of petitioning, and the constitution enclosed in their petition meets the sense of the people to be affected by it," and also that " such measures be commenced and prosecuted in a peaceable manner, in strict subordination to the existing territorial government, and in entire subservi- ency to the power of Congress to adopt, reject, or disregard them at their pleasure ;" but that said convention could not establish a government, or ordain a constitution, or do any other act, under pretence of " preparing the territory for admission into the Union as a sovereign state," calculated or intended to abrogate, impair, or restrain the legislative power of the territory over all rightful subjects of legislation consist- ent with the organic act. If these principles be sound — if the doctrine of General Jackson's administration in the Arkansas case be correct, the President is mistaken in supposing that the Lecompton convention did, or could do, any act depriving the territorial legislature of the power and right to pass a law referring the constitution to a vote of the people on the 4th of January, with the view of ascertaining the essential and all-important fact whether it " meets the sense of the people to be affected by it." The power of the territorial legislature over the whole subject was as full and abso- lute on the 17th day of December, when the law was enacted providing for the submission of the constitution to the people at the election on the 4th of January, as it was on the 19th day of February, 1857, when the legislature passed the act calling the Lecompton conven- tion into existence. The convention was the creature of the territorial legislature, was called into existence by its mandate, derived whatever power it possessed from its enact- ment, and was bound to conduct all its pro- ceedings " w strict subordination to the existing territorial government," as well as "in entire subserviency to the power of Congress to adopt, reject, or disregard them at their pleasure." Sucli being the case, whenever the legislature ascertained that the convention, whose exists ence depended upon its will, had devised a scheme to force a constitution upon the people without Jheir consent, and without any author- ity from Congress, and which was believed to be repugnant to the feelings and hostile to the interests of the people to be affected by it, .it became their imperative duty to interpose and exert the authority conferred upon them by Congress in the organic act, and arrest and prevent the consummation of the scheme be- fore it had gone into operation. The legisla- ture deserves credit forthepromptness, wisdom, and justice which characterized its proceeding in this respect. The members were familiar with the wishes of the people, having been elected after the Lecompton convention assembled, and before it concluded its labors, and at the end of an exciting canvass, in which the origin and organization of the convention, the circum- stances under which the delegates were elect- ed, and their pledge to submit the constitution to the people for ratification or rejection, and the various provisions which were to be incor- porated into the constitution, were all fully and freely discussed by both parties before the people. The legislature not only passed the act of the 17th of December, authorizing the people to vote for or against the constitution before it should be sent to Congress for accept- ance, but, in order to prevent any action by Congress before the people should have an opportunity of making their wishes known in an authoritative and legal form, the following preamble and resolutions were adopted, as pub- lished in the public prints, by the unanimous vote of the two houses : " Preamble and joint resolutions in relation to the constitution framed at Lecompton, Kansas territory, on tlie 1th day of November, 1857. " Whereas a small minority of the people living in nine- teen of the thirty-eight counties of this territory availed themselves of a law which enabled them to obstruct and defeat a fair expression of the popular will, did, by the odious and oppressive application of the provisions and partisan machinery of said law, procure the return of the whole number of the delegates of the constitutional convention recently assembled at Lecompton: " And whereas, by reason of the defective provisions of said law, in connexion with the neglect and misconduct of the authorities charged with the execution of the same, the people living within the remaining nineteen counties of the territory were not permitted to return delegates to said con- vention, were not recognised in its organization, or in any other sense heard or felt in its deliberations : "And whereas it is an axiom in political ethics that i h« people cannot be deprived of their rights by the negligence or misconduct of public officers : '•And whereas a minority — to wit: twenty-eight only of the sixty members of said convention — have attempted, by au unworthy contrivance, to impose upon the whole people of this territory a constitution without consulting their wishes, and against their will: " And whereas the members of paid convention have refused to submit their action for the approval or disap- proval of the voters of the territory, and iu thus acting have defied the known will of nine-tenths of the voters thereof: ■•And whereas the action of a fragment of said conven- tion, representing as they did a small minority of the voters of the territory, repudiates and crushes out the distinctive principle of the ' Nebraska-Kansas act,' and violates and 436 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tramples under foot the rights and the sovereignty of the people: , " And whereas, from the foregoing statement of facts, it clearly appears that the people have not been left 'free to form ana regulate their domestic institutions in their own way,' but, ~m the contrary, at every stage in the anomalous proceedings recited, they have been prevented trom so doing: , , .... "Be it therefore resolved by the governor and legislative assembly of Kansas territory. That the people of Kansas being opposed to said constitution. Congress has no rightful power under it to admit said territory into the Union as a state, and the representatives of said people do hereby, in their name, and ou their behalf, solemnly protest against inch admission. " Resolved. That such action on the part of Congress would, in the judgmeut of the members of this legislative assem- bly be an entire abandonment of the doctrine of non-inter- vention in the affairs of the territory, and a substitution in its stead of congressional intervention in bubalf of a minority engaged in a disreputable attempt to defeat the will and vio- late the rights of the majority. " Resolved. That the people of Kansas territory claim the right, through a legal and fair expression of the will of a majority of her citizens, to form and adopt a constitution for themselves. " Resolved, That the governor of this territory be requested to forward a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolutions to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to the delegate in Congress from the territory." In the face of all these evidences that the Lecompton constitution is not the act of the people of Kansas, and does not embody their will; that it was formed by a convention elected under an act of the territorial legisla- ture, without the consent of Congress ; that the sixty delegates composing the convention were chosen by nineteen of the thirty-eight counties in the territory, while the other nine- teen counties were entirely disfranchised, without any fault of their own, by the failure or refusal of the officers, whose duty it was, under the law, to take a census and register the voters in order to entitle them to vote for delegates; that the mode of submission to the people for "ratification or rejection," as pre- scribed by the convention, was such as to render it impossible for the people to reject it, for it allowed no person to vote who would not vote for the constitution, and excluded from the polls all persons who desired to vote against it ; that the only reason assigned or believed to exist for not allowing the people to vote against the constitution, as well as for it, is, that a large majority of the people were known to be opposed to it, and would have re- jected it by an overwhelming majority, if they had been allowed an opportunity ; that the mode of submitting the "slavery article" was such that no man was permitted to vote for making Kansas a slave state unless he would vote for the constitution at the same time, nor was any man permitted to vote against making Kansas a slave state unless he would also vote for the constitution ; that by this system of trickery in the mode of submis- sion, a large majority, probably amounting to four-fifths of all the legal voters of Kansas, ware disfranchised and excluded from the polls on the 21st of December ; that in order to prevent the injustice and wrong intended to be perpetrated by the trickery resorted to in this mode of submission, and to secure in place of it a fair and honest election, the legislature, on the 17th of December, passed a law providing for such an election on the 4th day of January, at which the whole people should have an opportunity, freely and uncon- ditionally, to vote for or against the constitu- tion, and for or against the slavery article, as they pleased ; that, at said election, a majority of more than ten thousand of the legal votera of Kansas repudiated and rejected the Lecomp- ton constitution ; that the election on the 4th of January was lawful and valid, having been fairly and honestly conducted, under and in pursuance of a valid law, which the President was not only bound to respect, but to see faith- fully executed, the same as all other territo- rial laws which are not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States and the or- ganic act of the territory ; that the election on the 21st of December was not valid and binding on the people of the territory, for the reason that it was not held in pursuance of any law of the territory or of the United States, nor under the authority of any body of men duly authorized to make laws. I re- peat, that in the face of all these facts, show- ing conclusively that the Lecompton constitu- tion is not the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and does not embody their will, we are told by the President of the United States that " to the people of Kansas the only practi- cal difference between admission or rejection depends simply upon the fact whether they can themselves more speedily change the pre- sent constitution, if it does not accord with the will of the majority, or frame a second constitution, to be submitted to Congress here- after." There is a "practical difference" far more important than the mere question of time, and there are principles involved infinitely more important than the practical difference. There is a serious difference in practice as well as in principle, whether the people of Kansas shall be permitted to make and adopt the constitution under which they are to live, and AVith which they are to be received volun- tarily into the Union, or whether Congress will force them into the Union against their will, and with a constitution which they have repudiated by an overwhelming majority of their votes at a fair election held in pursuance of law, and then maintain it by federal bayo- nets. If it be true, as represented by the Presi- dent, that " ever since the period' of my [his] inauguration, a large portion of the peopleof Kansas have been in a state of rebellion against the [territorial] government;" that "they have never acknowledged, but have constantly renounced and defied the govern- ment to which they owe allegiance, and have been all the time in a state of resistance against its authority ;" that "they would long since have subverted it, had it not been pro- tected from their assaults by the troops of the United States ;" that Governor Walker " con- sidered at least two thousand troops, under the command of General Harney, were neces- sary for this purpose ;" and that " I [the Pre- NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 437 sident] have been obliged, in some degree, to interfere with the expedition to Utah, in order to keep down rebellion in Kansas ;" — I repeat, that it* these statements be a fair and impar- tial representation of the character, feelings, and purposes of the people of Kansas, does it follow, as a logical and natural consequence from these premises, that " the speedy admis- sion of Kansas into the Union'' with a consti- tution to which they are unalterably opposed, ind which they have repudiated by an over- whelming majority of their voters at a fair deotion held in pursuance of law, " would re- store peace and quiet to the whole country ;" that " domestic peace will be the happy con- sequence of its admission," and that " I [the President] shall then be enabled to withdraw the troops of the United States from Kansas, and employ them on other branches of service where they are much needed." If it be true, as alleged, that "a large portion of the people of Kansas are in a state of rebellion against the government," and that the rebels so far outnumber the law-abiding citizens that they would " long since have subverted the territo- rial government, had it not been protected from their assaults by the troops of the United States ;" and that " they have all the time been endeavoring to subvert it, and to estab- lish a revolutionary government" in its place ; and that " up till this moment the enemies of the existing government still adhere to their revolutionary plans and purposes with trea- sonable pertinacity ;" — if these allegations, so gravely set forth by the President in his spe- cial message, be true, do they furnish satisfac- tory evidence to authorize the belief or even grounds for hope that " the speedy admission of Kansas into the Union," with the Lecomp- ton constitution, " would restore peace and quiet to the whole country," and that " do- mestic peace will be the happy consequence of its admission ?" It is to be lamented that the President does not seem to comprehend the nature and char- acter of the controversies which have so un- happily disturbed the peace and marred the prosperity of Kansas, and the grounds upon which they claimed to be justified in the course they have pursued. During the whole period from the 30th of March, 1855, when the first annual election was held for members of the legislature and other officers in that territory, until the general election on the first Monday of October, 1857, the Free-State party, so- called, did boldly, firmly, and persistently re- fuse to recognise the territorial legislature of Kansas a? a legally and duly constituted legis- lative body, with authority to pass laws which were valid and binding on the people of Kan- sas, for the reason, as they alleged, that the members of that legislature were not elected by the people of Kansas, but were elected by four or five thousand citizens of the adjoining state of Missouri, who are said to have in- vaded the territory on the day and a few days previous to the day of election, and, dividing themselves into small parties, and spreading over all the inhabited parts of the territory, took possession of the polls and drove away the peaceable legal voters, and thus forced a legislature upon the people of Kansas against their will, and in violation of the Kansas-Ne- braska act. These are the allegations and grounds of justification urged by the Free-State party in Kansas during the period to which I have referred. It is no part of my present purpose to inquire how far these allegations are sus- tained by the facts, nor what number of the election "districts were controlled by these ille- gal votes, nor the principles of law applicable to the facts, or the legal conclusions properly resulting from them. These questions were all fully considered and elaborately discussed by me in a report from this committee on the 12th of March, 1856. I refer to them now, not for the purpose of re-opening that discus- sion, or of changing the conclusions to which I then arrived, but with the view of showing upon what grounds the Free-State party claim- ed that they were justified in with holding their allegiance to the territorial government until a fair opportunity was afforded the people of the territory to elect their own legislature, in pursuance of the organic law ; and that from the day on wdiich the members elected in October, assembled and organized as a le- gislative body, all the opponents of the Le- compton constitution have recognised the ter- ritorial government as valid and legitimate, acknowledging their allegiance to it, and their determination and duty to sustain and sup- port it. The October election became a memo- rable period in the history of Kansas, for the additional reason that it marks the date when the Lecomptonites changed their whole line of policy, and formed the scheme of forcing the constitution on the people without their consent, and of subverting the authority of the territorial legislature without the consent of Congress. Up to this period it had been generally understood and conceded that the convention had been called for the purpose of framing a constitution, and submitting it to the people for ratification or rejection, and of sending it to Congress for acceptance, only in the event it should be first ratified by a major- ity of all the legal voters of the territory. Upon this point there is no room for doubt that the President and his cabinet concurred with the people of Kansas, that it was the duty of the convention to submit the constitution to the people fairly and unconditionally, for rati- fication or rejection, before it could be consid- ered the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and that its ratification by the people must be a condition precedent to the admission of Kan- sas into the Union by Congress. The Presi- dent, in his instructions to Governor Walker, through his Secretary of State, under date of March o0, said : " When wh constitution shall be submitted to the people of the territory, they must be protected in the exercise of their right of voting for or against that instrument, and the fair expression of the popular will must not be interrupted by fraud or violence." 438 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Governor Walker, in an official despatch to the Secretary of State, under date of June 2, said : "On one point the sentiment of the people is almost unanimous — that the constitution must be submitted for ratification or rejection to a vote of the people who shall be bona fide residents of the territory next fall." And in his inaugural address to the people of Kansas, Governor Walker said : " With these "views, well known to the President and cabinet. and approved by them, I accepted the appointment of governor of Kansas. My instructions from the President, through the Secretary of State, under date of 30th of March last, sustain the ' regular legislature of the territory in assembling a convention to form a constitution,' and they express the opinion of the President, that when such con- stitution shall be submitted to the people of the territory, they must be protected in the exercise of their right of Toting for or against that instrument; and the fair expres- sion of the popular will must not be interrupted by fraud Or violence." "I repeat, then, as my clear conviction, that, unless the convention submit the constitution to the vote of all the actual resident settlers of Kansas, and t/ie election be fairly and quietly conducted, the constitution will be and ought to be REJECTED BY CONGRESS." These official papers, containing the most solemn and unequivocal assurances on the part of the President, the cabinet, and the governor, that the constitution would be sub- mitted to the people for " ratification or rejec- tion," and that in the event it should not be submitted, it " will and ought to be rejected by Congress," were published and spread broad- cast over the territory, prior to the election of delegates to the convention, for the purpose of satisfying the people that, although they had been unjustly and foully treated in the apportionment of delegates by the total dis- franchisement of nineteen counties, and the im- perfect and unfair registration of voters in the other nineteen counties, yet this great wrong would not produce any injury in the end, for the reason that the convention was compelled to submit the constitution to the people for "ratification or rejection," and that unless it should be thus submitted at a fair election, " the constitution will be and ought to be rejected by Congress." The people, relying on these solemn pledges of the President, the cabinet, and the gover- nor, supported by the constant assurances of all the government officers in the territory, and affirmed by the Democratic party, unani- mously, in their resolutions endorsing the policy of Governor Walker, and nominating Governor Ransom for Congress, and confirmed hy senators and representatives in Congress, who visited the territory, and gave similar pledges in their speeches to the people, were lulled into a false and fatal security, under the belief that the great wrong perpetrated in the apportionment for the election of dele- gates would be corrected and rendered harm- less by the submission of the constitution to a vote of the people at a fair election for ratifica- tion or rejection. Thus the matter stood when the election took place on the first Monday of October last, and resulted in the total defeat »f the Democratic party, and the triumph and election of Free-State men for the legislature, for Congress, and for county officers. This elec- tion dissipated the last ray of hope on the part of the pro-slavery men of making Kansas a slaveholding state by a fair vote of the people on the ratification or rejection of the constitution for the obvious reason that, while it was conceded that the whole of the Free-State party (so call- ed) would vote to a man against a pro-slavery constitution, it was well known that at least one-half of the Democratic party would vote the same way on that question, thus proving by the data furnished by that election, that four-fifths, if not nine-tenths, of the people were in favor of making Kansas a free state. The Lecompton convention assembled and organized on the first Monday in September, one month previous to the election, and after appointing the committee and transacting some preliminary business, adjourned until after the election for the purpose of avoiding a division in the Democratic party by disclos- ing the character of the constitution until thev should ascertain the relative strenp-th of parties in the territory. The result of the election demonstrated, beyond all controversy, that an immense majority of the people of Kansas were opposed to making Kansas a slave state, and that if the convention framed and presented a slave state constitution for ap- proval or disapproval, it would inevitably be rejected at the election. Under these circumstances, the convention determined that, instead of conforming their action to the known wishes of the people of Kansas, they would form a slave state consti- tution, and submit it to the people in such a form as to render it impossible for them to re- ject it, by allowing those to vote only who would vote for it, and excluding from the polls all who proposed to vote against it. By this disreputable trick they hoped to save themselves, the President and his cabinet, and all who co-operated with them, from the dis- grace of violated pledges, at the same time that they defrauded the people of Kansas of the sacred rights of self-government guaran- teed by the organic act, by forcing a constitu- tion upon them without their consent and against their wishes. It is but just to remark that the moment this scheme of trickery and fraud was promulgated, a large majority of the Democratic party, including the better portion of the pro-slavery party, who had act- ed with the Lecomptonites up to that time, in- stantly withdrew their confidence and sup- port, and denounced the measure as a base betrayal of the rights of the people. The Lecomptonites were loyal to the territorial government so long as they filled the offices and controlled its power, but the moment they were defeated at the election, and the power passed into the hands of their opponents, they rebelled against it, defied its authority, and devised schemes to destroy its existence. Thus they provided: "This constitution shall take effect and be in force from and after its ratifi- cation by the people, as hereinbefore provid- ed ;" that is, from and after the election oo NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 430 the 21st of December, -when the people were permitted to vote for it, but not against it. In this mode they proposed to abrogate and sub- vert the territorial government established by Congress, by putting in force a state constitu- tion without the consent of Congress. What is this but rebellion — open, naked, undisguis- ed rebellion ? Where is the difference be- tween this and the Topeka movement, which the President denounces as " revolutionary government," organized in defiance of the au- thority of the United States, which it was his duty to suppress with the federal troops ? He says : " This Topeka government, adhered to with such treasonable pertinacity, is a govern- ment in direct opposition to the existing govern- ment prescribed and recognized by Congress." Might not the President have said, with as much fairness and justice, that "this Le- compton constitution, adhered to with such treasonable pertinacity, is a constitution in direct opposition to the existing government prescribed and recognised by Congress 2" If it be said that the Topeka constitution was framed and declared to be in force without the consent of Congress, and, therefore, " re- volutionary," it may be answered, with equal truth, that the Lecompton constitution was framed and declared in force without the con- sent of Congress, and, consequently, " revolu- tionary," for the same reason. But we aie told that the Lecompton convention assem- bled under the authority of the territorial legislature. It is true that it commenced its proceedings under the sanction of the legisla- ture, and terminated its action in open rebel- lion against the authority of the legislature. When the legislature, on the 17th of Decem- ber, interposed its lawful authority to prevent the Lecompton constitution from going into effect until ratified by the people on the 4th of January, and accepted by Congress, the Le- comptonites defied the authority of the legis- lature established by Congress, and treated the law with contempt, refusing to yield obe- dience to it, or respect its mandates, or abide by thti decisions under it. Thus it w r ill be seen that, from the time the Lecomptonites lost possession of the offices under the territorial government by a fair election on the first Monday in October last, in the language of the President, " they have all the time been endeavoring to subvert it, and establish a revolutionary government un- der the so called Topeka (Lecompton) consti- tution in its stead." So it appears that the Lecompton constitution, as well as the Tope- ka constitution, was declared to " take effect and be in force," not only without the con- sent of Congress, but in defiance and con- tempt jf the authority of the territorial legisla- ture established by Congress. Hence, if it be true that the Topeka constitution was revolu- tionary (and I have always held that it was so), for the reason that it was declared to take effect and be in force without the consent of Congress, and in defiance of the authority of the territorial legislature, it is undeniable thai the Lecompton constitution was " revolution ary" for the same reason, and that the Presi- dent of the United States Mas under the same official obligation to maintain the supremacy of the territorial law over the Lecompton con- stitution as he was over the Topeka constitu- tion, until Congress should otherwise order and direct. Upon what principles of fairness or justice, then, can it be urged that we should admit Kansas into the Union with the Le- compton constitution ? Certainly not upon the ground that it is the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and fairly embodies their will, for it has been conclusively shown that it has been repudiated by the people, by more than ten thousand majority, at a fair election held in pursuance of a valid law. Not upon the ground that it was adopted " in strict sub- ordination to the existing territorial govern- ment, and in entire subserviency to the power of Congress to adopt, reject, or disregard it at their pleasure," as was held by General Jack- son, in the Arkansas case, to be necessary, for it has been shown, beyond all controversy, that it was declared to " take effect and be m force" in defiance of the authority of the ter- ritorial legislature, and without the consent of Congress. But the speedy admission of Kan- sas is urged by the President as " a question of mere expediency," in order to "restore peace and quiet to the whole country," and prevent " a revival of the slavery agitation." Upon this point the President addresses a plausible and ingenious argument to that por- tion of the anti-slavery feeling of the country, which, overlooking the great principle of self- government involved, opposes the Lecompton constitution mainly upon the ground that it recognises and establishes slavery in Kansas, and is willing to adopt the shortest and quickest mode of abolishing slavery and making Kansas a free state. In order to reconcile this anti- slavery feeling to the admission of Kansas un- der the Lecompton constitution, the President presents and enforces, by argument, the fol- lowing propositions: 1st. That " it has been solemnly adjudicated by the highest judicial tribunal known to our laws, that slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the Constitution of the United States," and that " Kansas is, therefore, at this moment, as much a slave state as Georgia or South Ca- rolina." 2d. That "slavery can, therefore, never be prohibited in Kansas except by means of a constitutional provision, and in no other man- ner can this be done so promptly, if a majori- ty of the people desire it, as by admitting it into the Union under the present constitu- tion." 3d. That " the people will then be sovereign, and can regulate their own affairs in their own way. If a majority of them desire to abolish domestic slavery within the state, there is no other possible mode by which this can be effected so speedily as by prompt ad- mission ;" and that "the legislature already elected may, at its very first session, submit 440 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. the question to a vote of the people, whether they will or will not have a convention to amend their constitution, and adopt all neces- sary means for giving effect to the popular will" 4th. Inasmuch as the Lecompton consti- tution provides a mode of amendment after the year 1864, and thereby excludes the possi- bility of any lawful change until that period, the President suggests that Congress may re- move this obstacle, by inserting a clause in the act of admission annulling so much of the constitution as prohibits any change until after the year 1864, and requires two-thirds of each house of the legislature to authorize the people to vote for a convention, and declaring the right of the legislature alreadv elected to call a convention, by a majority votei in vio- lation of the constitution under which its members were elected, and which they were sworn to support. Let us read the President's language on this point : "If. therefore, the provision changing the Kansas consti- tution, after the year 18t>4. could forcibly he construed into a prohibition to make such a change previous to that period, this prohibition would be wholly unavailing; and again: If a majority of them (the people of Kansas) desire to abolish domestic slavery within the state, there is no other possible mode by which this can be effected so speedily as by prompt admission. The will of the majority is supreme Rnd irresistible when expressed in an orderly and lawful manner. They can make and unmake constitutions at pleasure. It would be absurd to say they can impose fetters on their own power which they cannot afterwards remove. If they could do this, they might tie their own hands for a hundred as well as for ten years. These are fundamental ririnciples of American freedom, and are recognised. I believe, n some form or other, by every state constitution; and if Congress, in the act of admission, should think proper to recog- nise them, I can perceive no objection to such a course." The President can perceive no objection to Congress inserting a provision in the act ad- mitting Kansas into the Union, which abro- gates and annuls an imperative provision of the constitution, and declares the right of the legislature already elected to take the initia- tory steps to change it by a majority vote, in the face of the provision in the constitution that such steps shall not be taken unless two- thirds of the members of each house concur, and not even in that case until after the year 1864. What right has Congress to intervene and annul, .alter, or even construe the provi- sions of a state constitution, and license the members of the legislature to disregard their sworn obligations to support the constitution under which they hold their offices ? Where does the Congress obtain authority to tell the members of a state legislature that they are under no obligation to respect and obey the constitution with which such state was ad- mitted into the Union, and that they may pro- ceed to alter or abrogate it in a mode and at a time different from that authorized or per- mitted in the instrument? If the Lecompton constitution be the act and deed of the people of Kansas ; and if it ho accepted by Congress as such, and the state be admitted into the Union under it, I hold that there is no lawful mode on earth to change or amend it, except the one provided and authorized in the constitu^ tion itself. I agree that " the will of the ma- jority is supreme and irresistible when ex pressed in an orderly and lawful manner." But the question is, when a constitution has once become the supreme law of a state, what "lawful manner" is there of chancniv it, ex- cept the one provided and permitted by the constitution ? I agree with the President, also, that " the people can make and unmake constitutions at pleasure." But how — in what manner is this to be done? There are two modes — the one lawful, and the other revolu- tionary. When a constitution has once be- come the fundamental law of a state, there is no "lawful manner," there can be no lawful manner of altering, changing, or abrogating it, except in pursuance of its provisions. It is true that the right of revolution remains — that great inalienable right to which our fathers resorted when submission was intolerable, and resistance a less evil than submission. Hence, if the Lecompton constitution he accepted by Congress and the state admitted under it, while there will be no " lawful man- ner" of amending or abrogating it until after the year 1864, and then only by the concur- rence of two-thirds of each branch of the le- gislature, in the first instance, followed by a majority vote of all the citizens of the state and the concurrence of the two houses of the next legislature, all prior to the election of delegates and the assembling of a convention ; yet the revolutionary right will remain to the people of Kansas, to be resorted to or not, ac- cording as they shall determine for them- selves, that it is a less evil to resist than to submit to a constitution which was never their act and deed, and never did embody their will. It may be true that, under this terrible right of revolution, " if a majority of the people desjre to abolish domestic slavery in the state, there is no other possible mode by which this can be effected so speedily as by prompt ad- mission ;" but if this " mode " be resorted to under the impression that it will abolish slavery in Kansas more " speedily" than any other possible mode, it must be understood to mean revolution if successful, and rebellion in case of failure. But suppose the line of policy indicated by the President should be pursued ; that Kansas be admitted under the Lecompton constitution ; that Congress, in the act of admission, recognise the right of "the Jegislature already elected at its very first session to submit the question to a vote of the people, whether they will or will not have a convention to amend their constitution, and adopt all necessary measures to give effect to the popular will." Suppose all this to have been done, of what relief will it be to the op- pressed people of Kansas, unless Mr. Calhoun shall set aside the fraudulent returns from Delaware Crossing, or go behind the returns and reject the fraudulent votes at Kickapoo, Shawnee, or Oxford, or at other precincts, in order to insure a majority in both branches of the legislature opposed to the Lecompton constitution, and in favor of an immediate change ? NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 441 Unless the President is prepared to inform us that this is to he done, it is worse than mockery to talk about the right of the legisla- ture, "at its very first session," to submit the question to the people, and to insert a void clause in the act of admission declaratory of a right which can be exercised only in violation of the constitution, and by revolution ; and especially if it is understood that, by forged returns and fraudulent votes, a majority of members are to be declared elected in both branches of the legislature who are deter- mined to maintain the Lecompton constitu- tion, and resist any and all efforts to change it. By the express command of the constitu- tion, the returns of that election were to be made to the president of the convention "within eight days" after the election. On the ninth day after the election, to wit: on the 13th day of January, the returns were opened and counted by Mr. Calhoun, as ap- pears by the proclamation of the presiding officers of the two houses of the legislature, who were present, by his invitation, to witness the opening and counting of the votes. More than a month has elapsed since the returns were opened and votes counted, and Mr. Calhoun being in this city we are not per- mitted to know the result of his deliberations ; whether the rumors of yesterday that the an- ti-Lecompton members were elected, or the rumor of to-day that the Lecompton party have triumphed, or whether the policy is to withhold the decision until the state shall have been admitted, and, leaving each party to infer that the decision is in their favor, compel Congress to act in the dark, and wait patiently to find out the result of its action. But suppose there should be a majority in both houses of the legislature opposed to the Le- compton constitution and in favor of a change, what can they do towards relieving the people of Kansas from a constitution they abhor, since it is well understood that in consequence of a large number of votes cast for the anti- Lecompton ticket having been returned to Governor Denver instead of Mr. Calhoun, the Lecompton ticket for governor and state offi- cers is to be declared elected, thus rendering it morally certain that any bill which the legislature might pass, having for its object a change in the constitution, would be defeated by the governor's veto, it not being anticipated in any contingency that the opponents of the Lecompton constitution would have a majority of two-thirds in each branch of the legislature? Hence, it must be apparent to all that, in the event that Kansas is admitted under the Le- compton constitution, every argument or pro- position founded on the idea that the people of Kansas will have the opportunity of chang- ing the constitution by peaceful means through the instrumentality of the legislature, must, in all probability, prove deceptive and delusive. In the event that the deed shall be consummat- ed, their only alternative will be submission or revolution. Revolutions are, sometimes, peace- ful and bloodless. Constitutions and govern- ments have been changed by revolution, with- out violence or bloodshed ; but this is the case only where the public sentiment in favor of the change is unanimous, or approaches so closely to unanimity as to silence all opposition. If this should prove to be the case in Kansas, the peo- ple will be able to reassert their violated rights of self-government and form a constitution which will embody their will, without violence or force ; but if, in the progress of the revolu- tion, they should meet with determined resist- ance, civil war or unconditional submission must be the inevitable consequence. Does the history of this Lecompton constitu- tion, and the character and purposes of the men engaged in the movement, and the means employed to force it upon an unwilling people, furnish an assurance that, after they have realized all their hopes by making the consti- tution the fundamental law of the state, unal- terable until after 1864, and then except by a two-thirds vote, they will, on the day they come into power under it, permit it to be subverted and abrogated by a revolutionary movement, when they will have acquired the right, under the Constitution of the United States, to de- mand of the President the use of the federal army to put down the insurrection, and protect the state " against domestic violence ?" When this demand shall be made upon the President by the " legislature already elected, at its very first session," or by the governor, "when the legislature cannot be convened," will he not consider himself bound by his offi- cial oath, and in obedience to the Constitution of the United States, to use the federal troops to protect the state against domestic violence, by putting down the revolution, and suppress- ing insurrection, and maintaining the author- ity of the constitution, until lawfully changed in the manner prescribed in the instrument? Or, if it could be converted into a judicial, in- stead of a political question, and brought be- fore the Supreme Court of the United States for adjudication, can any one doubt the deci- sion ? Would not the court be compelled to decide that the constitution, having once be- come the fundamental law of the state, must be respected and obeyed as such until changed or annulled, in pursuance of its own provi- sions? Would not the court be compelled to declare, as an invariable and universal rule of interpre- tation, that when a constitution prescribes one mode of amendment it must be understood and construed as having thereby precluded all other modes, and prohibited all other means of ac- complishing the same object? Suppose the people of Kansas should attempt to change the constitution in a mode and at a time different from that authorized in the instrument, and should proceed so far as to adopt a new consti- tution, and set up a state government under it by an overwhelming majority, in antagonism to the constitution and state government with which Kansas was admitted into the Union, which of these state governments would the President feel bound to recognise and " protect 442 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. against domestic violence," when applied to in the manner provided in the Federal Constitu- tion ? Would he not be compelled to use the whole military power of the United States, or so much of it as shall he necessary, to put down the rebellion, and " protect the state against domestic violence," when properly ap- plied to for that purpose ? Hence the question will arise, and it is important to know how it is to be decided, in the event there shall be two state governments in Kansas, in antagon- ism with each other — the one organized under the Lecompton constitution, and the other established by the people in opposition to the Lecompton constitution — which will the Presi- dent as valid and legitimate, and which will he denounce as a " revolutionary government, adhered to with such treasonable pertinacity " as to make it his duty, under the Constitution of the United States, to put down the insurrection and crush out the rebellion with the federal troops? It is important that this question should be determined, in order that the people of Kansas may know how they are to exercise that great indefeasible right of which the President speaks, when he says, " they can make and unmake constitutions at pleasure." Does he mean that inalienable right of revo- lution to which every people may resort when their oppression is intolerable, and submission is a less evil than resistance? If so, I fear that the bright anticipations of the President would not be fully realized when he imagines that the speedy admission of Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton constitution " would restore peace and quiet to the whole country," and enable him " to withdraw the troops of the United States from Kansas, and employ them on branches of the service where they are much needed." Report of the Committee of Fifteen. In the House of Representatives, the sub- ject was referred to a Select Committee of fifteen, who, on the 10th of March, 1858, through their chairman, Mr. Stephens of Georgia, made the following report : The select committee of fifteen appointed under the resolution of the House of the 8th of February, to whom was referred the mes- sage of the President of the United States of the 2d of February, " concerning the constitu- tion framed at Lecompton, in the territory of Kansas, by a convention of delegates thereof, and the papers accompanying the same," with instructions " to inquire into all the facts con- nected with the formation of said constitution, and the laws under which the same originated ; and into all such facts and proceedings as have transpired since the formation of said consti- tution having relation to the question or pro- priety of the admission of said territory into the Union under said constitution ; and whe- ther the same is acceptable and satisfactory to the majority of legal voters of Kansas," have had all the matters committed to them under consideration, and now present the following report : The leading object of the resolution under which the committee was raised seems to have been the ascertainment of all the essential facts bearing upon the question or propriety of the admission of Kansas as a state under the Lecompton constitution, in accordance with the recommendation of the President. This object has been the controlling principle of the committee's action in their investigation. The scope of their duties embraced an inquiry into all facts relating to the legality and regu- larity of the proceedings resulting in the for- mation of that constitution, both antecedent and subsequent thereto, showing whether or not it be the embodiment of the legally and fairly expressed will of the bona Jide citizens of Kansas. With this understanding of the field of labor before them, the committee di- rected their attention — 1st. To a law passed by the territorial legis- lature providing for taking the sense of the people at the October election in 1856, upon the expediency of calling a convention to form a state constitution. 2d. The law of the territory passed the 19th of February, 1857, in pursuance of the popu- lar will expressed under the previous act, providing for an election to be held on the 15th Juue, 1857, of delegates to such a con- vention. 3d. The official registry of voters, and the apportionment made by the acting governor (Stanton) of delegates to the convention so called in accordance with the provisions of said act. 4th. The assembling of the convention at Lecompton on the first Monday of September, 1857, under the act last aforesaid, and the journal of their proceedings. 5th. The constitution formed by the conven- tion so assembled, alluded to in the message of the President. 6th. The action of the people on the ques tion submitted to them by one of the clauses of the schedule in the constitution. These laws, facts, and proceedings consti- tute, in the judgment of the committee, all matters having any material bearing upon the main questions embraced in the recommenda- tion of the President, and covered by the reso lution of the House. But they permitted tc be filed, and report to the House withou deeming them relevant or material, 7th. The act of the territorial legislature ot Kansas, at its called session in December last providing for a vote to be taken on the 4th of January, just passed, for and against said con stitution. 8th. The official announcement of said vote And, also, as cumulative, though not mate rial — 9th. The letter of Mr. Calhoun, president of the Lecompton convention, to the chairman of the Committee on Territories in the Senate. All these papers are appended in full to thia NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 443 report, (except a part of the journal which has not yet been received, but which is expected in time to be presented with the rest,) and marked as exhibits in regular order. The committee deem it unnecessary to go into an elaborate exposition of them by detail. A general reference to some of the material parts, for the purpose of illustrating the conclusions to be drawn from them, will be quite sufficient. Those which they deem material are all docu- mentary, about which there can be no dispute. They show a full and complete history of the proceedings resulting in the formation of the Lecompton constitution from their beginning to their end : First, the law for taking the sense of the people upon the propriety of applying for admission. Next, the law authorizing the call, in pursuance of the popular will. Next, the registry of voters, and apportionment of delegates. Next, the assembling of the con- vention, with their proceedings. Then, the constitution so formed ; and, lastly, the ratifi- cation of it in the mode and manner provided by the convention. The legality and regu- larity of the whole are marked throughout. Every step in its progress was taken in strict conformity to law. But little appears on the face of the record even for comment. The question for the consideration of the House is, ought Kansas to be admitted as a state under the constitution so presented ? By the Constitution of the United States " new states may be admitted by Congress into this Union," and by the same instrument it is provided that " the United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a repub- lican form of government." Under the first of these clauses eighteen new states have been admitted since the Union was formed ; and two, besides Kansas, are now applying for ad- mission. The usual questions of inquiry upon the applications of new states, have been — 1st. In relation to the number of the popu- lation. 2d. The regularity of the proceedings under which the application has been made. 3d. Whether the constitution presented be republican in form. In this case the attention of the committee has not been directed to the question of popu- lation. That point seems to be conceded on all sides. Upon the point of legality and regularity no question can arise. No state ever before applying exhibited greater regu- larity in her proceedings. On this point there can be no doubt. The only other one, as to the republican form of the constitution — that, too, seems to be equally clear, and beyond ca- vil or dispute. What, then, are the objections to the recog- nition of the constitution, and the admission of the state under it? These, it is true, arise mostly on matters outside of the record. But the committee propose briefly to notice them in connection with some seemingly founded on the face of the record itself. The first of the latter ch.ss is that urged by Governor Walker. The main ground of his opposition is the fact that the entire constitu- tion has not been submitted for ratification to a popular vote. This objection rests upon the assumption that the validity of every constitu- tion formed for the government of any people depends upon its having received such a sanc- tion. His argument, in his own words, rests upon the " principle that sovereignty is vested exclusively in the people of each state, and that it performs its first and highest function in forming a state government and state con- stitution. This highest act of sovereignty, in my judgment, can only be performed by the people themselves, and cannot be delegated to conventions or other intermediate bodies." That sovereignty is vested exclusively in the people of each state, and that it performs its first but not highest function in forming a state government and state constitution, may be granted. But that this first act of sove- reignty in making a constitution can only be performed by the people themselves, and that the power to perform it cannot be delegated to conventions or intermediate bodies, is not granted. Such a doctrine is not only novel but utterly at war with all our past history. In support of it Governor Walker cites no au- thority but his own. He announces it as the conviction of his individual judgment, and the only authority he refers to to sustain it is that of previous speeches made by himself, in which he had expressed the same opinion. But the position cannot be maintained, either on principle or any recognised authority. Reason is against it, and so is precedent. When it is admitted that sovereignty " re- sides vuth the people," and that it is "ina- lienable," it does not follow that the right to exercise and execute sovereign powers cannot be delegated by them to others. If that were so, there could be no such thing as represen- tative government. No law could be passed except by the people en masse. This would uproot and overturn all our customs. It is the very essence of sovereignty that it may act by itself or by any other it may choose to appoint. The enactment of all laws and the execution of them require the exercise of sovereign power as necessarily as the forma- tion of a constitution. A constitution is but a law. It establishes the modes or channels through which the sovereignty of the people is to be exercised, not " in propriis jwrsonis," but by chosen representatives. The formation of such organic law cannot be said to be the highest act or function of sovereignty. There can be no higher act of sovereignty than the declaration of war ; for this may put in jeopardy the existence of sovereignty itself; and yet in our representative system this is left, not to the people themselves, but to their representatives. Hence, though it be true that the formation of a state constitution is the " first function of sovereignty," it does not follow that this may not be performed by representatives chosen 444 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. and clothed with full power to act for the peo- ple in this matter, as well as in all others re- quiring the exercise of sovereign power. Logically considered, there is no more rea- son why the people cannot make a constitu- tion by others clothed with full power to do so than that they can in this way put not only their political, but their individual existence in hazard upon the fortunes of war. The for- mation of a constitution requires, it is true, the exercise of sovereign power, and so does the commonest act of legislation. If the power to do one can be exercised by an agent or rep- resentative, so can the other ; and such has been the uniform understanding in this country from the beginning of our history. The Con- stitution of the United States was not ratified by a_ popular vote. In all the states it was adopted by conventions chosen by the people and clothed with full powers to act for them. In its provision for its own amendment it does not contemplate any ratification by the people through a popular vote to give validity to any such amendment. Such amendments are to be acted upon by the state legislatures. In all the old states, with one exception, their first constitutions were formed and put into operation through the " intermediate body" of a convention. Massachusetts alone submitted hers to a popular vote. The constitution of the state of Pennsylvania, the native state of Governor Walker, that under which he was born and reared, and under which that great and prosperous commonwealth has grown up and attained her present high eminence in wealth, power, and renown, derived all its sanction by the people through their repre- sentatives in convention. The same is true of Mississippi, his once adopted state, and the eame is true of a majority of the states of this Union. If Governor Walker's judgment in this particular be right, then all these consti- tutions are necessarily invalid, null, and void ; and we have neither constitutions nor laws in more than half of the states of the Union. This doctrine is as preposterous as it is mon- strous. Its bare statement is enough to con- sign it to general repudiation and condemna- tion. The uniform course in our past history has been, when a new state applies for admis- sion, to see that the sovereignty of the people has spoken through its legally constituted or- gans. The question of submitting their con- stitution to a popular vote or not is one for the people, and those whom they clothe with power to determine this question, as well as others, for them. In the case of Kansas, in the first act appended to this report, it was provided to take the sense of the people upon the question of providing by law for the calling of a convention to form a con- stitution, and by law to define the powers or duties of the convention. This will be seen by the section (G) of the act. The vote was almost unanimous for the legislature so to call a convention and to define its duties. But few votes were cast against it. This, apart from the statement of Mr. Calhoun, appears from public documents accessible to all. The legislature did call a convention. They could have required them to submit their work to the people. This was a matter for their own discretion ; but this they did not do. This convention was elected with unlimited and plenary powers. That such a convention could be so clothed no one can doubt who is acquainted with the history of similar bodies. They, therefore, had full power, at their own discretion, to submit the whole constitution formed by them, or any part or no part of it, just as they pleased, for ratification. This the people well understood before the election of delegates. This Governor Walker vir- tually told them himself. In his inaugural address he says : "The people of Kansas, then, are invited hy the highest authority known to the Constitution to participate freely and fairly in the election of delegates to frame a constitution and state government. The law has performed its entire appropriate function when it extends to the people the right of suffrage, but it cannot compel the performance of that duty. Throughout our whole Union, however, and wher- ever free government prevails, those who abstain from the exercise of the right of suffrage authorize those who do vote to act for them in that contingency, and the absentees are as much bound under the law aud constitution, where there is no fraud or violence, by the act of the majority of those who do vote, as if all had participated in the election. Otherwise, as voting must be voluntary, self-government would be impracticable, and monarchy or despotism would remain as the only alternative. " You should not console yourselves, my fellow-citizens, with the reflection that you may by a subsequentvote defeat the ratification of the constitution. Although most anxious to secure to you the exercise of that great -constitutional right, and believing that the convention is the servant and not the master of the people, yet I have no power to dictate the proceedings of that body." This language clearly conveys the idea that the convention might or might not submit the constitution to be formed by them to a vote of the people : and so far from the people not being able to delegate power or to authorize others to make a constitution for them being true, as now contended for by Governor Walker, it follows most clearly, from what he says, that such authority could be given even by their silence. The authority conferred would be implied by their abstaining from the polls. On the question of the powers of the delegates to be elected to the convention, Mr. Stanton addressed the people as follows : "The government especially recognises the territorial act which provides, for assembling a convention to firm a con- stitution with the view to making application to Congress for admission as a state into the Union. That act is regarded as presenting the only test of the qualification of voters for delegates to the convention, and all preceding repugnant restrictions are thereby repealed. In this light the act must be allowed to have provided for a full and fair expression Of the will of the people through the delegates who may be chosen to represent them in the constitutional convention. 1 do not doubt, however, that, in order to avoid all pretext fir resistance to the peaceful operation of this law. the con- vention itself will in some form provide for submit ling the great distracting question regarding their social institutions which has so long agitated the people of Kansas to a fair vote of all the actual bona fide residents of the territory, with every possible security against fraud aud violence. If the constitution be thus framed, and the question of differ- ence thus submitted to the decision of the people. 1 believe that Kansas will be admitted by Congress without delay as one of the sovereign states of the American Union, and the territorial authorities will be immediately withdrawn." Here Mr. Stanton clearly admits the full power of the delegates to be chosen to form a constitution, valid in itself, whether it be sub- NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 445 mitted or not for ratification. It is true, he expresses great confidence that the " distract- ing question," which was the slavery question, would be " in some form " submitted to a fair vote of the bona fide residents of the territory, and the firm belief that if " the question of difference " should be submitted to the decision of the people Kansas would be admitted with- out delay. This is exactly what was done by the convention, as the testimony accompanying this report shows. As to the powers of the convention, however, the committee will cite but one other authority. That is a speech made by Judge Douglas at Springfield, Illi- nois, on the 12th June, 1857, just before the election of the delegates took place. "Kansas," said he, " is about to speak for herself, through her delegates assembled in convention to form a constitution preparatory to her admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original states. Peace and prosperity now prevail throughout her borders. The law under which her delegates are about to be elected is believed to be just and fair in all its objects and provisions. There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly interpreted and impartially executed, so as to insure to every bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the elective fran- chise. If any portion of the inhabitants, acting under the advice of political leaders in distant states, shall choose- to absent themselves from the polls, and withhold their votes with a view of leaving the free-state democrats in a mino- rity, and thus securing a pro-slavery constitution in opposi- tion to the wishes of a majority of the people living under it, let the responsibility rest upon those who, for partisan purposes, will Bacrifice the principles they profess to cherish and promote. Upon them, and upon the political party for whose benefit and under the direction of whose leaders they act, let the blame be visited of fastening upon the people of a new state institutions repugnant to their feelings and in violation of their wishes. The organic act secures to the people of Kansas the sole and exclusive right of forming and regulating their domestic institutions to suit them- selves, subject to no other limitation than that which the Constitution of the United States imposes. The democratic party is determined to see the great fundamental principle of the organic act carried out in good faith. The present election law in Kansas is acknowledged to be fair and just. The rights of the voters are clearly defined, and the exer- cise of these rights will be efficiently and scrupulously pro- tected. Hence, if the majority of the people of Kansas desire to have it a free state (and we are told by the repub- lican party that nine-tenths of the people of that territory are free-state men), there is no obstacle in the way of bring- ing Kansas into the Union as a free state by the votes and voice of her own people, and in conformity to the great principles of the Kansas-Nebraska act: provided all the free- state men will go to the polls and vote their principles in accordance with their professions. If such is not the result, let the consequences be visited upon the heads of those whose policy it is to produce strife, anarchy, and bloodshed in Kansas, that their party may profit by slavery agitation in the northern states of this Union." In this speech there is not the slightest allu- sion whatever to a subsequent ratification of the constitution to be formed before it would have validity ; not the slightest reference to any such construction of the Kansas-Nebraska act. The language is: ''Kansas is about to speak for herself through her delegates assembled in convention to form a constitution." It was in the choice of these delegates that the respon- sibility was to rest upon those who, for parti- san purposes, under the control of leaders in distant states, should absent themselves from the polls. That was the time their voice was to be legally heard in the formation of a state constitution ; and if they chose to be silent, then they were to be silent ever afterward. They would have nobody to blame but them- selves. -It is true that Gov. Walker, while plainly telling the people that the convention would have full power to make a constitution without submitting it, also told them that, in Ms judg- ment, the entire constitution to be framed by them ought to be submitted to the decision of the people, and that if it were not, in his judg- ment Congress would not, and ought not to, admit the state under it. In this he differed widely from Mr. Stanton, and in making the declaration he greatly transcended his rightful power. He undertook to prescribe for Con gress the exercise of a right they do not pos- sess under the Constitution of the United States. When a new state presents a consti- tution for admission, Congress has no more power to inquire into the manner of its adop- tion than the matter of its substance. Tho matter cannot be inquired into further than to see that it is republican in form ; and the mode and manner of its adoption cannot be inquired into only so far as to see that it has been formed in such way as the people have legally estab- lished for themselves. The doctrine of Gover- nor Walker would be utterly subversive of all state rights and state sovereignty ; for one of the unquestionable attributes of sovereignty is the absolute right to select its own mode uf giv- ing expression to its own will. If, then, upon general principles, as well as from established usage, it clearly appears that the validity of a constitution does not neces- sarily depend upon its having received a popu- lar ratification, is there anything in the Kansas bill that varies this case from former prece- dents? On this point Governor Walker says, " these rights " (that is, the right of having the constitution as a whole submitted to a popular vote) " I have ever regarded as fully secured to the people of ' all the territories' in adopt- ing their state constitutions by the Kansas-Ne- braska bill. Such is the construction of this Kansas act by its distinguished author, not only in his late most able argument, but by addresses made and published by him long an- tecedent to that date, showing that this sove- reign power of a people in acting upon a state constitution is not confined to the question of slavery, but includes all other subjects in such an instrument. Indeed, I believe the Kansas- Nebraska bill would have violated the rights of sovereignty reserved to the people of each state by the Federal Constitution, if it had de- prived them, or Congress should now deprive them, of the right of voting for or against their state constitution." What part or clause of the Kansas act gave Governor Walker the idea that it secured not only to the people of that territory, but " all other territories," the rights he mentions, this committee are utterly at a loss to imagine. If there is a word or sentence in it which em- bodies any such security, they have been un- able to discover it ; and if the distinguished Senator from Illinois, who is thus styled the author of that bill, ever gave any such con struction to it, antecedent to his " late " speech, this committee are not aware of it. If any such construction was put upon any part of it 446 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. during its discussion in Congress in 1854, or afterward, or during the canvass of 1856, by that Senator, or any person else, this commit- tee are equally unaware of it. On the con- trary, they have good evidence that no such construction was then or afterward, or up to the 12th of June last, put upon it by the Sena- tor who is called its author. In the speech made by him on that day he certainly put no such construction on the bill. During the last Congress the same Senator reported a bill, though he was not the author of it, providing for the call of a convention in Kansas to form a state constitution for admission into the Union. That bill made no provision for the submission of the work of the convention to a decision of the people. That was known as the Toombs bill. It passed the Senate, and received the vote of the Senator from Illinois. In giving that vote, Governor Walker may believe that the Senator "violated the rights of sover- eignty reserved to the people of each state by the Federal Constitution" but he can hardly affirm that by it the Senator gave that construction to the Kansas bill which the governor says he had so repeatedly given before his late speech. Indeed, the record of that Senator shows that he did not deem it necessary, under the Kansas- Nebraska bill, to submit even the slavery ques- tion to a decision of the people. The language of the Kansas bill, as first reported by Senator Douglas, on this subject was in these words: "All the questions appertaining to slavery in the territory and in the new states to be formed therefrom are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, through their appropriate representatives." This shows that he then thought that the act of sovereignty, in determining this question on the formation of a constitution, could be per- formed by the people, through the " interme- diate body " of " representatives,'" as fully and completely as if done by themselves. The words finally adopted on this point in the bill, after declaring the restriction of 1820 null and void, were as follows : ",It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." If any inference is to be drawn from this change of phraseology, it is that the object aimed at by it was to leave even the slavery question to be settled, as all others had been before, by the people, in their own way, in con- formity to law and the Constitution of the United States. If they chose to do it by repre- sentatives, the power was given them so to do it; if they chose to do it by general popular vote, the power was given them to do it in that way. Congress was to abstain from all inter- ference or intervention with or over their own way or manner of doing it, so that it was le- §ally done under the Constitution of the United tates. The difficulty with Governor Walker seems to be, that they have chosen a way of their own different from the one that he would have had them to adopt. He wished them to decide that as well as other questions in his way ; they preferred their own way to his. To cor- rect this disobedient proceeding on their part, he seems to be willing now to shed the "last drop of his life's blood." As before stated, the Lecompton convention did submit the slavery question to a popular .. vote. This was a matter entirely discretionary with themselves. In doing it they were doubtr less actuated by the most patriotic motives. This was the origin of all the strife in the ter- ritory. This was the subject which Mr. Stan- ton had stated with so much confidence would " in some way" be submitted to a direct vote of the people. On the submission every bona fide citizen in the territory entitled to the elective franchise had a full and perfect right to vote upon it. If any abstained from vot- ing, the fault was their own. They have nc just cause to complain of Congress for admit ting the state under a constitution with a clause which they do not like, when they had a fair opportunity to vote it down, if they really have, as they pretend, a majority in the terri- tory. The official vote on the ratification, when so submitted, was as follows : Constitution, with slavery Constitution, without slavery 6226 669 Making an aggregate of 6795 voting on the question, and a majority of 5657 for the con- stitution as now presented. This is certainly a very large majority of those joining in the election, if not a majority of all the voters in the territory, in favor of the constitution as it is now before Congress ; and according to the doctrine of Governor Walker, in his inaugural address, " those who abstain from the exercise of the right of suffrage authorized those who did vote to act for them, and the absentees are as much bound under the law as if all had participated in the election." If this view t>e correct, then no constitution ever came up with a stronger endorsement by popular vote, and every objection to its validity on the ground of its wanting even this sanction, is utterly with- out foundation. Another objection of the same class is, that no enabling act was passed by Congress, or, in other words, that the legislature of Kansas did not have the legal right to call the con- vention that formed the constitution. This objection is equally untenable both on princi- ple and authority. The power to call a con- vention to form a state constitution is clearly within the " rightful subjects " of legislation granted in the organic act. But even with- out that, the precedents are numerous where conventions have been called without such a grant. Out of the eighteen new states here- tofore admitted, nearly half of them have come in under constitutions formed without any direct authority of Congress. Amongst these may be named Tennessee, Michigan, Iowa, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Florida, and Ca- lifornia. In addition to this, it may be added that the most prominent of those who now NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 447 urge this objection are estopped by their own declarations and admissions. Governor Walker for instance, in his inaugural address in rela- tion to the right of the territorial legislature to call a convention, uses this language : "But it is said that the convention is not legally railed. and that the election will not be freely and fairly conducted. The territorial legislature is the power ordained for this pur- pose by the Congress of the United States, aud in opposing it you resist the authority of the general government." And again he says : "The territorial legislature, then, in assembling this con- tention, were fully sustained by the act of Congress." Mr. Stanton expresses similar sentiments in that part of his inaugural address before quoted. Judge Douglas, in his Springfield speech, also quoted, does not intimate that he then thought there was any necessity for an enabling act. Moreover, his position on the admission of California is well known. In that case a constitution had been sent up formed by a convention called together with- out the slightest pretext of legal authority, either from Congress or any territorial organi- zation. A proclamation of a military com- mander was the sole foundation for it, and yet upon that occasion Judge Douglas said : "I hold that the people of California had aright to do what they have done; yea, they had a moral, political, and legal right to do all they have clone." How any person could maintain the legality of the proceedings in the California case and deny them in Kansas, or hold that an enabling act by Congress was necessary in the Kansas case, when it was not necessary in Califor- nia, is incomprehensible to this committee. They dismiss this point without further re- mark. But other objections of a different class and character have been started. These relate to the fairness of the election of delegates to the constitutional convention. On this head it is 8aid that quite a number of counties, nineteen in all, making more than half of the counties in the territory, were disfranchised by the law of the 19th February, 1857, and were wholly unrepresented in the convention. By the sta- tutes of Kansas, as all can see by reference, there are thirty-seven counties laid out with names and boundaries in the territory. Three of these — to wit: Washington, Clay, and Dickenson — were omitted in the act of the 19th February creating districts for the elec- tion of delegates. They lie in the extreme western frontier of the territory, as will be seen by the map, and exist mainly in law and on paper. They seem to be destitute of popu- lation, without officers or civil organization. The thirty-four organized counties were all embraced in the act, as will be seen in the 19th section. By that section they are ar- ranged into election districts, as follows : 1st district, Doniphan county. 2d '• Brown and Nemeha counties. 8d " Atchison county. 4th " Leavenworth county. 5th " Jefferson county. 6th " Calhoun county. 7th district, Marshall county. 8th " Kiley and Pottawatomie counties. 9th " Johnson county. 10th " Douglas county. 11th " Shawnee, Richardson, and Davis counties. 12th " Lykins county. 13th " Franklin county. 14th " Weller, Breckenridge, Wise, and Madison counties. 15th " Butler and Coffee counties. 16th " Lynn county. 17th " Anderson county. 18th " Bourbon, McGee, Dora, and Allen counties. 19th " Woodson, Wilson, Grodfry, Greenwood, an I Hunter counties. The object of the law, as all its details plainly show, was to have as fair an election as possible. The registry of voters as requir- ed was made and returned for these districts as follows, as will be seen by Mr. Stanton's proclamation : No. of district. First . Second Third . Fourth Fifth . Sixth . Seventh Eighth Ninth . Tenth . Eleventh . Twelfth Thirteenth . Fourteenth Fifteenth . Sixteenth . Seventeenth Eighteenth Nineteenth Names of counties. Doniphan Brown Nemeha . . Atchison Leavenworth Jefferson Calhoun Marshall Kiley Pottawatomie Johnson Douglas Shawnee, Richardson, Lykins Franklin Four counties Two counties Lynn One county (Anderson) Bourbon, McGee, Allen, and Dora Five counties .... and Davis No. of legal voters. 1086 206 140 804 1837 655 201 206 353 205 49P 1318 283 413 No return. No return. No return. 413 No return. 645 No return. Total 9261 Upon this return of registration, showing 9251 voters, (which, upon all. reasonable pro- babilities, must have been within one or two thousand of all the legal voters at the time in the territory,) the acting governor, as will be seen from the same exhibit, made an appor- tionment of representation, according to the provisions of the act. This was done by dividing the whole number of voters (9251) by 60, the number of delegates constituting the convention, and apportioning the delegates to the respective counties in districts, as above set forth, from which a registry had been re- ported. The apportionment was as follows : 1st district, Doniphan county . . .7 delegate*. 2d " Brown and Nemeha ... 2 " 3d " Atchison . . 5 " 4th " Leavenworth . . 12 " 5 th " Jefferson . . 4 " 6th " Calhoun ... 2 " 7th " Marshall ... 1 « 8th " Kiley and Pottawatomia . 4 « 9th " Johnson 3 " 10th " Douglas 8 " 11th " Shawnee, Richardson, and Davis 2 " 12th i; Lykins 3 « lfith " Lynn .... 3 « 18th " Bourbon, McGee, Dorn, and Allen . . - . . 4 " From this it will be seen that twenty-one out of the thirty-four organized counties were embraced in the apportionment ; and th* 148 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. journals of the convention show that all these Avere represented in that body. — From the same proclamation it will be seen that five election districts, embracing thirteen counties, were left out of the appor- tionment. These were, as will appear from what has been stated, the thirteenth district, being Franklit county ; the 14th, including Weller, Breckenridge, Wise, and Madison ; the 15th, Butler and Coffee; the 17th, Ander- son county ; and the 19th, Woodson, Wilson, Greenwood, Godfrey, and Hunter. Of these thirteen counties nine had but a small population in them. This (apart from the statement of Mr. Calhoun and other reli- able information) clearly appears from the returns of the election on the 4th of January last, the official announcement of which is filed with the papers of this report. From that it will be seen that not a vote was returned as having been cast in that election in seccn of these thirteen counties, about the disfranchise- ment of which so much complaint has been made. These seven counties are Weller, Wise, Butler, Wilson, Godfrey, Greenwood, and Hunter. Nor was there a vote at that election in either of the three unorganized counties of Washington, Clay, and Dickinson. In two of the thirteen counties stated above — to wit : Madison and Woodson — there were but 90 votes cast — 40 in the former and 50 in the latter ; and but 1135 in the four remaining — to wit: Franklin, 304; Breckenridge, 191; Coffee, 453 ; and Anderson, 177 ; so that if the election of the 4th of January should be received as evidence of anything, it would prove nothing more conclusively than that the clamor about the disfranchisement of half the people, or even a considerable portion of the people of the territory, is utterly groundless, and resorted to only as a pretext for the want of something more solid. This pretext be- comes the more glaring when the cause of there being no registry in these four counties of Franklin, Breckenridge, Anderson and Cof- fee, is understood. This is fully explained not only by the statement of Mr. Calhoun al- luded to, but by the deposition of George Wil- son, to be found in Senate Document No. 52, at this session. From these and other no- torious facts, the real and true cause of a fail- ure of registry of voters in these counties and a consequent failure of representation be- ing apportioned to them in the convention, too clearly appears to need much explanation. The parties in whose behalf the cry of dis- franchisement is now raised, prevented the registry themselves. Since the organization of that territory, there has been in it a class of men whose avowed object was to oppose and overthrow all legal authority. They went there with this purpose. Their object was to set up an imperium in imperio. In the lan- guage of the President, they have been in a " state of rebellion" against the legally con- stituted authorities from the beginning. This is fully established by numerous reports of Governors Shannon, Geary, and Walker, and Secretary Stanton. They were, to a certain extent, the emissaries of those who denounced the Kansas bill when it passed as a great " wrong" and an " outrage," and who were resolved to defeat its peaceful operation. To show the groundlessness of the first clamor, as well as the last, we might here in- quire what was the wrong or outrage of that bill? Was it a great wrong or outrage to per- mit the people of New York, Massachusetts, or other states of the north, as well as the people of the south, going into a new territo- ry, the common property of all, to be as free as they were at their native homes, and in forming new states, to enjoy the same rights which their fathers did in the formation of all our present state constitutions and govern- ments.? This is just what that bill did on the main question of controversy in Kansas — no- thing more — nothing less. But rather than see this great principle of right, justice, and equality carried out, this class of men went to that territory to defeat it at every hazard. Setting themselves up in defiance of law from the beginning, they now denounce a constitu- tion made by those who conformed to law as "a fraud," " a cheat," and " a swindle." But the more ultra of the same party elsewhere have long since said much worse things of the Constitution of the United States. This class of malcontents in Kansas are organized in a party having the control of some of the counties. They refused to recognize the va- lidity of the law requiring the registry to be made. They opposed its execution both by withholding their own names in some in- stances, and in others by driving the officers, whose duty it was to make it, from the coun- try, with threats to take the life of any who should attempt it. This was particularly the case in Anderson and Franklin counties. If, then, these counties were unrepresented in the convention, their disfranchisement was the work of their own people. Another signifi- cant fact to be noticed from the registry and apportionment together with the official report of the 4th of January, is this : that the five counties, to wit, Leavenworth, Atchison, Doug- las,Doniphan, and Jefferson, at that election cast an aggregate vote of 5118, which is a majority of the whole vote reported to have been cast throughout the entire territory against the con- stitution. And yet all these counties were regis- tered and represented in the convention. They had thirty-six of the sixty delegates of which that body was composed. Now, if it be true that the opponents of the constitution are so largely in the majority in those counties, and are so violent in their opposition, as they are represented to be, why did they not elect men to the convention who would have formed a constitution more to their liking ? These counties alone, by the registry, had within four votes of two-thirds of the convention, and could have made just such a constitution aa would have been most agreeable to their peo- ple. If they refused to act at the proper time, why do they complain now ? If others, con NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 449 forming to the law, went into the convention and formed a constitution to suit themselves, was it not their fair, just, and legal right to do it ? These complaints come too late, even if they come from orderly, law-abiding citizens. As well might the thousands who abstained from the polls, or threw away their votes at the last presidential election, now come for- war 1 and claim that the present administra- tion is illegal, and should be set aside, because the inaugurated chief magistrate did not re- ceive a majority of all the legal voters of the United States, as for these people now to com- plain of the result of their own ladies or ille- gal acts, or to seek to remedy it by any such irregular proceeding as the vote taken on the 4th of January against the constitution, after it had been legally adopted. But the inquiry is made whether the con- stitution is acceptable and satisfactory to a majority of the legal voters of Kansas. This is a matter the committee could not ascertain and report upon with certainty without polling every legal voter in the territory ; and if they had gone there and taken the vote themselves, for and against the constitution, perhaps the majority might have varied from one side to the other, by death, emigration, or change of opinion, before their report could have been made. That course of investigation is wholly impracticable. The only proper mode of pur- suing the legitimate inquiry before Congress, in the judgment of the committee, is to ascer- tain whether the constitution embodies the legally and fairly expressed will of those who, by their acts, acknowledge themselves to be bona fide citizens and constituent elements of the society or political community to be or- ganized in a state within its jurisdiction. Those who, by their acts, show themselves not to be bona fide citizens, but mala fide resi- dents, and even self-acknowledged outlaws by their open hostility to all civil authority, should not be considered or taken in the count. The convention that formed the constitution was as fairly constituted as could be with a view of allowing every bona fide citizen in Kansas entitled to vote to have a free oppor- tunity to be heard in its formation. This Mr. Stanton said ; this Governor Walker said ; this Judge Douglas said ; this also abundant- ly appears from the facts and evidence now submitted. The only correct test of the will of a majority of the bona fide vo- ters of Kansas upon the subject of their con- stitution, is that of the ballot-box, and such an expression of their will as has been there given at the proper time and place, in con- formity to law. By this test a majority of them is certainly in favor of it. The majority of those going to the polls when the election of delegates, with full and plenary power, took place, was largely in favor of those who made the constitution ; and when the direct question on the slavery clause was submitted on the 21st December, the like majority was overwhelmingly in favor of it. On the 4th January, in the election of state officers un- 29 der the constitution, it is well known that both parties joined in a vigorous contest for the organization of the state under it. Up- wards of 12,000 voters participated in that election. That vote shows most clearly that the constitution is not only acceptable, but has been accepted by at least four-fifths of the voters of the territory, though it may not be entirely satisfactory to all of them. As to the alleged frauds on the 4th of Jan- uary for state officers under the constitution, the committee have not deemed it pertinent or proper for them to enter into any investiga- tion. They are matters to be inquired into and tried by other tribunals, as all frauds in other state elections are. This House can have no jurisdiction over them in any way; no more than they have over the frauds, if any, in the states of New York, Indiana, Illi- nois, or any other state in elections for state officers. Should Kansas be admitted, and the seat of the member returned to this House be contested on the ground of alleged frauds, then this House would be the proper tribunal to decide that question. There will be other legitimate tribunals to decide all others. Upon a review, then, of all these facts, and a survey of the whole field here presented as a question of public policy, looking not only to the present and future welfare of the people of Kansas, but to the peace and harmony of the whole Union, the committee, in conclusion, express their entire agreement with the Presi- dent in his recommendation of the immediate admission of the state. That a large number of the states would look upon her rejection, under all the circum- stances, with extreme sensitiveness, if not alarm, cannot be denied or doubted. This is natural. When they see that no new state has ever presented herself for admission with a constitution formed and adopted with greater regularity and more strictly in conformity to law ; when they remember the irregularities that were waived on the admission of Califor- nia, whose constitution was formed without any legal authority ; when they see the irregu- larities in the case of Minnesota, now apply- ing, which will doubtless be waived ; when they feel and know that no valid or well founded objection can be made to the consti- tution of Kansas, either in its substance or manner of adoption, except that it recognises slavery so long as the sovereign state may choose to allow it ; when they know that the fiat has gone forth by that party which mainly urges these unusual objections, that no state whose constitution recognised slavery shall ever hereafter be admitted into the Union, and that the rejection of Kansas would increase and inflame that factious, sectional, and un- constitutional spirit — is it not natural that they should come to the conclusion that the real secret of its rejection is this bare recogni- tion of an institution which forms the basis of their civil society 1 Is it not natural that this act would strongly tend to produce distrust towards the common government, by awaken- 450 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ing a conviction that a determination is fixed by the majority never to allow another mem- ber of the federal family to enter the Union with institutions similar to theirs ? Will not her rejection tend to weaken the bonds which hold the states together? These are grave questions, involving in their solution the des- tinies of the future. The committee barely allude to them ; they are suggestive enough of themselves, without comment or enlarge- ment. But the committee urge their calm and dispassionate consideration, especially as it is believed by them the peace, quiet, wel- fare, and prosperity of Kansas herself will be promoted by her admission, as well as the general harmony of all the states. If it be true that a majority of the people of Kansas are opposed to the institution of slavery, as now recognised by her constitution, what easier mode could be adopted for them to rid them- selves of it than to allow them to take charge of this with all other matters of internal policy, clothed with the exercise of all powers belong- ing to them as a sovereign state of the Union ? There is nothing now in their constitution more objectionable on this point than is to be found in their organic act and the Constitu- tion of the United States, under which they must continue so long as they remain in a territorial condition. The argument that Con- gress, by the admission, will be forcing any institution whatever upon an unwilling peo- ple, is is gratuitous as it is groundless, even if a majority there be opposed to slavery. For by the Constitution of the United States slavery is as much forced upon them ae by the consti- tution of Kansas. This Congress cannot pre- vent, and this will continue to be the case until it is removed, if ever, by the sovereign power of the state. The committee, therefore, report the follow- ing resolution : Resolved, That Kansas ought to be admitted as a state into the Union under the Lecompton constitution on an equal footing with the other states, as recommended by the President. The minority of the committee were Messrs. Harris of 111., Adrain of N. J., Buffinton of Mass., Morrill of Vt., and Waldridge of Mich., who also presented a report, disagreeing with the above. The result of these several reports was, that the Senate passed what is called the Senate Kansas bill, the House substituted for it the Montgomery Amendment, — the Senate insist- ed, the House adhered. A Committee of Con- ference was appointed, and a bill reported by it became a law. The several bills, and a tabu- lar statement of the votes on them, follow here- after. The Senate Kansas Bill, As it passed the Senate on the 23d of March, 185S, and which was amended in the House by Mr. Montgomery's substitute therefor on the 1st of April, 1858. That part in italics is what is called the Green- Pugh amendment. [For vote, see tabular statement.] Whereas, the people of the territory of Kan- sas did, by a convention of delegates, called and assembled at Lecompton, on the 4th day of September, 1857, for that purpose, form for themselves a constitution and state government, which said constitution is republican, and said convention having asked the admission of said territory into the Union as a state on an equal footing with the original states — Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of Kan- sas shall be, and is hereby declared to be, one of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatever. And the said state shall consist of all the territory included within the following boundaries, to wit : beginning at a point on the western boun- dary of the state of Missouri, where the thirty- seventh parallel of latitude crosses the same ; thence west on said parallel to the eastern boundary of New Mexico ; thence north on said boundary to latitude thirty-eight ; thence following said boundary westward to the east- ern boundary of the territory of Utah, on the summit of the Rocky Mountains ; thence north- ward on said summit to the fortieth parallel of latitude ; thence east on said parallel to the western boundary of the state of Missouri ; thence south Avith the western boundary of said state to the place of beginning : Provided, that nothing herein contained respecting the boun- dary of said state shall be construed to impair the rights of person or property now pertaining to the Indians in said territory, so long as such rights shall remain unextinguished by treaty between the United States and such Indians, or to include any territory which, by treaty with such Indian tribe, is not without the consent of such tribe to be included within the territo- rial limits of jurisdiction of any state or terri- tory ; but all such territory shall be excepted out of the boundaries, and constitute no part of the state of Kansas, until said tribe shall signify their assent to the President of the United States to be included within said state, or to affect the authority of the government of the United States to make any regulations re- specting such Indians, their lands, property, or other rights, by treaty, law, or otherwise, %* hich it would have been competent to make if tlrs act had not been passed. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted. That the state of Kansas is admitted into the Union upon the express condition that said state shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lands, or with any regulations which Congress may find necessary for securing the title in said lands to the bona fide purchasers and grantees thereof, or impose or levy any tax, assessment, or imposition of any descrip- NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 451 tion whatever upon them, or other property of the United States, within the limits of said state ; and that nothing in this act shall be con- strued to abridge or infringe any right of the people asserted in the constitution of Kansas at all times to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government in such manner as they may think proper, Congress hereby disclaiming any authority to interfere or declare the construction of the constitution of any state, except to see that it be republican inform, and not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States ; and nothing in this act shall be construed as an assent by Congress to all or to any of the pro- positions or claims contained in the ordinance annexed to the said constitution of the people of Kansas, nor to deprive the sa'.d state of Kansas of the same grants, if hereafter made, which were contained in the act of Congress, entitled " An act to authorize the people of the Territory of Minnesota to form a constitution and state government, preparatory to admis- sion into the Union on an equal footing with the original states," approved February 26th, 1857. Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That until the next general census shall be taken, and an apportionmcntof representation made, the state of Kansas shall be entitled to one representa- tive in the House of Representatives of the United States. Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That from and after the admission of the state of Kansas as hereinbefore provided, all the laws of the United States which are not locally inapplica- ble, shall have the same force and effect within that state as any other state of the Union ; and the said state is hereby constituted a judicial district of the United States, within which a district court, with the like power and jurisdic- tion as the district court of the United States for the district of Iowa, shall be established. The judge, attorney, and marshal of the United States for the said district of Kansas shall re- side within the same, and shall be entitled to the same compensation as the judge, attorney, and marshal of the district of Iowa. The Crittenden-Montgomery Amendment. Mr. Crittenden offered his amendment to the Senate bill, in the Senate, on the 23d of March, 1858, and it was rejected. [See tabu- lar statement of vote.] Mr. Montgomery offered his amendment to the Senate bill, in the House, on the 1st of April, 1858, and it was carried. [See tabular statement of vote.] All of the following in roman is in both the Crittenden and Montgomery amendment. All in small caps is in the Crittenden, and not in the Montgomery amendment. All in italics is in the Montgomery, and not in the Critten- den amendment. The following preamble and enacting clause, prefixed to the Montgomery amendment, con- stitutes the Senate bill as amended by the House, which was voted for by all those mem- bers in the House who voted for the Mont- gomery amendment, the question being, Shall the bill of the Senate as amended pass .' Whereas, the people of the territory of Kan- sas did, by a convention of delegates, called and assembled at Lecompton, on the 4th day of September, 1857, for that purpose, form for themselves a constitution and state govern- ment, which said constitution is republican, and said convention having asked the admis- sion of said territory into the Union as a state on an equal footing with the original states — Be it enacted, &c, That the state of Kansas be, and is hereby, admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatever ; but, inasmuch as it is greatly disputed whether the constitution (with which Kansas is now admitted) (framed at Lecompton, on the seventh day of November last, and noio pending before Con- gress,) was fairly made, or expressed the will of the people of Kansas, this admission of her into the Union as a state is here declared to be upon the fundamental condition precedent, namely, that the said constitutional instru- ment shall be first submitted to a vote of the people of Kansas, and assented to by them, or a majority of the voters, at an election to be held for the purpose ; and as soon as such as- sent shall be given, and duly made known (by a majority of the commissioners herein ap- pointed,) to the President of the United States, he shall announce the same by proclamation ; and thereafter, and without any further pro- ceedings on the part of Congress, the admis- sion of the said state of Kansas into the Union upon an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatever, shall be complete and absolute. At the said election the (vote) (voting) shall be by ballot, and by endorsing on his ballot, as each voter may please, "for the constitution," or " against the constitu- tion." Should the said constitution be re- jected at the said election by a majority of votes being cast against it, then, and in that event, the inhabitants of said territory are hereby authorized and empowered to form for themselves a constitution and state govern- ment by the name of the state of Kansas, (preparatory to its admission into the Union,) according to the Federal Constitu- tion, and to that end may elect delegates to a convention as hereinafter provided. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the said state of Kansas shall have concurrent ju- risdiction on the Missouri and all other rivers and waters bordering on the said state of Kan- sas, so far as the same shall form a common boundary to said state, and any other state or states now or hereafter to be formed or bounded by the same ; and said rivers and waters, and all the navigable waters of said state, shall be common highways and for ever free, as well to the inhabitants of said state as to all other citizens of the United States, with- out any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor. Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That, for the purpose of insuring, as far as possible, 452 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. that the elections authorized by this act may- be fair and free, the governor and secretary of the territory of Kansas, and the presiding officers of the two branches of its legislature, namely, the president of the Council and speaker of the House of Representatives, are hereby constituted a board of commissioners to carry into effect the provisions of this act, and to use all the means necessary and proper to that end. And [any] three of them shall constitute a board ; and the board shall have power and authority, in respect to each and all of the elections hereby authorized or pro- vided for, to designate and establish precincts for voting, or to adopt those already estab- lished ; to cause polls to be opened at such places as it may deem proper in the respective Counties and election precincts of said terri- tory ; to appoint as judges of election, at each of the several places of voting, three discreet and respectable persons, any two of whom shall be competent to act ; to require the she- riffs of the several counties, by themselves or deputies, to attend the judges at each of the places of voting, for the purpose of preserving peace and good order ; or the said board may, instead of said sheriffs and their deputies, ap- point at their discretion, and in such instances as they may choose, other fit persons for the same purpose ; and when the purpose of the election is to elect delegates to a convention to form a constitution, as hereinbefore provided for, the number of delegates shall be sixty, and they shall be apportioned by said board among the several counties of said territory according to the number of voters ; and in making this apportionment, the board may join two or more counties together to make an election or repre- sentative district, where neither of the said counties has the requisite number of voters to entitle it to a delegate, or to join a smaller to a larger county, having a surplus population, where it may serve to equalize the representa- tion. The elections hereby authorized shall continue one day only, and shall not be con- tinued later than sundown on that day. The said board shall appoint the day of election for each of the elections hereby authorized, as the same may become necessary. The said gov- ernor shall announce, by proclamation, the day appointed for any one of said elections ; and the day shall be as early a one as is con- sistent with due notice thereof to the people of said territory, subject to the provisions of this act. The said board shall have full power to prescribe the time, manner, and places of each of said elections, and to direct the time and manner of the returns thereof, which re- turns shall be made to the said board, whose duty it shall be to announce the result by pro- clamation, and to appoint therein as early a day as practicable for the delegates elected (where the election has been for delegates) to assemble in convention at the seat of govern- ment of said territory. When so assembled, the convention shall first determine, by vote, whether it is the wish of [the people of] the proposed state to be admitted into the Union at that time ; and if so, shall proceed to form a constitution, and take all necessary steps for the establishment of a state government, in conformity with the Federal Constitution, sub- ject to the approval and ratification of the people of the proposed state. And the said convention shall, accordingly, provide for its submission to the vote of the people for approval or rejection : [and if the majority of votes shall be given for the constitution so framed as aforesaid, the gov- ernor of the territory shall, within twenty days after the result is known, notify the President of the United States of the same. And, there- upon, the President shall announce the same by proclamation, and thereafter, and without any further proceedings whatever on the part of Congress, the admission of the said state of Kansas into the Union, upon an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatever, shall be complete and absolute^] Sec. 4. And be it further And be it further en- enacted, That in the elections acted, That in the elec- liereby authorized, all white tions hereby authorized, all male inhabitants of said ter- white male inhabitants of rilory over the age of twenty- said territory over the age one years, who are legal voters of twenty-one years, who under Vie laws of the terri- have been residents for lory of Kansas, and none three months before the others, shall be allowed to election, and are citizens vote ; and this shall be the only of the United States, and qualification required to en- none others, shall be al- title the voter to the right of lowed to vote; and this suffrage in said elections. And shall be the only qualifi- if any person not so qualified cation required to entitlb shall vote or offer to vote, or if the citizen to the right of any person shall vote more suffrage in said election. than once at either of said elections, or shall make or cause to be made any false, fictitious, or fraudulent re- turns, or sltall alter or change any returns of either of said elections, such person shall, upon conviction thereof before any court of competent juris- diction, be kept at hard labor not less than six months, and not more than three years. Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That tho members of the aforesaid board of commis* sioners,- and all persons appointed by them to carry into effect the provisions of this act, shall, before entering upon their duties, take an oath to perform faithfully the duties of their respec- tive offices ; and on failure thereof, they shall be liable and subject to the same charges and penalties as are provided in like cases under the territorial laws. Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That the officers mentioned in the preceding section shall receive for their services the same com- pensation as is given for like services under the territorial laws. Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That the said state of Kansas, when her admission as a state becames complete and absolute, shall be entitled to one member in the House of Repre- sentatives in the Congress of the United States, till the next census be taken by the federal government. Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby, offered to the said people of Kansas, NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 453 for their free acceptance or rejection, which, if accepted, shall be obligatory on the United States and upon the said state of Kansas, to wit : First. That sections numbered sixteen and thirty-six in every township of public lands in said state, and where either of said Bections, or any part thereof, has been sold or otherwise been disposed of, other lands, equi- valent thereto and as contiguous as may be, shall be granted to said state for the use of schools. Second. That seventy-two sections of land shall be set apart and reserved for the use and support of a state university, to be selected by the governor of said state, subject to the approval of the commissioner of the general land office, and to be appropriated and applied in such manner as the legislature of 6aid state may prescribe for the purpose afore- said, but for no other purpose. Third. That ten entire sections of land, to be selected by the governor of said state, in legal subdivi- sions, shall be granted to said state for the purpose of completing the public buildings, or for the erection of others at the seat of go- vernment, under the direction of the legisla- ture thereof. Fourth. That all salt springs within said state, not exceeding twelve in number, with six sections of land adjoining, or as contiguous as may be to each, shall be granted to said state for its use, the same to be selected by the governor thereof within one year after the admission of said state, and when so selected, to be used or disposed of on such terms, conditions, and regulations as the legislature shall direct : Provided, That no salt spring or land, the right whereof is now vested in any individual or individuals, or which may be hereafter confirmed or ad- judged to any individual or individuals, shall be by this article granted to said state. Fifth. That five per centum of the net proceeds of sales of all public lands lying within said state, which 6hall be sold by Congress after the admission of said state into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to said state, for the purpose of making public roads and internal improvements, as the legislature shall direct : Provided, That the foregoing propositions, hereinbefore offered, are on the condition that the people of Kansas shall provide by an ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of the United States, that said state shall never interfere with the pri- mary disposal of the soil within the same by the United States, or with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in said soil to bona fide purchasers there- of; and that no tax shall be imposed on lands- belonging to the United States, and that in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents. [Sixth. And that the said state shall never tax the lands or the proper- ty of the United States in that state: Provided, however, That nothing in this act of admission shall he so construed as to ratify or accept the ordinance attached to said constitution, framed at Lecompton ; but said ordinance is hereby re- jected by the United States.] Report of the Joint Committee of Confer- ence, on the Disagreeing Votes between the Senate and House of Representa- tives, upon the Bill for the Admission of Kansas. [For vote on same in each House, see tabular statement of vote.] Whereas the people of the territory of Kan- sas did, by a convention of delegates assem- bled at Lecompton, on the 7th day of Novem- ber, 1857, for that purpose, form for them- selves a constitution and state government, which constitution is republican ; and where- as, at the same time and place, said conven- tion did adopt an ordinance, which said ordi- nance asserts that Kansas, when admitted as a state, will have an undoubted right to tax the lands within her limits belonging to the United States, and proposes to relinquish said asserted right if certain conditions set forth in said ordinance be accepted and agreed to by the Congress of the United States ; and whereas the said constitution and ordinance have been presented to Congress by order of said convention, and admission of said terri- tory into the Union thereon as a state, re- quested ; and whereas said ordinance is not acceptable to Congress, and it is desirable to ascertain whether the people of Kansas con- cur in the changes in said ordinance, herein- after stated, and desire admission into the Union as a state as herein proposed : There- fore — Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Ame- ica in Congress assembled, That the state of Kansas be, and is hereby, admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever, but upon this fundamental condition precedent, namely : That the question of admission, with the fol- lowing proposition in lieu of the ordinance framed at Lecompton, be submitted to a vote of the people of Kansas, and assented to by them, or a majority of the voters voting at an election to be held for that purpose, namely : That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby, offered to the people of Kan- sas for acceptance or rejection, which, if accepted, shall be obligatory on the United States, and upon the said state of Kansas, to wit : First, that sections numbers sixteen and thirty-six in every township of public lands in said state, or where either of said sections or any part thereof has been sold or otherwise disposed of, other lands equivalent thereto, and as contiguous as may be, shall be granted to said state for the use of schools. Second, that seventy-two sections of land shall be set apart and reserved for the support of a state university, to be selected by the governor of said state, subject to the approval of the com- missioner of the general land office, and to be appropriated and applied in such manner as the legislature of said state may prescribe for the purpose aforesaid, but for no other pur- pose. Third, that ten entire sections of land 454 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. to be selected by the governor of said state, in legal subdivisions, shall be granted to said state for the purpose of completing the public buildings, or for the erection of others at the seat of government, under the direction of the legislature thereof. Fourth, that all salt springs within said state, not exceeding twelve in number, with six sections of land adjoining or as contiguous as may be tc each, shall be granted to said state for its use, the same to be selected by the governor thereof, within one year after the admission of said state, and when so selected to be used or disposed of on such terms, conditions, and regulations, as the legislature may direct : Provided, That no salt spring or land, the right whereof is now vested in any individual or individuals, or which may hereafter be confirmed or adjudged 10 any individual or individuals, shall, by this article, be granted to said state. Fifth, the five per centum of the net proceeds of the sales of all public lands lying within said state, which shall be sold by Congress after the admission of said state into the Union, af- ter deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to said state for the pur- pose of making public roads and internal im- provements, as the legislature shall direct : Provided, The foregoing propositions herein offered are on the condition that the state of Kansas shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the lands of the United States, or with any regulations which Congress may find necessary for securing the title in said soil to bona fide purchasers thereof, and that no tax shall be imposed on lands belonging to the United States, and that in no case shall non- resident proprietors be taxed higher than resi- dents. Sixth, and that said state shall never tax the lands or property of the United States in that state. At the said election the voting shall be by ballot, and by endorsing on his ballot, as each voter may please, proposition accepted, or pro- position rejected. Should a majority of the votes cast be for proposition accepted, the President of the United States, as soon as the fact is duly made known to him, shall an- nounce the same by proclamation ; and, there- after, and without any further proceedings on the part of Congress, the admission of the state of Kansas into the Union upon an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatever, shall be complete and absolute, and said state shall be entitled to one member in the House of representatives in the Congress of the United States, until the next census be taken by the federal government. But should a majority of the votes cast be for proposition rejected, it shall be deemed and held that the people of Kansas do not desire admission into the Union with said constitution under the con- ditions set forth in said proposition ; and in that event the people of said territory are hereby authorized and empowered to form for themselves a constitution and state govern- ment, by the name of the state of Kansas, according to the Federal Constitution, and may elect delegates for that purpose, whenever, and not before, it is ascertained, by a census, duly and legally taken, that the population of said territory equals or exceeds the ratio of repre- sentation required for a member of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States ; and whenever thereafter such delegates shall assemble in convention, they shall first determine by a vote whether it is the wish of the people of the proposed state to be admitted into the Union at that time, and, if so, shall proceed to form a constitution, and take all necessary steps for the establishment of a state government in conformity with the Federal Constitution, subject to such limita- tions and restrictions as to the mode and man- ner of its approval or ratification by the peo- ple of the proposed state as they may have prescribed by law, and shall be entitled to ad- mission into the Union as a state under such constitution thus fairly and legally made, with or without slavery, as said constitution may prescribe. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of insuring as far as possible that the election authorized by this act may be fair and free, the governor, United States district attorney, and secretary of the territory of Kansas, and the presiding officers of the two branches of its legislature, namely, the presi- dent of the council and the speaker of the house of representatives, are hereby constituted a board of commissioners to carry into effect the provisions of this act, and to use all the means necessary and proper to that end. Any three of them shall constitute a board, and the board shall have power and authority to desig- nate and establish precincts for voting, or to adopt those already established ; to cause the polls to be opened at such places as it may deem proper in the respective counties and election precincts of said territory ; to appoint, as judges of election, at each of the several places of voting, three discreet and respectable persons, any two of whom shall be competent to act ; to require the sheriffs of the several counties, by themselves or deputies, to attend the judges at each of the places of voting, for the purpose of preserving peace and good order; or the said board may, instead of said sheriffs and their deputies, appoint, at their discretion, and in such instances as they may choose, other fit persons for the same purpose. The election hereby authorized shall continue one day only, and shall not be continued later than sundown on that day. The said board shall appoint the day for holding said election, and the said gov- ernor shall announce the same by proclama- tion ; and the day shall be as early a one as is consistent with due notice thereof to the peo- ple of said territory, subject to the provisions of this act. The said board have full power to prescribe the time, manner, and places of said election, and to direct the time and manner of the returns thereof, which returns shall be made to the said board, whose duty it shall be NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 45a to announce the result by proclamation ; and the said governor shall certify the same to the President of the United States without delay. Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That, in the election hereby authorized, all white male inhabitants of said territory, over the age of twenty-one years, who possess the qualifications which were required by the laws of said terri- tory for a legal voter at the last general elec- rion for members of the territorial legislature, and none others, shall be allowed to vote ; and this shall be the only qualification required to sntitle the citizens to the right of suffrage in jaid election ; and if any person not so quali- fied shall vote, or offer to vote, or if any person shall vote more than once at said election, or shall make, or cause to be made, any false, fic- titious, or fraudulent returns, or shall alter or change any returns of said election, such per- sons shall, upon conviction thereof before any competent court of jurisdiction, be kept at hard labor for not less than six months and not more than three years. Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the members of the aforesaid board of commis- sioners, and all persons appointed by them to carry into effect the provisions of this act, shall, before entering upon their duties, take an oath to perform faithfully the duties of their respec- tive offices, and on failure thereof they shall be liable and subject to the same charges and pen- alties as are provided in like cases under the territorial laws. Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That the officers mentioned in the preceding section shall receive for their services the same com- pensation as is given for like services under the territorial laws. James S. Green, R. M. T. Hunter, Managers on part of the Senate. Wm. H. English, Alexander H. Stephens, Managers on part of the House. The undersigned, one of the managers on the part of 'the Senate, does not agree to the foregoing report. W. H. Seward. The undersigned, one of the managers on the part of the House, does not agree to the foregoing report. Wm. A. Howard. STATEMENT OP VOTES IN THE SENATE. ■o •a a © a si t~ a T3 ■a a 03 a Is la a m u a 1 o CO O V senators' names. E 73 m to .a " © senators' names. ■3 § 5"° « ^a Democrats in roman. 2 a a 60 oa © ° o ^ Asterisk (*) signifies Anti-Le- ■s 1 ? O ea a, ll Asterisk (*) signifies Anti-Le- — 3 O 01 Pi |s compton. ■S a s a to .a 11 compton. a a f Si s a .a •la a h oo yea a « oa nay a^ OS yea yea _ v a - OO nay oa yea o3 nay 5»- 0.0 Phillip Allen, R. I James Harlan, Iowa nay M. W. Bates, Del. . J. P. Henderson, Texas . nay yea J. A. Bayard, Del. . yea nay- yea yea Sam. Houston, Texas yea nay yea yea John Bell, Tenn. . nay yea nay R. M. T. Hunter, Va. yea nay yea yea J. P. Benjamin, La. yea nay yea yea Alfred Iverson, Ga. nay yea yea Asa Biggs, N. C. yea nay yea yea R. W. Johnson, Ark. yea nay yea yea Wm. Bigler, Penn. . yea nay yea yea Andrew Johnson, Tenn. yea nay yea yea J. D. Bright, Ind. . yea nay yea yea Geo. W. Jones, Iowa yea nay yea yea *D. C. Broderick, Cal. nay yea nay nay Anthony Kennedy, Md. yea yea yea yea A. G. Brown, Miss. yea nay yea yea Preston King, N. Y. nay yea nay nay Simon Cameron, Penn. . nay S. R. Mallory, Fla. . yea nay yea yea Zacharmh Cliandler, Mich. nay yea nay nay J. M. Mason, Va. yea nay yea yea Daniel Clark, N. H. nay yea nay J. A. Pearce, Md. yea nay yea C. C. Clay, jr., Ala. . yea nay yea yea Trusten Polk, Mo. . yea nay yea yea Jacob Collamer, Vt. nay yea nay nay Geo. E. Pugh, Ohio yea nay nay ye* Jno. J. Crittenden, Ky. . yea nay nay D. S. Reid, N. C. Jeff. Davis, Miss. yea W. K. Sebastian, Ark. yea nay yea yea James Dixon, Conn. nay yea nay nay W. H. Seward, N. Y. nay yea nay nay J. P. Doolittle, Wis. nay yea nay nay J. F. Simmons, R. I. nay yea nay nay *S. A. Douglas, HI. . nay yea nay nay Jno. Slidell, La. yea nay yea yea Chas. Durlcee, Wis. . nay nay nay nay *C. E. Stuart, Mich. nay yea nay nay J. J. Evans, S. C. . yea nay yea yea Chas. Sumner, Mass. nay yea nay W. P. Fessenden, Me. nay yea nay- nay J. B. Thompson, Ky. nay yea G. N. Fitch, Ind. yea nay yea J. R. Thomson, N. J. yea nay yea yea Benj. Fitzpatrick, Ala. yea nay yea yea Robt. Toombs, Ga. . yea nay yea yea Solomon Foot, Vt. . nay yea nay nay Lyman Trumbull, 111. nay yea nay nay L. F. S. Foster, Conn. . nay yea nay nay B. F. Wade, Ohio . nay yea nay nay J. S. Green, Mo. yea nay yea yea Henry Wilson, Mass. nay yea nay nay W. M. Gwin, Cal. . yea nay yea yea Wm. Wright, N. J. . yea nay yea yea J. P. Hale, N. II. . nay yea nay nay D. L. Yulee, Fla. . yea nay yea yem Hannibal Hamlin, Maine nay yea nay nay . J. H. Hammond, S. C. . yea nay yea yea 31 24 33 31 . 23 34 25 22 456 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. STATEMENT OF VOTES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Is a a a © a ■a Si 1] * E © q> IS >■ s a o is to — a a members' names. Democrats in ro- si Sg c a .2 § C ■- 2% g.a 2g BO 5 8 _; a? fl "a cu a a a o O a 'o ft ft O *a - c 2 o a If members' names. Democrats in ro- <5.2 •>? S 3 u a a B3 tr-a ■3 «j a 1 a -fc. ■a A a o o a o ft ft tz o ** ID I* man. Republi- a'£ s! I § a ~ to CO. ■3 a man. Republi- " 0) 3. 1 2 a a" to 4)0 cans in italic. 2j 1 t ?■« -■■£ >> >l af v. o cans in italic. N g 2 v "S «•§, b v. H -a Americans in small caps. As- a a » o X — » a C 3 go, a o to a ta O - o .22 o o a, o — Americans in small caps. As- 'm 9 « a 5 ^ "a rr, G> a a go, 3a 0) a o to at a o . Oi © terisk (*) signi- SP t\ tt-S 5 a> a a £ "So o> "O o terisk (*) signi- to 'E 3 83 - 3) fl a v "gs ft'f fies Anti-Le- o o to a> a° ■5% ?« o S ©.a E"2 fies Auti-Le- 02 w a^ •s? °a o c fi a "2 K^ compton. S aJ ■2- 3«j as . * a§ o S o 3g couipton. C a S3 si o 2° 3-a a 0> a w £ z& a a a a o a o a t^ a . o a o2 S* oi o oa C .-. O^ oa -V o E S Oo O OK O x c^ Abbott of Maine nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Elliott of Ky. yea uay nay yea nay nay yea yea *Adrain of N. J. nay yea nay nay yea yea nay *Kuglish of Ind. nay yea nay nay yea yea yea jrea Ahl of Penn. yea nay nay nay nay nay yea yea Eustis, jr., of La. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Anderson of Mo. yea nay- nay yea nay nay yea yea Farnsworth of 111. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Andrews of N. Y. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Faulkner of Va. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea Arnold of Conn. yea uay nay nay uay nay- Fcnton of N. Y. nay yea yea naj- yea yea nay nay Atkins of Tenn. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Florence of Penn. yea nay nay nay nay nay yea yea Avery of Tenn. yea nay nay- yea nay nay yea yea * Foley of Ind. nay yea nay nay yea yea nay- yea Barksdale of Miss. yea nay nay yea ruiy nay yea yea Foster of Maine nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Bennett of N. Y. nay yea yea uay yea yea nay nay Garnett o/Va. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Bittinghurst, Wis. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Gartrell of Ga. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Bingham of Ohio nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Biddings of Ohio. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Bishop of Conn. yea nay nay nay nay n ay yea yea Gillis of Penn. yea nay nay nay nay nay yea Blair, jr., of Mo. nay yea yea nay yea yea uay nay Oilman of Maine nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Bliss of Ohio nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Gilmer of N. C. yea nay nay yea yea nay yea Bocock of Va. yea nay uay yea nay uay yea yea Qooch of Mass. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Bonham of S. C. nay yea nay nay yea nay Goode of Va. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Bowie of Md. yea nay nay yea nay yea yea Goodwin of N. Y. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Boyce of S. C. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Granger of N. Y. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Branch of N. C. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Greenwood of Ark. yea nay nay nay nay nay yea yea Brayton of R. I. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Gregg of Ind. yea nay nay nay nay nay yea yea Bryan of Texas yea nay- nay yea nay nay yea yea *Groesbeck of Ohio nay yea nay nay yea yea nay yea Buffinton of Mass. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Grow of Penn. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Burlingame, Mass. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay *Hall of Ohio nay yea nay nay yea yea yea yea Burnett of Ky. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Hall of ;Mass. nay yea yea nay yen yea nay nay Burns of Ohio yea nay nay- nay nay uay yea yea Harlan of Ohio nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Burroughs of N. Y. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Harris of Md. nay nay yea yea nay nay Campbell of Ohio nay yea yea uay yea yea nay nay *Harris of 111. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Caruthers of Mo. yea yea *Haskin of N. Y. nay yea nay nay yea yea nay nay Case of Ind. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Hatch of N. Y. yea nay nay nay nay nay yea yea Caskie of Va. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Hawkins of Fla. yea nay nay yea nay- nay yea yea Chaffee of Mass. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay *Hickman of Penn. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay ♦Chapman of Penn. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Hill of Ga.- yea nay nay yea nay nay yea Clark, jr., of Conn. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Hoard of N. Y. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay *Clark of N. Y. yea nay nay yea yea nay nay Hopkins of Va. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Clark of Mo. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Horton of Ohio nay yea yea nay yea yea nay Clawson of N. J. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Houston of Ala. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Clay of Ky. yea nay nay yea nay nay- yea yea Howard of Mich. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Clemens of Va. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Hughes of Ind. yea nay nay nay nay nay yea yea Clingman of N. C. yea nay nay- yea nay nay yea yea Huyler of N. J. yea nay nay nay nay nay yea Cobb of Ala. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Jackson of Ga. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Cochrane, GS.,N.Y. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay Jenkins of Va. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Cochrane, J., N. Y. yea nay nay nay nay nay yea yea Jewett of Ky. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea *Cockerill of Ohio nay yea nay nay yea yea nay yea Jones of Tenn. yea nay nay nay nay nay yea yea Colfax of Ind. nay yea yea nay yea yea uay nay Jones, J. G., Penn. yea nay nay nay nay nay yea yea Comins of Mass. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay *Jones, 0., of Penn. nay yea nay nay yea yea yea yea Corning of N. Y. yea nay nay nay nay nay yea Keitt of S. C. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Covode of Penn. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Kellogg of 111. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay *Cox of Ohio nay yea nay nay yea yea nay yea Kelly of N. Y. yea nay nay nay nay nay yea yea Cragin of N. H. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay KeUey of N. Y. nay yea yea nay yea yea uay nay Craig of Mo. yea nay nay nay nay nay yea yea Kilgore of Ind. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Craig of N. C. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Knapp of Mass. nay yea yea nay- yea yea nay nay Crawford of Ga. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Kunkel of Md. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Curry of Ala. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Kunkel of Penn. nay yea yea nay yea yea Curtis of Iowa nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Lamar of Miss. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Damrell of Mass. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Landy of Penn. yea nay nay nay nay nay yea yea Davidson of La. Davis of Md. yea nay nay nay nay nay yea yea *Lawrence of Ohio nay- yea nay nay yea yea nay yea nay yea nay nay yea yea nay nay Leach of Mich. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay *Davis of Ind. Davis of Miss. nay yea nay nay yea yea nay nay Leidy of Penn. nay nay nay nay yea yea yea nay nay yea nay nay yea Letter of Ohio nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Davis of Mass. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Letcher of Va. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Davis of Iowa Dawes of Mass. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Lovejoy of 111. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Maclay of N. Y. yea nay nay nay nay nay yea yea Dean of Conn. Dewart of Penn. Dick of Penn. Dimmick of Penn. Dodd of \S. Y. nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay *McKibbin of Cal. nay yea nay nay yea yea nay nay yea nay nay nay nay yea yea McQueen of S. C. yea nay nny yea nay nay yea yea nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Marshall of Ky. yea nay nay nay yea nay nay yea nay nay- nay nay nay •Marshall of 111. nay yea nay nay yea yea nay nay nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Mason of Ky. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Dowdell of Ala. Durfee of R. I. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Mattcson of N. Y. yea nay yea yea nay nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay Maynard of Tenn. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Edit of Penn. nay yea nay nay yea yea nay nay Miles of S. C. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Edmundson of Va. yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea Miller of Ohio yea nay nay: nay nay nay yea yea t Mr. Hughes of Indiana offered the motion to refer to a I structions. The amendment of Mr. Harris passed, ana Mr. telect committee. Mr. Harris moved to amend it with in- | Hughes's motion as amended was then adopted. NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 457 STATEMENT OF VOTES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.— {Continued.) members' names. Democrats in ro- man. Republi- cans in italic. Americans in bmall caps. As- terisk (*) signi- fies Anti-Le- compton. Millson of Va. *Montgomery, Pa. Moore of Ala. Morgan of N. Y. Morrill of Vt. Morris of Penn. ♦Morris of 111. Morse of Maine Morse of N. Y. Motl of Ohio Murray of N. Y. Niblaek of Ind. Nichols of Ohio OlinofN. Y. Orr, S. C. (Speaker) Palmer of N. Y. Parker of N. Y. *Pendleton of Ohio Pettit of Ind. Peyton of Ky. Phelps of Mo. Phillips of Penn. Pike of N. H. Potter of Wis. Pottle ofN.Y. Powell of Va. Purviance of Penn. Quitman of Miss. Ready of Tenn. Reagan of Texas Reilly of Penn. Rioaud of Md. Ritchie of Penn. Rollins of N. J. Roberts of Penn. Royce of Vt. Ruffin of N. C. Russell of N. Y. Sandidge of La. Savage of Tenn. Scales of N. C. Scott of Cal. Searing of N. Y. Seward of Ga. *Shaw of 111. Shaw of N. C. Sherman of Ohio 5 a II V O a o a| DQ " O u - Si a«j -H a a 2 -J a -a a a 5 « o s 2 § CXI 'C .^ e a 2s .-■a -* S a s ss "a ?2 - - fio bg W>~ - _ o ■3° — . o 2^ 5=° *=3 a w t" S3 _ -^ C s ca S £ Oo yea nay nay yea nay yea nay nay yea nay nay yea uay yt-a yea uay nay yea yea nay nay yea yea nay nay yea nay nay nay yea yea nay nay yea yea nay nay yea yea nay nay yea yea nay yea yea uay nay nay yea yea nay nay yea yea nay nay yea yea nay nay yea yea nay nay nay nay nay nay yea yea nay yea nay nay y.-a yea nay nay yea yea nay nay nay nay yea vea nay nay yea yea nay nay yea yea nay yea nay nay yea nay yea yea nav yea nay nay yea yea nay nay nay yea nay nay yea nay nay yea nay nay nay nay yea yea nay nay yea yea nay nay yea yea nay nay yea yea nay yea nay nay yea yea nay nay nay yea nav nay yea yea nay nay yea yea nay nay yea yea nay nay nay yea nay nay nay yea nay nay yea nay yea nay nay yea nay nay yea nay yea yea nay. nay yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea nay nay- nay yea yea yea nay yea nay nay nay nay yea yea yea yea yea nay nay nay- nay nay nay nay nay yea nay i yea V - ■a ■a o Pi M a O o B = - O 3 J° ° 3 " a «~ o ta s « B . u a2 a « a s = | ■* o fi o " 3 -5 3 o a u = t». cs o -. Oa nay yea yea yea nay- nay yea yea yea nay nay yea nay yea nay nay yea nay nay yea nav nay yea nay- nay yea 1 nay pay yea nay nay nay yea yea yea nay nay yea yea nay yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea yea yea nay nay nay yea yea nay yea yea nay vea yea yea nay nay yea nay- nay yea nay nay nay yea yea yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea nay 1 yea yea nay 1 yea yea nay nay yea J nay nay yea nay nay yea nay yea nay nay nay yea yea nay yea yea nay yea yea nay vea yea nay yea yea nay | yea yea nay 1 yea yea nay yea yea yea nay nay nay yea yea yea nay nay members' names. Democrats in ro- man. Republi- cans in italic. Americans in small caps. As- terisk (*) signi- fies Anti-Le- compton. Sherman of N. Y. Shorter of Ala. Sickles of N. Y. Singleton of Miss. •Smith of HI. Smith of Tenn. Smith of Va. Spinner of N. Y. Stall worth of Ala. ' Stanton of Ohio Stephens of Ga. Stevenson of Ky. Stewart of Md. Stewart of Penn. Talbot of Ky. Tappan of N. H. Taylor of N. Y. Taylor of La. Thayer of Mass. Thompson of N. Y. Tompkins of Ohio Trippe of Ga. Underwood of Ky. I\a o a nay yea yea yea nay yea yea nay yea nay yea yea yea nay yea nay yea yea nay nay nay yea yea nay nay nay nay yea yea nay nay nay yea yea yea nay yea nay- yea yea yea yea yea Yeas 113 Nays 114 S-2 13-- Is a ? x'i yea nay nay nay yea nay nay yea nay yea nay nay nay yea nay yea nay nay yea yea yea nay nay yea yea yea yea nay nay yea yea yea nay nay nay yea nay yea nay nay nay nay- nay 114 111 a 9 jo "3 51 si o a a •> -- i> 3 it yea nay nay nay nay nay nay yea nay yea nay nay nay yea nay yea nay nay yea yea yea nay nay yea yea yea yea nay nay yea yua yea nay nay nay yea nay yea nay nay nay nay nav nay yea yea nay yea nay nay nay nay yea nay; nay 95 137 yea nay yea nay nay yea yea nay yea nay nay yea nay nay nay yea nay nay nay nay nay nay- nay nay nay nay yea nay- nay nay yea nay yea nay yea yea yea 72 160 nay- yea nay yea nay nay nay yea nay yea nay nay yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea nay nay yea yea yea nay nay nay- yea nay- yea nay nay- nay nay nay a - OS 2a x a yea nay- nay nay yea nay nay yea nay yea I nay nay yea nay yea yea nay yea yea nay yea nay nay yea nay yea I nay nay yea yea yea nay- yea yea yea yea yea nay nay- yea yea yea nay nay- nay yea nay yea yea yea nay yea nay yea nay nay- yea nay nay nay nay nay yea vi> a nay nay yea vea ~ ■- - «- ° ° => S a O A nay yea yea yea nay yea yea nay yea nay yea yea nay yea nay nay yea nay nay yea nay yea yea yea yea 109 108 nay nay yea nay nay nay nay nay yea nay nay yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea 11-2 103 Lecompton Constitution. • Article VII. — Slavery. Sec. 1. The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction, and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase is the same, and as in- violable as the right of the owner of any pro- perty whatever. Sec. 2. The legislature shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of the owners, or without paying the owners previous to their emanci- pation a full equivalent in money for the slaves so emancipated. They shall have no power to prevent emigrants to the state from bringing with them such persons as are deemed slaves by the laws of any one of the United States or territories, so long as any person of the same age or description shall be conti- nued in slavery by the laws of this state: Provided. That such person or slave be the bona fide property of such emigrants : And provided, also, That laws may be passed to prohibit the introduction into this state of slaves who have committed high crimes in other states or territories. They shall have power to pass laws to permit the owners of slaves to emancipate them, saving the rights of creditors, and preventing them from becom- ing a public charge. They shall have power to oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with t Mr. Hughes of Indiana offered the motion to refer to a select committee. Mr. Harris moved to amend it with in- structions. The amendment of Mr. Harris passed, and Mr. Hughes's motion as amended was then adopted. 45S THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. humanity, tJ provide for them necessary food and clothing, to abstain from all injuries to them extending to life or limb, and, in case of their neglect or refusal to comply with the di- rection of such laws, to have such slave or slaves solo 1 for the benefit of the owner or owners. Sec. 3. In the prosecution of slaves for crimes of higher grade than petit larceny, the legislature shall have no power to deprive them of an impartial trial by a petit jury. Sec. 4. Any person who shall maliciously dismember, or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offence had been committed on a free white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection of such slave. Free Negroes. Bill of Rights, Sec. 23. Free negroes shall not be permitted to live in this state under any circumstances. Article VIII. — Elections and Eights of Suf- frage. Sec. 1. Every male citizen of the United States, above the age of twenty-one years, having resided in this state one year, and in the county, city, or town in which he may offer to vote, three months next preceding any election, shall have the qualifications of an elector, and be entitled to vote at all elections. And every male citizen of the United States, above the age aforesaid, who may be a resi- dent of the state at the time that this consti- tution shall be adopted, shall have the right of voting as aforesaid ; but no such citizen or inhabitant shall be entitled to vote except in the county in which he shall actually reside at the time of the election. Amendments to the Constitution. Bill of Rights, Sec. 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free govern- ments are founded on their authority, and in- stituted for their benefit ; and therefore they have at all times an inalienable and indefea- sible right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government in such manner as they may think proper. Schedule, Sec. 14. After the year one thou- sand eight hundred and sixty-four, whenever the legislature shall think it necessary to amend, alter, or change this constitution, they 6hall recommend to the electors at the next general election, two-thirds of the members of each house concurring to vote for or against call- ing a convention, and if it shall appear that a majority of all citizens of the state have voted for a convention, the legislature shall at its next regular session call a convention, to con- sist of as many members as there may be in the House of Representatives at the time, to bo chosen in the same manner, at the same places, and by the same electors that choose the representatives ; said delegates so elected shall meet within three months after said elec- tion, for the purpose of revising, amending, or changing the constitution, but no alteration shall be made to affect the rights of property in the ownership of slaves. Submission of Slavery Clause to the People. Schedule, Sec. 8. Before this constitution shall be sent to Congress, asking for admission into the Union as a state, it shall be submitted to all the white male inhabitants of this terri- tory, for approval or disapproval, as follows : The president of this convention shall, by proclamation, declare that on the twenty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven, at the different election pre- cincts now established by law, or which may be established as herein provided, in the ter- ritory of Kansas, an election shall be held, over which shall preside three judges, or a majority of them, to be appointed as follows : The president of this convention shall appoint three commissioners in each county in the territory, whose duty it shall be to appoint three judges of election in the several precincts of their respective counties, and to establish precincts for voting, and to cause polls to be opened, at such places as they may deem pro- per in their respective counties, at which elec- tion the constitution framed by this conven- tion shall be submitted to all the white male inhabitants of the territory of Kansas in the said territory upon that day, and over the age of twenty-one years, for ratification or rejec- tion, in the following manner and form: The voting shall be by ballot. The judges of said election shall cause to be kept two poll books by two clerks, by them appointed. The bal- lots cast at said election shall be endorsed, " constitution with slavery" and " constitution with no slavery."* One of said poll books shall be returned within eight days to the president of this convention, and the other shall be retained by the judges of election and kept open for inspection. The president, with two or more members of this convention, shall examine said poll books, and if it shall appear upon said examination that a majority of the legal votes cast at said election be in favor of the "constitution with slavery," he shall im- mediately have the same transmitted to the Con- gress of the United States, as hereinbefore pro- vided ; but if, upon such examination of said poll books, it shall appear that a majority of the legal votes cast at said election be in favor of the "constitution with no slavery," then the article providing for slavery shall be stricken from this constitution by the president of this convention, and slavery shall no longer * The question whether this constitution should contain a clause making Kansas a slave state or not was submitted to a vote of the people of the territory on the 21st day of December, 1857, and resulted as follows: For the constitution with slavery 6,228 For the constitution with no slavery .... 569 Total vote for the constitution 6,795 The votes for the two sides of the constitution is a majo- rity over any vote previously given at any election holdeu in the territory. The constitution is, therefore, by its own requirements, presented to the consideration of Congress, and Kansas aska for admission into the Union as a sovereign state. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, J. Calhoun, President of the O institutional Convention. llis Excellency James Buchanan, I'resident of the United States. NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 45& exist in the state of Kansas, except that the right of property in slaves now in this territory shall, in no manner, be interfered with, and shall have transmitted the constitution, so rati- fied, (to Congress the constitution, so ratified,) to the Congress of the United States, as herein- before provided. In case of the failure of the president of this convention to perform the duties imposed upon him in the foregoing sec- tion, by reason of death, resignation, or other- wise, the same duties shall devolve upon the president pro tem. Land Ordinance.* The following is the ordinance attached to the Lecompton constitution : Whereas, the government of the United States is the proprietor, or will become so, of all or most of the lands lying within the limits of Kansas, as determined under the constitu- tion ; and whereas the state of Kansas will possess the undoubted right to tax such lands for the support of her state government, or for Other proper and legitimate purposes connect- ed with her existence as a state : Now, there- fore, be it ordained by this convention, on be- half of and by the authority of the people of Kansas, that the right aforesaid to tax such lands shall be, and is hereby, forever relin- quished, if the conditions following shall be accepted and agreed to by the Congress of the United States. Section 1. That sections numbered 8, 16, 24, and 36, in every township in the state, or in case either of said numbered sections are or shall be otherwise disposed of, that other lands, equal thereto in value and as contiguous as may be, shall be granted to the state, to be applied exclusively to the support of common schools. Sec. 2. That all salt springs, and gold, sil- ver, copper, lead or other valuable mines, to- gether with the lands necessary for their full occupation and use, shall be granted to said state for the use and benefit of said state ; and the same shall be used or disposed of under such terms and conditions and regulations as the legislature of said state shall direct. Sec. 3. That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of all public lands sold or held in trust or otherwise lying within the said state, whether sold before or after the admission of the state into the Union, after deducting all expenses incidental to the same, shall be paid to the said state of Kansas for the purpose fol- lowing, to wit : two-fifths to be disbursed under the direction of the legislature of the state for the purpose of aiding the construction of rail- roads within said state, and the residue for the support of common schools. Sec. 4. That seventy-two sections, or two entire townships, shall be designated by the President of the United States, which shall be reserved for the use of a seminary of learning, * For land ordinance, in Leavenworth Constitution, see nest page, under caption of Leavenworth Constitution. and appropriated by the legislature of said state, solely to the use of said seminary. Sec. 5. That each alternate section of land nowowned, or which may hereafter be acquired by the United States, for twelve miles on each side of a line of railroad to be established or located from some point on the northern boun- dary of the state, leading southerly through said state in the direction of the Gulf of Mex- ico, and on each • side of a line of railroad to be located and established from some point on the Missouri river westwardly through said state in the direction of the Pacific Ocean, shall be reserved and conveyed to said state of Kan- sas for the purpose of aiding in the con- struction of said railroad, and it shall be the duty of Congress of the United States, in con- junction with the proper authorities of this state, to adopt immediate measures for carry- ing the several provisions herein contained into full effect. Topkka Constitution. Slavery. Bill of Eights, Sec. 6. There shall be no slavery in this state, nor involuntary servi- tude, unless for the punishment of crime. Amendments to the Constitution. Sec. 1. All propositions for amendments to the constitution shall be made by the General Assembly. Sec. 2. A concurrence of two-thirds of the members elected to each house shall be neces- sary, after which such proposed amendments shall be again referred to the legislature elected next succeeding said publication. If passed by the second legislature by a majority of two-thirds of the members elected to each house, such amendments shall be republished as aforesaid, for at least six months prior to the next general election, at which election such proposed amendments shall be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection ; and if a majority of the electors voting at such election shall adopt such amendments, the same shall become a part of the constitution. Sec. 3. When more than one amendment is submitted at the same time, they shall be so submitted as to enable the electors to vote upon each amendment separately. No convention for the formation of a new constitution shall be called, and no amendment to the constitu- tion shall be, by the general assembly, made before the year 1865, nor more than once in five years thereafter. Submission of Constitution to the People. Schedule, Sec. 2. That this constitution shall be submitted to the people of Kansas for ratification on the 15th day of December next. That each qualified elector shall express his assent or dissent to the constitution by voting a written or printed ticket, labelled " Consti- tution," or " No constitution ;" which election shall be held by the same judges, and con- ducted under the same regulations and restric- 4G0 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tions as is hereinafter provided for the election of members of the general assembly. Leavenworth Constitution. Ordinance. By the authority of the people of Kansas be it ordained by this convention, irrevocably, that the state of Kansas will never, without the consent of Congress, interfere with the title of the United States to the public domain, or unsold lands within the limits of said state, or the primary right of the United States to dispose of the same, or with any regulation which Congress may prescribe for securing the title thereof to purchasers in good faith ; and also, that no tax or other assessment shall be imposed upon the lands belonging to the United States : Provided, that the conditions following shall be accepted and agreed to by the Congress of the United States : First. The sections numbered sixteen and thirty-six in every township, including Indian reserve or trust lands, in said state, (and where either of such sections, or any part thereof, has been sold or otherwise alienated or appropriated, other lands equivalent there- to, as nearly contiguous as possible), shall be granted to the said state exclusively for the use of common schools. Second. That seventy-two sections of land 6hall be set apart and reserved for the use and support of a State University, and sixty sec- tions for the use and support of four district colleges, to be located in the four equal divi- sions of the state — said lands to be selected by the governor of the state, subject to the ap- proval of the commissioner of the general land office. Third. That thirty-six sections of land, to be selected by the governor of said state, shall be granted to said state for the purpose of the erection of public buildings at the seat of gov- ernment, and the erection of buildings for the various public benevolent institutions created by the state constitution. Fourth. That the salt springs, and gold, sil- ver, copper, lead, or other valuable mines, not exceeding twelve in number, with six sections of land adjacent, shall be granted to the said state, to be selected, used or alienated as may hereafter be prescribed by law. Fifth. That five per centum of the net pro- ceeds of the sales of public lands within said state, sold by Congress after the admission of said state into the Union, shall be paid to the said state for the purpose of creating a com- mon school fund, the principal to be held sacred, and the interest to be applied to the education of the children of Kansas. Sixth. That each alternate section of land now owned, or which may hereafter be ac- quired by the United States, lying for six miles in width, on each side of the following lines of railroads, shall be granted by Congress to the state of Kansas : First — Commencing on the Missouri state line, at some pcint south of the fourth standard parallel line, and tra j versing Southern Kansas westwarily. Se- cond — Commencing at some point on the Mis- souri river, or Missouri state line, and tra- versing Central Kansas westwardly. Third — Commencing at some point on the Missouri river, and traversing Northern Kansas west- wardly. Fourth — Commencing at some point on the Missouri river, and running southerly in the direction of the Gulf of Mexico. Pro- vided, That should the alternate sections along the lines of said railroads be disposed of, an equal number of sections shall be se- lected from any other public lands contiguous to said railroads — said lands to be reserved and conveyed to the state for the purpose of aiding in the construction of said railroads under such rules and restrictions as may here- after be prescribed by law. The Congress of the United States, in con- junction with the proper authorities of this state, may adopt the necessary measures for carrying the several provisions herein con- tained into eifect. Slavery. Bill of Rights, Sec. 6. There shall be no slavery in this state, and no involuntary ser- vitude, unless for the punishment of crime, whereof the parties shall have been duly con- victed. Article II. — Elective Franchise. . Section 1. In all elections not otherwise pro- vided for by this constitution, every male citi- zen of the United States, of the age of twenty- one years or upwards, who shall have resi- ded in the state six months next preceding such election, and ten days in the precinct in which he may offer to vote, and every male person of foreign birth of the age of twenty- one years or upwards, and who shall have re- sided in the United States one year, in this state six months, and in the precinct in which he may offer to vote ten days next preceding such election, and who shall have declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States ten days preceding such election, shall be deemed a qualified elector. Sec. 2. No soldier, seaman or marine in the army or navy of the United States or of their allies, shall be deemed to have acquired a residence in this state, in consequence of be- ing stationed within the same, nor shall any such soldier, seaman or marine have the right to vote. Schedule, Sec. 12. The first general assem- bly shall provide by law for the submission of the question of universal suffrage to a vote of the people at the first general election of the members of the general assembly, provided that the qualifications of voters at the election shall be the same as at the vote on the submis- sion of the constitution. Amendments to the Constitution. Article XVIII. of the constitution provides for the amendment of the constitution. If three-fifths of the members elected to the legis- lature agree to such amendments, the same to NEGRO CITIZENSHIP.— NICARAGUA. 40 1 become a part thereof, if a majority of the voters adopt them, after a publication of them in one paper in each county in the state, for the period of three months previous to the elec- tion thereon. If more than one amendment, a separate vote to be taken on each. Three-fifths of thelegislature to have the pow- er to submit to a vote of the people whether a convention shall be called to revise the consti- tution ; and, if a majority vote therefor, the legislature to have power to call such conven- tion. The question whether a convention to re- vise the constitution shall be called, to be sub- mitted to the people in 1863, and every tenth year thereafter, a majority voting therefor ; such convention to be called and the amend- ments proposed by it or any convention, to be submitted to the popular ratification. Submission of the Constitution to the People. Schedule, Sec. 2. This constitution shall be submitted to a vote of the people for approval or rejection, on the third Tuesday of May, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-eight. The vote shall be by ballot, and those in favor of the constitution shall write or print upon their ballots the words "For the Constitu- tion," and those opposed to the constitution shall write or print upon their ballots the words " Against the Constitution." Said elec- tion shall be conducted according to the pro- visions of section thirteen of an act of the legislative assembly of the territory of Kansas, passed Feb. — , one thousand eight hundred and fifty-eight, entitled " An Act to provide for the election of Delegates to a Convention to frame a State Constitution." Negro Citizenship. Department of State, \ Washington, Nov. 4, 1856. j Sir : — Your letters of the 29th ultimo and 3d inst., requesting passports for eleven colored Eersons, have been received, and I am directed y the Secretary to inform you that the papers transmitted by you do not warrant the depart- ment in complying with your request. The question whether free negroes are citizens, is not now presented for the first time, but has repeatedly arisen in the administration of both the national and state governments. In 1821, a controversy arose as to whether free persons of color were citizens of the United States, within the intent and meaning of the acts of Congress regulating foreign and coasting trade, so as to be qualified to command vessels, and Mr. Wirt, Attorney General, decided that they were not, and he moreover, held that the word "citizens of the United States" were used in the acts of Congress in the same sense as in the Constitu- tion. This view is also fully sustained in a recent opinion of the present Attorney General. The judicial decisions of the country are to the same effect. In Kent's Commentaries, vol. 2. p. 277, it is stated that in 1833, Chief Jus- tice Daggett of Connecticut, held that free blacks are not "citizens" within the meaning of the term, as used> in the Constitution of the United States, and the Supreme Court of Ten- nessee, in the case of The State against Clair- bone, held the same doctrine. Such being the construction of the Constitution in regard to free persons of color, it is conceived that they cannot be regarded, when beyond the jurisdiction of this government, as entitled to the full rights of citizens ; but the Secretary directs me to say that, though the department could not certify that such persons are citizens of the United States, yet, if satisfied of the truth of the facts, it would give a certificate that they were born in the United States, are free, and that the government thereof would regard it to be its duty to protect them if wronged by a foreign government, while with- in its jurisdiction, for a legal and proper pur- pose. I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, J. A. Thomas, As. Sec'y. H. H. Rice, Esq., New York City. Nicaragua. Proclamation respecting an apprehended Invasion of. By the President of the United States of Ame- rica : — Whereas information has been received by me that sundry persons, citizens of the United States and others, residents therein, are pre- paring, within the jurisdiction of the same, to enlist, or enter themselves, or to hire or retain others to participate in military operations within the state of Nicaragua : Now, therefore, I, Franklin Pierce, Presi- dent of the United States, do warn all persons against connecting themselves with any such enterprise or undertaking, as being contrary to their duty as good citizens and to the laws of their country, and threatening to the peace of the United States. I do further admonish all persons who may depart from the United States, either singly or in numbers, organized or unorganized, for any such purpose, that they will thereby cease to be entitled to the protection of this govern- ment. I exhort all good citizens to discountenance and prevent any such disreputable and crimi- nal undertaking as aforesaid, charging all officers, civil and military, having lawful power in the premises, to exercise the same for the purpose of maintaining the authority and en- forcing the laws of the United States. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed to these presents. Done at the City of Washington, the eighth day of December, one thousand eight r -. hundred and fifty-five, and of the Indo- le s< J pendence of the United States the eightieth. Franklin Pierce. By the President : W. L. Marct, Sec. of State. 462 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Nicholson Letter. The following letter was written by Gen. Cass to the Hon. A. 0. P. Nicholson, of Ten- uessee, on the subject of the Wilmot Proviso, and the acquisition of Mexican territory: — "Washington, Dec. 24, 1847. Dear Sir : I have received your letter, and shall answer it as frankly as it is written. You ask me whether I am in favor of the acquisition of Mexican territory, and what are my sentiments with regard to the Wilmot proviso ? I have so often and so explicitly stated my views of the first question in the Senate, that it seems almost unnecessary to repeat them here. As you request it, however, I shall briefly give them. I think, then, that no peace should be granted to Mexico till a reasonable indemnity is obtained for the injuries which she has done us. The territorial extent of this indemnity is, in the first instance, a subject of executive consideration. There the Constitution has placed it, and there I am willing to leave it ; not only because I have full confidence in its judicious exercise, but because, in the ever- varying circumstances of a war, it would be indiscreet, by a public declaration, to commit the country to any line of indemnity, which might otherwise be enlarged, as the obstinate injustice of the enemy prolongs the contest, with its loss of blood and treasure. It appears to me that the kind of metaphy- sical magnanimity which would reject all in- demnity at the close of a bloody and expensive war, brought on by a direct attack upon our troops by the enemy, and preceded by a suc- cession of unjust acts for a series of years, is as unworthy of the age in which we live as it is revolting to the common sense and practice of mankind. It would conduce but little to our future security, or, indeed, to our present reputation, to declare that we repudiate all expectation of compensation from the Mexican government, and are fighting, not for any practical result, but for some vague — perhaps philanthropic — object, which escapes my pen- etration, and must be defined by those who assume this new principle of national inter- communication. All wars are to be depre- cated, as well by the statesman as by the philanthropist. They are great evils ; but there are greater evils than these, and sub- mission to injustice is among them. The nation which should refuse to defend its rights and its honor, when assailed, would soon have neither to defend ; and when driven to war, it is not by professions of disinterestedness and declarations of magnanimity that its rational objects can be best obtained, or other nations taught a lesson of forbearance — the strongest security for permanent peace. We are at war with Mexico, and its vigorous prosecution is the surest means of its speedy termination, and ample indemnity the surest guarantee against the recurrence of such injustice as provoked it. The Wilmot proviso has been before tho country some time. It has been repeatedly discussed in Congress, and by the public press. I am strongly impressed with the opinion that a great change has been going on in the pub- lic mind upon this subject — in my own as well as others ; and that doubts are resolving themselves into convictions that the principle it involves should be kept out of the national legislature, and left to the people of the con- federacy in their respective local governments. The whole subject is a comprehensive one, and fruitful of important consequences. It would be ill-timed to discuss it here. I shall not assume that responsible task, but shall confine myself to such general views as are necessary to the fair exhibition of my opi- nions. We may well regret the existence of slavery in the southern states, and wish they had been saved from its introduction. But there it is, and not by the act of the present generation ; and we must deal with it as a great practical question, involving the most momentous con- sequences. We have neither the right nor the power to touch it where it exists ; and if we had both, their exercise, by any means heretofore suggested, might lead to results which no wise man would willingly encounter, and which no good man could contemplate without anxiety. The theory of our government presupposes that its various members have reserved to themselves the regulation of all subjects re- lating to what may be termed their internal police. They are sovereign within their boundaries, except in those cases where they have surrendered to the general government a portion of their rights, in order to give effect to the objects of the Union, whether these concern foreign nations or the several state* themselves. Local institutions, if I may st> speak, whether they have reference to slavery or to any other relations, domestic or public, are left to local authority, either originally or derivative. Congress has no right to say that there shall be slavery in New York, or that there shall be no slavery in Georgia ; nor is there any other human power but the people of those states, respectively, which can change the relations existing therein ; and they can say, if they will, We will have slavery in the former, and we will abolish it in the latter. In various respects the territories differ from the states. Some of their rights are inchoate, and they do not possess the peculiar attributes of sovereignty. Their relation to the general government is very imperfectly defined by the Constitution ; and" it will be found, upon exa- mination, that in that instrument the only grant of power concerning them is conveyed in the phrase, " Congress shall have the powei to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property belonging to the United States " Certainly this phraseology is very loose, if it were designed to include in the grant the whole power of legislation over persons, as NICHOLSON LETTER. 4C3 well as things. The expression the " territory and other property" fairly construed relates to the public lands as such, to arsenals, dock-yards, forts, ships, and all the various kinds of property which the United States may and must possess. But surely the simple authority to dispose of and regulate these does not extend to the unlimited power of legislation ; to the passage of all laws, in the most general acceptation of the word ; which, by-the-by, is carefully ex- cluded from the sentence. And, indeed, if this were so, it would render unnecessary an- other provision of the Constitution, which grants to Congress the power to legislate, with the consent of the states respectively, over all places purchased for the " erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, &c." These being the " property" of the United States, if the power to make "needful rules and regu- lations concerning" them includes the gene- ral power of legislation, then the grant of au- thority to regulate " the territory and other property of the United States" is unlimited, wherever subjects are found for its operation, and its exercise needed no auxiliary provi- sion. If, on the other hand, it does not in- clude such power of legislation over the " other property" of the United States, then it does not include it over their " territory ;" for the same terms which grant the one grant the other. " Territory" is here classed with property, and treated as such ; and the object was evidently to enable the general govern- ment, as a property-holder — which, from ne- cessity, it must be — to manage, preserve, and " dispose of" such property as it might pos- sess, and which authority is essential almost to its being. But the lives and persons of our citizens, with the vast variety of objects con- nected with them, cannot be controlled by an authority, which is merely called into exist- ence for the purpose of making rules and re- gulations for the disposition and management of property. Such, it appears to me, would be the con- struction put upon this provision of the Con- stitution were this question now first present- ed for consideration, and not controlled by imperious circumstances. The original ordi- nance of the Congress of the Confederation, passed in 1787, and which was the only act upon this subject in force at the adoption of the Constitution, provided a complete frame of government for the country north of the Ohio, while in a territorial condition, and for its eventual admission in separate states into the Union. And the persuasion that this or- dinance contained within itself all the neces- sary means of execution probably prevented any direct reference to the subject in the Con- stitution further than vesting in Congress the right to admit the states formed under it into the Union. However, circumstances arose which required legislation, as well over the territory north of the Ohio as over other ter- ritory, both within and without the original Union, ceded to the general government ; and at various times a more enlarged power has been exercised over the territories — meaning thereby the different territorial governments — than is conveyed by the limited grant re- ferred to. How far an existing necessity may have operated in producing this Legislation, and thus extending, by rather a violent impli- cation, powers not directly given, I know not-. But certain it is that the principle of inter- ference should not be carried beyond the ne- cessary implication which produces it. It should be limited to the creation of proper governments for new countries, acquired or settled, and to the necessary provision for their eventual admission into the Union ; leav- ing, in the mean time, to the people inhabit- ing them to regulate their internal concerns in their own way. They are just as capable of doing so as the people of the states ; and they can do s'o, at any rate, as soon as their political independence is recognised by admis- sion into the Union. During this temporary condition it is hardly expedient to call into exercise a doubtful and invidious authority, which questions the intelligence of a respect- able portion of our citizens, and whose limita- tion, whatever it may be, will be rapidly ap- proaching its termination — an authority which would give to Congress despotic power, un- controlled by the Constitution, over most im- portant sections of our common country.- For, if the relation of master and servant may be regulated or annihilated by its legislation, so may the relation of husband and wife, of pa- rent and child, and of any other condition which our institutions and the habits of our society recognise. What would be thought if Congress should undertake to prescribe the terms of marriage in New York, or to regu- late the authority of parents over their child- ren in Pennsylvania ? And yet it would be as vain to seek one justifying the interference of the national legislature in the cases referred to in the original states of the Union. I speak here of the inherent power of Congress, and do not touch the question of such contracts as may be formed with new states when admit- ted into the confederacy. Of all the questions that can agitate us, those which are merely sectional in their character are the most dangerous, and the most to be deprecated. The warning voice of him who, from his character, and services, and virtue, had the best right to warn us, pro- claimed to his countrymen, in his Farewell Address — that monument of wisdom for him, as I hope it will be of safety for them — how much we had to apprehend, from measures peculiarly affecting geographical portions of our country. The grave circumstances in which we are now placed make these words words of safety ; for I am satisfied, from all I have seen and heard here, that a successful attempt to engraft the principles of the Wil- mot proviso upon the legislation of this go- vernment, and to apply them to new terri- tory, should new territory be acquired, would seriously affect our tranquillity. I do not 464 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. suffer myself to foresee or to foretell the conse- quences that would ensue; for I trust and believe there is good sense and good feeling enough in the country to avoid them, by avoid- ing all occasions which might lead to them._ Briefly, then, I am opposed to the exercise of any jurisdiction by Congress over this mat- ter ; and I am in favor of leaving to the people of any territory which may be here- after acquired, the right to regulate it for themselves under the general principles of the Constitution. Because — 1. I do not see in the Constitution any grant of the requisite power to Congress ; and I am not disposed to extend a doubtful precedent beyond its necessity — the establishment of territorial governments when needed — leav- ing to the inhabitants all the rights compatible with the relations they bear to the confede- ration. 2. Because I believe this measure, if" adopted, would weaken, if not impair the union of the states, and would sow the seeds of future dis- cord, which would grow up and ripen into an abundant harvest of calamity. 3. Because I believe the general conviction that such a proposition would succeed would lead to an immediate withholding of the sup- plies, and thus to a dishonorable termination of the war. I think no dispassionate observer at the seat of government can doubt this result. 4. If, however, in this I am under a mis- apprehension, lam under none in the prac- tical operation of this restriction, if adopted by Congress, upon a treaty of peace making any acquisition of Mexican territory. _ Such a treaty would be rejected just as certainly as presented to the Senate. More than one- third of that body would vote against it, view- ing such a principle as an exclusion of the citizens of the slaveholding states from a par- ticipation in the benefits acquired by the trea- sure and exertions of all, and which should be common to all. I am repeating — neither advancing nor defending these views. That branch of the subject does not lie in my way, and I shall not turn aside to seek it. In this aspect of the matter, the people of the United States must choose between this res- triction and the extension of their territorial limits. They cannot have both ; and which they will surrender must depend upon their representatives first, and then, if these fail them, upon themselves. 5. But, after all, it seems to be generally conceded that this restriction, if carried into effect, could not operate upon any state to be formed from newly acquired territory. The well-known attributes of sovereignty, recog- nised by us as belonging to the state govern- ments, would sweep before them any such barrier, and would leave the people to express and exert their will at pleasure. Is the object, then, of temporary exclusion for so short a period as the duration of the territorial gov- ernments worth the price at which it would be purchased ? — worth the discord it would engender, the trial to which it would expose our Union, and the evils that would be the cer- tain consequence, let that trial result as it might? As to the course which has been in- timated, rather than proposed, of engrafting such a restriction upon any treaty of acquisi- tion, I persuade myself it would find b\it little favor in any portion of this country. Such an arrangement would render Mexico a party, having a right to interfere in our internal in- stitutions in questions left by the Constitution to the state governments, and would inflict a serious blow upon our fundamental principles. Few indeed, I trust, there are among us vrho would thus grant to a foreign power the right to inquire into the constitution and conduct of the sovereign states of this Union ; and if there are any, I am not among them, and never shall be. To the people of this country, under God, now and hereafter, are its des- tinies committed ; and we want no foreign power to interrogate us, treaty in hand, and to say, Why have you done this, or why have you left that undone ? Our own dignity and the principles of national independence unite to repel such a proposition. But there is another important considera- tion which ought not to be lost sight of in the investigation of this subject. The question that presents itself is not a question of the in- crease, but of the diffusion of slavery. Whe- ther its sphere be stationary or progressive, its amount would be the same. The rejection of this restriction will not add one to the class of servitude, nor will its adoption give freedom to a single being who is now placed therein. The same numbers will be spread over greater territory ; and so far as compression^ with less abundance of the necessaries of life, is an evil* so far will that evil be mitigated by transport- ing slaves to a new country, and giving them a larger space to occupy. I say this in the event of the extension of slavery over any new acquisition. But can it go there? This may well be doubted. All the descriptions which reach us of the condi- tion of the Californias and of New Mexico, to the acquisition of which our efforts seem at present directed, unite in representing those countries as agricultural regions, similar in their products to our middle states, and gene- rally unfit for the production of the great sta- ples which can alone render slave labor valua- ble. If we are not grossly deceived — and it is difficult to conceive how we can be — the inha- bitants of those regions, whether they depend upon their ploughs or their herds, cannot _ be slaveholders. Involuntary labor, requiring the investment of large capital, can only be profitable when employed in the production of a few favored articles confined by Nature to special districts, and paying larger returns than the usual agricultural products spread over more considerable portions of the earth. In the able letter of Mr. Buchanan upon this subject, not long since given to the pub- lic, he presents simdar considerations with great force. " Neither," says the distinguish. OHIO.— ORDINANCE OF 1784-87. 405 ed writer, " the soil, the climate, nor the pro- ductions of California, south of 36° 3CK, nor indeed of any portion of it, north or south, is adapted to slave labor ; and, besides, every facility would be there afforded for the slave to escape from his master. Such property would be entirely insecure in any part of Ca- lifornia. It is morally impossible, therefore, that a majority of the emigrants to that por- tion of the territory south of 3G° 30', which will be chiefly composed of our citizens, will ever re-establish slavery within its limits. '• In regard to New Mexico, east of the Rio Grande, the question has already been settled by the admission of Texas into the Union. " Should we acquire territory beyond the Rio Grande and east of the Rocky Mountains, it is still more impossible that a majority of the people would consent to re-establish slavery. They are themselves a colored population, and among them the negro does not belong socially to a degraded race." With this last remark Mr. Walker fully coincides in his letter written in 1844, upon the annexation of Texas, and which every- where produced so favorable an impression upon the public mind as to have conduced very materially to the accomplishment of that great measure. " Beyond the Del Norte," says Mr. Walker, " slavery will not pass ; not only because it is forbidden by law, but be- cause the colored race there preponderates in the ratio of ten to one over the whites ; and holding, as they do, the government and most of the offices in their possession, they will not permit the enslavement of any portion of the colored race, which makes and executes the laws of the country." The question, it will be therefore seen on examination, does not regard the exclusion of slavery from a region where it now exists, but a prohibition against its introduction where it does not exist, and where, from the feelings of the inhabitants and the laws of Nature, " it is morally impossible," as Mr. Buchanan says, that it can ever re-establish itself. It augurs well for the permanence of our confederation that, during more than half a century which has elapsed since the establish- ment of this government, many serious ques- tions, and some of the highest importance, have agitated the public mind, and more than once threatened the gravest consequences ; but that they have all in succession passed away, leaving our institutions unscathed, and our country advancing in numbers, power, and wealth, and in all the other elements of national prosperity, with a rapidity unknown in ancient or in modern days. In times of political excitement, when difficult and deli- cate questions present themselves for solution, there is one ark of safety for us — and that is, an honest appeal to the fundamental princi- ples of our Union, and a stern determination to abide their dictates. This course of pro- ceeding has carried us in safety through many a trouble, and I trust will carry us safely through many more, should many more be 30 destined to assail us. The Wilmot provisa seeks to take from its legitimate tribunal a question of domestic policy, having no relation to the Union, as such, and to transfer it to another, created by the people for a special purpose, and foreign to the subject-matter in- volved in this issue. By going back to our true principles, we go back to the road of peace and safety. Leave to the people who will be affected by this question, to adjust it upon their own responsibility, and in their own manner, and we shall render another tri- bute to the original principles of our govern- ment, and furnish another guarantee for its permanence and prosperity. I am, dear sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, Lewis Cass. A. 0. P. Nicholson, Esq., Nashville, Tenn. Ohio. On the 27th of February, 1802, a petition was received and referred in the House of Representatives from the inhabitants of Fair- field county, in the Northwestern Territory, praying admission into the Union as a state. On the 9th of April, 1802, a bill passed the House to enable the people of the Eastern Division of the Northwestern Territory to form a constitution and state government, and for the admission of such state into the Union On the 27th of April, 1802, it was passed by the Senate with amendments which were concurred in by the House, and it became a law by the approval of the President on the 30th of April, 1802. The people of the territory formed a consti- tution, named the state " Ohio," and on the 19th of February, 1803, an act was passed extending the laws of the United States not locally inapplicable over said state. Ordinance of 1784-87. On the first of March, 1784, a committee consisting of Mr. Jefferson of Va., Mr. Chase of Md., and Mr. Howell of R. I., submitted to Congress the following plan for the temporary government of the AVestern Territory : — The committee appointed to prepare a plan for the temporary government of the Western Territory, have agreed to the following reso- lutions : — Resolved, That the territory ceded or to be ceded by individual states to the United States, whensoever the same shall have been purchased of the Indian inhabitants and offered for sale by the United States, shall be formed into additional states, bounded in the following manner, as nearly as such cessions will admit ; that is to say, northwardly and southwardly by parallels of latitude, so that each state shall comprehend, from south to north, two degrees of latitude, beginning to count from the completion of thirty-one de- grees north of the equator ; but any territory northwardly of the forty-seventh degree shall make part of the state next below. And 466 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. eastwardly and westwardly they shall be bounded, those on the Mississippi by that river on one side and the meridian of the low- est point of the rapids of the Ohio on the other ; and those adjoining on the east, by the same meridian on their -western side, and on their eastern by the meridian of the western cape of the mouth of the Great Kanawha. And the territory eastward of this last meri- dian, between the Ohio, Lake Erie, and Penn- sylvania, shall be one state. That the settlers within the territory so to be purchased and offered for sale shall, either on their own petition or on the order of Con- gress, receive authority from them, with ap- pointments of time and place, for their free males of full age to meet together for the pur- pose of establishing a temporary government to adopt the constitution and laws of any one uf these states, so that such laws nevertheless shall be subject to alteration by their ordinary legislature, and to erect, subject to a like alteration, counties or townships for the elec- tion of members for their legislature. That such temporary government shall only continue in force in any state until it shall have acquired twenty thousand free inhabi- tants, when, giving due proof thereof to Con- gress, they shall receive from them authority, with appointments of time and place, to call a convention of representatives to establish a permanent constitution and government for themselves. Provided, That both the temporary and per- manent governments be established on these principles as their basis : — 1. That they shall for ever remain a part of the United States of America. 2. That in their persons, property, and ter- ritory, they shall be subject to the government of the United States in Congress assembled, and to the Articles of Confederation, in all those cases in which the original states shall be so subject. 3. That they shall be subject to pay a part of the federal debts, contracted or to be con- tracted, to be apportioned on them by Con- gress according to the same common rule and measure by which apportionments thereof shall be made on the other states. 4. That their respective governments shall be in republican forms, and shall admit no person to be a citizen who holds any heredi- tary title. 5. That after the year 1800 of the Christian era there shall be neither slavery nor involun- tary servitude in any of the said states, other- wise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted to have been personally guilty. That whenever any of the said states shall have, of free inhabitants, as many as shall then be in any one of the least numerous of the thirteen original states, such state shall be admitted by its delegates into the Congress of the United States on an equal footing with the said original states, after which the assent of two-thirds of the United States, in Congress assembled, shall be requisite in all those cases wherein, by the Confederation, the assent of nine states is now required, provided the con- sent of nine states to such admission may be obtained according to the eleventh of the Ar- ticles of Confederation. Until such admission by their delegates into Congress, any of the- said states, after the establishment of their temporary government, shall have authority to keep a sitting member in Congress, with a right of debating, but not of voting. That the territory northward of the forty- fifth degree, that is to say, of the completion of I'.rty-five degrees from the equator, and extending to the Lake of the Woods, shall be called Sylvania; that of the territory under the forty-fifth and forty fourth degrees, that which lies westward of Lake Michigan, shall be called Michigania; and that which is east- ward thereof, within the peninsula formed by the lakes and waters of Michigan, Huron, St. Clair, and Erie, shall be called Chersonesus, and shall include any part of the peninsula which may extend above the forty-fifth de- gree. Of the territory under the forty-third_ and forty-second degrees, that to the west- ward, through which the Assenisipi or Rock river runs, shall be called Assenisipia ; and that to the eastward, in which are the foun- tains of the Muskingum, the two Miamies of Ohio, the Wabash, the Illinois, the Miami of the Lake, and the Sandusky rivers, shall be called Mesopotamia. Of the territory which lies under the forty-first and fortieth degrees, the western, through which the river Illinois runs, shall be called Illinoia; that next adjoin- ing, to the eastward, Saratoga ; and that be- tween this last and Pennsylvania, and extend- ing from the Ohio to Lake'Erie, shall be called Washington. Of the territory which lies un- der the thirty-ninth and thirty-eighth degrees, to which shall be added so much of the point of land within the fork of the Ohio and Missis- sippi as lies under the thirty-seventh degree, that to the westward, within and adjacent to which are the confluences of the rivers Wa- bash, Shawanee, Tanisee, Ohio, Illinois, Mis- sissippi, and Missouri, shall be called Polypo- tamia ; and that to the eastward, farther up the Ohio, otherwise called the Pelisipi, shall be called Pelisipia. That all the preceding articles shall be formed into a charter of compact, shall be duly executed by the President of the United States, in Congress assembled, under his hand and the seal of the United States, shall be promulgated, and shall stand as fundamental conditions between the thirteen original states and those newly described, unalterable but by the joint consent of the United States in Con- gress assembled, and of the particular state within which such alteration is proposed to be made. On the 19th of April, 1784, Mr. Speight of N. C. moved that the proviso be stricken out Under the Articles of Confederation, which governed the proceedings of Congress, a ma ORDINANCE OF 1784-S7 4G7 jority of the thirteen states was necessary to an affirmative decision of any question* and the vote of no state could be counted, unless represented by at least two delegates. The question upon Mr. Speight's motion was put in this form : — " Shall the words moved to be struck out Stand ?" The vote stood — For the Proviso, six states, viz. : New Hamp- shire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecti- cut, New York, and Pennsylvania. Against the Proviso, three states, viz.: Vir- ginia, Maryland, and South Carolina. Delaware and Georgia were not represent- ed. New Jersey, by Mr. Dick, voted ay, but her vote, only one delegate being present, ■ mid not be counted. The vote of North I 'arulina was divided — Mr. Williamson voting ziy, Mr. Speight, no. The vote of Virginia stood — Mr. Jefferson, ay, Messrs. Hardy and Mercer, no. Of the twenty-three delegates present and voting, sixteen voted for, and seven against the proviso. Thus was the pro- riso defeated. The Ordinance of 1784, thus amended, be- came the law of the land on the 23d of April following. In 1785, Mr. King of Mass. again m oved the proviso in Congress, in a slightly modified form, as follows : — '• That there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary ser- vitude in any of the states described in the resolves of Con- gress of the 23d of April, 1784, otherwise than in the pun- ishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been per- smally guilty; and that this regulation shall be an article of compact, and remain a fundamental principle of the con- stitutions between the thirteen original states, and each of the states described in the said resolve of the 23d of April, 1784."— 4 Jour. Cong. Confed., 4S1. The resolution was ordered to be committed by the votes of New Hampshire, Massachu- setts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland — eight ; against the votes of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia — four. Delaware was not represented. The vote of Maryland was determined by two ayes against one no, while that of Virginia was determined by two noes against one aye. Nj further action was had at this time; but in a little more than two years afterwards, the subject was brought for the third time before Congress, in connexion, as before, with the government of the Western Territory. The Ordinance of 1784 had never been carried into practical operation. Settlements were about to commence in the northwest, and the settlers needed protection and government. Congress, therefore, in 1787, resumed che con- sideration of the subject of tho western terri- tory. These deliberations resulted in the celebrated Ordinance of 1787, an act which received the unanimous votes of the states ; and, with a single exception from New York, of all of the delegates. The Ordinance of 1787 is as follows: — Whereas the General Assembly of Virginia, at their session commencing on the 20th day of October, 1783, passed an act to authorize ■-heir delegates in Congress to convey to the United States in Congress assembled, all the right of that commonwealth to the territory northwestward of the river Ohio : and whereas the delegates of the said commonwealth have presented to Congress the form of a deed pro- posed to be executed pursuant to the said act, in the words following- — To all who shall see these presents, we, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Hardy. Arthur Lee, and James Monroe, the underwritten delegates for the commonwealth of Virginia, in the Congress of the United States of America, send greeting : Whereas the General Assembly of the com- monwealth of Virginia, at their sessions begun on the 20th day of October, 1783, passed an act, entitled, " An act to authorize the dele- gates of this state in Congress to convey to the United States in Congress assembled, all the right of this commonwealth to the territory northwestward of the river Ohio," in these words following, to wit: " Whereas the Congress of the United States did, by their act of the sixth day of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty, recommend to the several states in the Union, having claims to waste and unappro- priated lands in the western country, a liberal cession to the United States, of a portion of their respective claims, for the common benefit of the Union : and whereas this commonwealth did, on the second day of January, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-one, yield to the Congress of the United States, for the benefit of the said states, all right, title, and claim, which the said commonwealth had to the territory northwest of the river Ohio, subject to the conditions annexed to the said act of cession. And whereas the United States in Congress assembled have, by their act of the thirteenth of September last, stipulated the terms on which they agree to accept the cession of this state, should the legislature approve thereof, which terms, although they do not come fully up to the propositions of this commonwealth, are conceived, on the whole, to approach so nearly to them, as to induce this state to accept thereof, in full confidence that Congress will, in justice to this state, for the liberal cession she hath made, earnestly press upon the other states claiming large tracts of waste and uncultivated territory, the propriety of making cessions equally liberal, for the common benefit and support of the Union. Be it enacted by the General Assem- bly, That it shall and may be lawful for the delegates of this state to the Congress of the United States, or such of them as shall be assembled in Congress, and the said delegates, or such of them so assembled, are hereby fully authorized and empowered, for and on behalf of this state, by proper deeds or instrument in writing, under their hands and seals, to convey, transfer, assign, and make over unto the United States in Congress assembled, for the benefit of the said states, all right, title, and claim, as well of soil as jurisdiction, which this commonwealth hath to the territory or 4G8 THE TOLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tract of country within the limits of the Vir- ginia charter, situate, lying, and being, to the northwest of the river Ohio, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the before recited act of Congress of the thirteenth day of September last ; that is to say, upon condi- tion that the territory so ceded shall be laid out and formed into states, containing a suit- able extent of territory, not less than one hundred, nor more than one hundred and fifty miles square, or as near thereto as circum- stances will admit: and that the states so formed shall be distinct republican states, and admitted members of the Federal Union, hav- ing the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as the other states. That the necessary and reasonable expenses incurred by this state, in subduing any British posts, or in maintaining forts and garrisons within, and for the defence, or in acquiring any part of, the territory so ceded or relin- quished, shall be fully reimbursed by the United States ; and that one commissioner shall be appointed by Congress, one by this common- wealth, and another by those two commis- sioners, who, or a majority of them, shall be authorized and empowered to adjust and liquidate the account of the necessary and reasonable expenses incurred by this state, which they shall judge to be comprised within the intent and meaning of the act of Congress, of the tenth of October, one thousand seven hundred and eighty, respecting such expenses. That the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other settlers of the Kaskaskics, St. Vin- cents, and the neighboring villages, who have professed themselves citizens of Virginia, shall have their possessions and titles confirmed to them, and be protected in the enjoyment of their rights and liberties. That a quantity not exceeding one hundred and fifty thousand acres of land, promised by this state, shall be allowed and granted to the then Colonel, now General George Ilodgers Clarke, and to the officers and soldiers of his regiment, who marched with him when the post of Kaskas- kies and St. Vincents were reduced, and to the officers and soldiers that have been since in- corporated into the said regiment, to be laid off in one tract, the length of which not to ex- ceed double the breadth, in such place, on the northwest side of the Ohio, as a majority of the officers shall choose, and to be afterwards divided among the said officers and soldiers in due proportion, according to the laws of Vir- ginia. That in case the quantity of good land on the southeast side of the Ohio, upon the waters of Cumberland river, and between the Green river and Tennessee river, which have been reserved by law for the Virginia troops, upon continental establishment, should, from the North Carolina line bearing in further upon the Cumberland lands than was expected, prove insufficient for their legal bounties, the deficiency should be made up to the said troops, in good lands, to be laid off between the rivers Scioto and Little Miami, on the northwest side of the river Ohio, in such pro- portions as have been engaged to them by the laws of Virginia. That all the lands within the territory so ceded to the United States, and not reserved for, or appropriated to, any of the before mentioned purposes, or disposed of in bounties to the officers and soldiers of the American army, shall be considered as a common fund for the use and benefit of such of the United States as have become, or shall become, members of the confederation or fed- eral alliances of the said states, Virginia in- clusive, according to their usual respective proportions in the general charge and ex- penditure, and shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever. Provided, that the trust hereby reposed in the delegates of this state shall not be executed unless three of them at least are present in Congress. And whereas the said General Assembly, by their resolution of June sixth, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, had consti- tuted and appointed us, the said Thomas Jef- ferson, Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe, delegates to represent the said com- monwealth in Congress for one year, from the first Monday in November then next follow- ing, which resolution remains in full force: Now, therefore, know ye, that we, the said Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe, by virtue of the power and authority committed to us by the act of the said General Assembly of Virginia, before recited, and in the name, and for and on behalf, of the said commonwealth, do, by these presents, convey, transfer, assign, and make over, unto the United States, in Con- gress assembled, for the benefit of the said states, Virginia inclusive, all right, title and claim, as well of soil as of jurisdiction, which the said commonwealth hath to the territory or tract of country within the limits of the Virginia charter, situate, lying, and being to the northwest of the river Ohio, to and for the uses and purposes and on the conditions of the said recited act. In testimony whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names and affixed our seals, in Congress, the first day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four, and of the In- dependence of the United States the eighth. Resolved, That the United States in Con- gress assembled are ready to receive this deed, whenever the delegates of the state of Virginia are ready to execute the same. ■ The delegates of Virginia then proceeded and signed, scaled, and delivered the said deed: whereupon Congress came to the fol- lowing resolution : — The delegates of the commonwealth of Vir- ginia having executed the deed, Resolved, That the same be recorded and enrolled among the acts of the United States in Congress assembled. Resolved, That it be, and it hereby is, re- commended to the legislature of Virginia, to tako into consideration their act of cession • ORDINANCE OF 1784-S7. 4G9 and revise the same, so far as to empower the United States in Congress assembled, to make Buch a division of the territory of the United States, lying northerly and westerly of the river Ohio, into distinct republican states, not more than five nor less than three, as the situation of that country and future circum- stances may require ; which states shall here- after become members of the Federal Union, and have the same rights of sovereignty, free- dom, and independence, as the original states: in conformity with the resolution of Congress of the tenth October, 1780.* According to order, the ordinance for the government of the territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, was read a third time and passed, as follows : An ordinance for the government of the terri- tory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio. Be it ordained by the United States in Con- giess assembled, That the said territory, for the purposes of temporary government, be one district ; subject, however, to be divided into two districts, as future circumstances may, in the opinion of Congress, make it expedient Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the estates both o'f resident and non- resident proprietors in the said territory, dying intestate, shall descend to, and be distributed among their children, and the descendants of a deceased child, in equal parts ; the descend- ants of a deceased child or grandchild to take the share of their deceased parent in equal parts among them : and where there_ shall be no children or descendants, then in equal parts to the next of kin, in equal degree ; and among collaterals, the children of a deceased brother or sister of the intestate shall have, in equal parts among them, their deceased pa- rents' share ; and there shall, in no case, be a distinction between kindred of the whole and half-blood ; saving in all cases to the widow of the intestate her third part of the real estate for life, and one-third part of the personal estate ; and this law relative to descents and dower shall remain in full force until altered by the legislature of the district. And until the governor and judges shall adopt laws, as hereinafter mentioned, estates in the said ter- * " Resolved, That the unappropriated lands that may be ceded or relinquished to the United States, by any particu- lar state, pursuant to the recommendation of Congress, of the 6th day of September last, shall be disposed of for the common benefit of the United States, and be settled and form. -a into distinct republican states, which shall become members of the Federal Union, and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as the other states ; that each state which shall be so formed shall contain a suita- ble extent of territory, not less than one hundred, nor more than one hundred and fifty miles square, or as near thereto as circumstances will ;idmit; that the necessary and reasona- ble expenses which any particular state shall have incurred, since the commencement of the present war, iu subduing any British posts, or in maintaining forts or garrisons within, and for the defence, or in acquiring any part of, the territory that may be ceded or relinquished to the United States, shall be reimbursed : '• That the said lands shall be granted or settled at such times and under such regulations as shall hereafter be agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled, or any nine or more of them."— Journals of Congress, October •0 1780. ritory may be devised or bequeathed by wills in writing, signed and sealed by him or her in whom the estate maybe (being of full age), and attested by three witnesses; and real estates may be conveyed by lease and release, or bargain and sale, signed, sealed, and de- livered, by the person, being of full age, in whom the estate may be, and attested by two witnesses, provided such wills be duly proved, and such conveyances be acknowledged, or the execution thereof duly proved, and be record- ed within one year after proper magistrates, courts, and registers, shall be appointed for that purpose ; and personal property may be transferred by delivery ; saving, however, to the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other settlers of the Kaskaskies, St. Vincents, and the neighboring villages, who have here- tofore professed themselves citizensof Virginia, their laws and customs now in force among them, relative to the descent and conveyance of property. Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That there shall be appointed from time to time, by Congress, a governor, whose commis- sion shall continue in force for the term of three years, unless sooner revoked by Con- gress : he shall reside in the district, and have a freehold estate therein, in one thousand acres of land, while in the exercise of his office. There shall be appointed, from time to time, by Congress, a secretary, whose commission shall continue in force for four years, unless sooner revoked ; he shall reside in the district, and have a freehold estate therein, in five hundred acres of land, while in the exercise of his office ; it shall be his duty to keep and preserve the acts and laws passed by the legislature, and the public records of the dis- trict, and the proceedings of the governor in his executive department; and transmit au- thentic copies of such acts and proceedings, every six months, to the secretary of Con gres : There shall also be appointed a court, to consist of three judges, any two of whom to form a court, who' shall have a common law jurisdiction, and reside in the district, and have each therein a freehold estate, in five hundred acres of land, while in the exercise of their offices ; and their commissions shall continue in force during good behavior. The governor and judges, or a majority of them, shall adopt and publish in the district such laws of the original states, criminal and civil, as may be necessary,, and best suited to the circumstances of the district, and report them to Congress, from time to time ; which laws shall be in force in the district until the organization of the General Assembly therein, unless disapproved of by Congress'; but after- wards the legislature shall have authority to alter them as they shall think fit. The governor for the time being, shall he commander-in-chief of the militia, appcint and commission all officers in the same, below the rank of general officers ; all general offi- cers shall be appointed and commissioned by Congress. 470 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Previous to the organization of the General Assembly, the governor shall appoint such magistrates and other civil officers, in each county or township, as he shall find necessary for the preservation of the peace and good order in the same. After the General Assem- bly shall be organized, the powers and duties of magistrates and other civil officers shall be regulated and defined by the said Assem- bly ; but all magistrates and other civil offi- cers, not herein otherwise directed, shall, during the continuance of this temporary government, be appointed by the governor. For the prevention of crimes and injuries, the laws to be adopted or made shall have force in all parts of the district ; and for the execution of process, criminal and civil, the governor shall make proper divisions thereof; and he shall proceed from time to time, as cir- cumstances may require, to lay out the parts of the district in which the Indian titles shall have been extinguished, into counties and townships, subject, however, to such altera- tions as may thereafter be made by the legis- lature. So soon as there shall be five thousand free male inhabitants, of full age, in the district, upon giving proof thereof to the governor, they shall receive authority, with time and place, to elect representatives from their coun- ties or townships, to represent them in the General Assembly ; provided that, for every five hundred free male inhabitants, there shall be one representative, and so on, progressively, with the number of free male inhabitants, shall the right of representation increase, until the number of representatives shall amount to twenty-five ; after which the num- ber and proportion of representatives shall be regulated by the legislature ; provided, that no person be eligible or qualified to act as a representative unless he shall have been a citizen of one of the United States three years, and be a resident in the district, or unless he shall have resided in the district three years ; and in either case, shall likewise hold in his own right, in fee simple, two hurfdreC acres of land within the same ; provided also, that a freehold in fifty acres of land in the district, having been a citizen of one of the states, and being resident in the district, or the like free- hold and two years' residence in the district, shall be necessary to qualify a man as an elec- tor of a representative. The representatives thus elected shall serve for the term of two years ; and in case of the death of a representative, or removal from office, the governor shall issue a writ to the county or township, for which he was a mem- ber to elect another in his stead, to serve for the residue of the term. The General Assembly, or Legislature, shall consist of the Governor, Legislative Council, and a House of Representatives. The Legis- lative Council shall consist of five members, to continue in office five years, unless sooner re- moved by Congress ; any three of whom to be a quorum : and the members of the Council shall be nominated and appointed in the fol- lowing manner, to wit: As soon as represen- tatives shall be elected, the governor shall appoint a time and place for them to meet together, and when met, they shall nominate ten persons, residents in the district, and each possessed of a freehold in five hundred acres of land, and return their names to Congress ; five of whom Congress shall appoint and com- mission to serve as aforesaid : and whenever a vacancy shall happen in the Council, by death or removal from office, the House of Representatives shall nominate two persons, qualified as aforesaid, for each vacancy, and return their names to Congress ; one of whom Congress shall appoint and commission for the residue of the term : And every five years, four months at least before the expiration of the time of service of the members of the Council, the said House shall nominate ten persons, qualified as aforesaid, and return their names to Congress ; five of whom Con- gress shall appoint and commission to serve as members of the Council five years, unless sooner removed. And the Governor, Legisla- tive Council, and House of Representatives, shall have authority to make laws, in all cases, fur the good government of the district, not repugnant to the principles and articles in this ordinance established and declared. And all bills, having passed by a majority in the House, and by a majority in the Council, shall be referred to the governor for his assent ; but no bill or legislative act whatever shall be of any force without his assent. The governor shall have power to convene, prorogue, and dissolve the General Assembly, when in his opinion it shall be expedient. The Governor, Judges, Legislative Council, Secretary, and such other officers as Congress shall appoint in the district, shall take an oath or affirmation of fidelity, and of office ; the governor before the President of Congress, and all other officers before the governor. As soon as a legislature shall be formed in the district, the Council and House assembled, in one room, shall have authority, by joint ballot. to elect a delegate to Congress, who shall have a seat in Congress, with a right of debating, but not of voting during this temporary gov- ernment. And for extending the fundamental princi- ples of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions, are erected ; to fix and esta- blish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which for ever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory ; to provide, also, for the establishment of states, and permanent government therein, and for their admission to a share in the federal coun- cils on an equal footing with the original states, at as early periods as may be consist- ent with the general interest : — It is hereby ordained and declared, by the authority aforesaid, That the following arti- cles shall be considered as articles of compact, between the original states and the people anc ORDINANCE OF 1784-87. 471 states in the said territory, and for ever re- main unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit : — Art. 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory. Art. 2. The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury; of a proportionate representation of tho people in the legislature, and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable, unless for capi- tal offences, where the proof shall be evident, or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate : and no cruel or unusual punish- ments shall be inflicted. No man shall be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land ; and should the public exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to take any person's property, or to demand his particular services, full compensation shall be made for the same. And, in the just preser- vation of rights and property, it is understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made, or have force in the said territory, that tehall, in any manner whatever, interfere with, or affect, private contracts or engagements, bona fide, and without fraud, previously formed. Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall for ever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be ob- served towards the Indians ; their lands and property shall never be taken from them with- out their consent ; and in their property, rights, and liberty, they never shall be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress ; but laws founded in justice and humanity shall, from time to time, be made, for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them. Art. 4. The said territory and the states which may be formed therein, shall for ever remain a part of this confederacy of the Uni- ted States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto. The inhabitants and settlers in the said terri- tory shall be subject to pay a part of the fed- eral debts, contracted or to be contracted, and a proportional part of the expenses of govern- ment, to be apportioned on them by Congress, acc( rding to the same common rule and mea- sure by which apportionments thereof shall be made on the other states ; and the taxes for paying their proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legisla- tures of the district or districts, or new states, as in the original states, within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assem- bled. The legislatures of those districts, or new states, shall never interfere with the pri- mary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any regula- tions Congress may find necessary, for sei ti- ring the title in such soil to the bona fide pur- chasers. No tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the United States ; and in no case shall non-resident proprietors be ta.\ I higher than residents. The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same, shall be common highways, and for ever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said terri- tory, as to the citizens of the United States, and those of any other states that may be ad- mitted into the confederacy, without any tax, impost, or duty therefor. Art. 5. There shall be formed in the said territory, not less than three, nor more than five states ; and the boundaries of the states, as soon as Virginia shall alter her act of ces- sion, and consent to the same, shall become fixed and established as follows, to wit : the western state in the said territory, shall be bounded by the Mississippi, the Ohio, and Wabash rivers ; a direct line drawn from the Wabash and Post Vincents, due north to the territorial line between the United States and Canada ; and by the said territorial line to the Lake of the Woods and Mississippi. The middle state shall be bounded by the said direct line, the Wabash, from Post Vincents to the Ohio, by the Ohio, by a direct line drawn due north from the mouth of the Great Miami to the said territorial line, and by the said territorial line. The eastern state shail be bounded by the last-mentioned direct line, the Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the said terri- torial line: provided, however, and it is further understood and declared, that the boundaries of these three states shall be subject so far to be altered, that, if Congress shall hereafter find it expedient, they shall have authority t tion should be announced by executive procla- mation: Therefoi'e, t 1 that end, it is herebv declared and made known, that at the said elec- tion, held on the9th day of November, a.d. 1857, there were seven thousand one hundred and ninety-five votes given for the adoption of the said constitution, and three thousand one hun- dred and ninety-five votes against its adoption. There were two thousand six hundred and forty-five votes given in favor of slavery, and seven thousand seven hundred and nventj'-se- ven votes against slavery ; and there were given one thousand aud eighty-one votes in favor of permitting the residence of free ne- 476 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. groee, and eight thousand six hundred and forty votes against the same. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my official signature, and caused the r -i seal of the territory to be affixed, at L * "J Salem, this 14th day of December, a. d. 1857. George L. Curry. By the Governor : B. F. Harding, Secretary of Oregon Territory. This constitution was referred in the Senate, on the 1st of February, 1858, to the Commit- tee on Territories. Mr. Douglas, from that committee, reported on the 5th of April, 1858, a bill for the admission of Oregon into the Union. The bill, as it passed the Senate, is in the following shape : A Bill for the admission of Oregon into the Union. Whereas the people of Oregon have framed, ratified, and adopted a constitution of state government which is republican in form, and in conformity with the Constitution of the United States, and have applied for admission into the Union on an equal footing with the other states ; therefore — Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amer- ica in Congress assembled, That Oregon be, and she is hereby, received into the Union on an equal footing with the other states in all re- spects whatever, with the following bounda- ries : In order that the boundaries of the state may be known and established, it is hereby ordained and declared that the state of Oregon shall be bounded as follows, to wit : Begin- ning one marine league at sea due west from the point where the forty-second parallel of north latitude intersects the same ; thence northerly, at the same distance from the line of the coast, lying west and opposite the state, including all islands within the juris- diction of the United States, to a point due west and opposite the middle of the north ship channel of the Columbia river; thence easter- ly, to and up the middle channel of said river, and, where it is divided by islands, up the middle of the widest channel thereof, to a point near Fort Walla-Walla, where the forty- sixth parallel of north latitude crosses said river; thence east, on said parallel, to the rniildle of the main channel of the Shoshones or Snake river ; thence up the middle of the main channel of said river to the mouth of the Owyhee river ; thence due south, to the paral- lel of latitude forty-two degrees north ; thence west, along said parallel, to the place of be- ginning, including jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases upon the Columbia river and Snake river, concurrently with states and territories of which those rivers form a boun- dary in common with this state. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the said state of Oregon shall have concurrent ju> risdiction on the Columbia and all other rivers and waters bordering on the said state of Oregon so far as the same shall form a common boun- dary to said state, and any other state or states now or hereafter to be formed or bound- ed by the same ; and said rivers and waters, and all the navigable waters of said state, shall be common highways and forever free, as well as to the inhabitants of said state as to all other citizens of the United States, with- out any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor. Sec 3. And be it further enacted, That until the next census and apportionment of re- presentatives, the state of Oregon shall be en- titled to one representative in the Congress of the United States. Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby, offered to the said people of Oregon for their free acceptance or rejection ; which, if accepted, shall be obligatory on the United States, and upon the said state of Oregon, to wit: First, That sections numbered sixteen and thirty-six in every township of public lands in said state, and where either of said sections, or any part thereof, has been sold or otherwise been disposed of, other lands, equivalent thereto and as contiguous as may be, shall be granted to said state for the use of schools. Second. That seventy-two sections of land shall be set apart and reserved for the use and support of a state university, to be selected by the gover- nor of said state, subject to the approval of the commissioner of the general land office, and to be appropriated and applied in such manner as the legislature of said state may prescribe for the purpose aforesaid, but for no other pur- pose. Third. That ten entire sections of land, to be selected by the governor of said state, in legal subdivisions, shall be granted to said state for the purpose of completing the pub- lic buildings, or for the erection of others at the seat of government, under the direction of the legislature thereof. Fourth. That all salt springs within said state, not exceeding twelve in number, with six sections of land adjoin- ing, or as contiguous as may be to each, shall be granted to said state for its use, the same to be selected by the governor thereof within one year after the admission of said state, and when so selected, to be used or disposed of on such terms, conditions, and regulations as the legislature shall direct: Provided, That no salt spring or land, the right whereof is now vested in any individual or individuals, or which maybe hereafter confirmed or adjudged to any individual or individuals, shall by this article be granted to said state. Fifth. That five per centum of the not proceeds of sales of all public lands lying within said state which shall be sold by Congress after the admission of said state into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to said state, for the purpose of making public roads and internal improvements, as the legislature shall direct: Provided, That the foregoing propositions, hereinbefore offer- OREGON.— OSTEND MANIFESTO. 477 ed, are on the condition that the people of Oregon shall provide by an ordinance, irrevo- cable without the consent of the UnitedStates, that said state shall never interfere with the pri- mary disposal of the soil within the same by the United States, or with any regulations Con- gress ma} r find necessary for securing the title in said soil to bona fide purchasers thereof; and that in no case shall non-resident proprie- tors be taxed higher than residents. Sixth, And that the said state shall never tax the lands or the property of the United States in said state: Provided, however, That in case any of the lands herein granted to the state of Oregon have heretofore been confirmed to the territory of Oregon for the purposes speci- fied in this act, the amount so confirmed shall be deducted from the quantity specified in this act. Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That, until Congress shall otherwise direct, the resi- due of the territory of Oregon shall be, and is hereby, incorporated into, and made a part of the territory of Washington. The bill passed the Senate on the 18th of May, 1858, by yeas 35, nays 17 ; as follows : Yeas — Allen, Bayard, Benjamin, Bigler, Bright, Broderick, Brown, Cameron, Chandler, Cliugman, Cullamer, Dixon, DoolittU, *Douglas, Foot, Foster, Green, Gwin, Harlan, Houston, Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Jones, King, Polk, Pugh, Sebastian, Seward, *Shields, Sinir tnons, Slidell, *Stuart. Toombs, Wright, and Yulee — 35. Nats — Messrs. Bell, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Durkee, Fes- senden, Fitzpatrick, Hale, Hand in, Hammond, Henderson, Hunter, Iyerson, Kenneuil, Mason, Trumbull, and Wade — 17. Democrats in roman, Republicans in italics, Americans in small caps, asterisk prefixed anti-Lecompton Democrats. Osteud Manifesto. Mr. Marcy to Mr. Soule. (Extracts.— No. 19.) Department of State, 1 Washington, Aug. 16, 1854. j Sir : I am directed by the President to sug- gest to you a particular step, from which he anticipates much advantage to the negotiations with which you are charged, on the subject of Cuba. These, and other considerations which will readily occur to you, suggest that much may be done at London and Paris either to pro- mote directly the great object in view, or at least to clear away impediments to its success- ful consummation. Under these circumstances, it seems desir- able that there should be a full and free inter- change of news between yourself, Mr. Buch- anan, and Mr. Mason, in order to secure a concurrence in reference to the general object. The simplest and only very apparent means of attaining this end is for the three ministers to meet, as early as may be, at some conve- nient central point (say Paris), to consult to- gether, to compare opinions as to what may be advisable, and to adopt measures for per- fect concert of action in aid of your negotia- tions at Madrid. While the President has, as I have before had occasion to state, full confi- dence in your own intelligence and sazacitv. he conceives that it cannot be otherwise than agreeable to you and to your colleagues in Great Britain and France, to have the consult- ation suggested and then to bring your com- mon wisdom and knowledge to bear simul- taneously upon the negotiations at Madrid, London, and Paris. If you concur in these views, you will please to fix the time when you can repair to Paris, or such other convenient point as you may select, and give notice of it to Mr. Buch- anan and Mr. Mason, who have instructions on the subject, and will await advices from you as to the time and place of the contem- plated conference. In case the proposed interview shall take place, you are desired to communicate to the government here the re- sults of opinion or means of action to which you may in common arrive, through a trust- worthy confidential messenger, who may be able to supply any details not contained in a formal despatch. I am, sir, respectfully your obedient servant, W. L. Marcy. Pierre Soule, Esq., &c, &c, Madrid. Mr. Soule to Mr. Marct. United States Legation to Spain, } London, Oct. 20, 1854. j Sir : Herewith I have the honor to transmit to you a joint communication from Mr. Buch- anan, Mr. Mason, and myself, embodying the result of our deliberations on the subject about which we had been desired to confer together. The issues, with reference to which we were instructed to express our judgment, were of too momentous an import not to tax all the discernment and discretion In our power, and it was with a deep sense of solemn responsibility that we entered upon the duties which had been assigned to us. May we have accomplished our task in a manner not unworthy of the great object for which it was conferred on us 1 My colleagues have had a full view of the difficulties and dangers which the question presents ; and you will see that they have not hesitated to join me in the expression of senti- ments according strikingly with the intima- tions repeatedly thrown out in your despatches to me. I do not know if we shall be found sufficient- ly explicit in the language through which we have attempted to convey our impressions ; I trust, however, that it will be found sufficient- ly free from ambiguity to leave no room even for a doubt as to its true meaning. The question of the acquisition of Cuba by us is gaining ground as it grows to be more seriously agitated and considered. Now is the moment for us to be done with it ; for if we delay its solution, we will certainly repent that we let escape the fairest opportunity we could ever be furnished with of bringing it to a de- cisive test. 478 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Present indications would seem to encourage the hope that we may come to that solution peaceably. But if it were otherwise — if it is to bring upon us the calamity of a war — let it be now, while the great powers of this conti- nent are engaged in that stupendous strug- gle, which cannot but engage all their strength and tax all their energies as long as it lasts, and may, before it ends, convulse them all. Neither England nor France would be likely to interfere with us. England could not bear to be suddenly shut out of our market and see her manufactures paralyzed even by a tempo- rary suspension of her intercourse with us. And France, with the heavy task now on her hands, and when she so eagerly aspires to take her seat as the acknowledged chief of the Eu- ropean family, would have no inducement to assume the burden of another war, nor any motive to repine at seeing that we took in our keeping the destinies of the New World, as she will soon have those of the Old. I close this despatch in haste, as I have no time left me to carry it further. Mr. Mcllae leaves for Liverpool within a few minutes. I intrust to him details which would not have found a place here, nor in the other despatch. He will impart to you what of my mind I am not able to pour out in these lines. Respectfully, yours, Pierre Soule. Hon. William L. Marcy, Secretary of State, &c. Aix la Chapelle, ) October 18_, 185.7. f Sir : — The undersigned, in compliance with the wish expressed by the President in the several confidential despatches you have ad- dressed to us respectively to that effect, have met in conference, first at Ostend, in Belgium, on the 9th, 10th, and 11th instant, and then at Aix la Chapelle, in Prussia, on the days next following, up to the date hereof. There has been a full and unreserved inter- change of views and sentiments between us, which, we are most happy to inform you, has resulted in a cordial coincidence of opinion on the grave and important subject submitted to our consideration. We have arrived at the conclusion and are thoroughly convinced, that an immediate and earnest effort ought to be made by the govern- ment of the United States to purchase Cuba from Spain at any price for which it can be obtained not exceeding the sum of $ The proposal should, in our opinion, be made in such a manner as to be presented through the necessary diplomatic forms to the Su- preme Constituent Cortes about to assemble. On this momentous question, in which the people both of Spain and the United States are so deeply interested, all our proceedings ought to be open, frank, and public. They should be of such a character as to challenge the approbation of the world. We firmly believe that, in the progress of human events, the time has arrived when the vital interests of Spain are as seriously in- volved in the sale, as those of the United States in the purchase, of the island, and that the transaction would prove equally honorable to both nations. Under these circumstances we cannot anti- cipate a failure, unless possibly through, the malign influence of foreign powers, who pos- sess no rights whatever to interfere in the matter. We proceed to state some of the reasons which have brought us to this conclusion, and, for the sake of clearness, we shall specify them under two distinct heads : 1st. The United States ought, if practicable, to purchase Cuba with as little delay as pos- sible. 2d. The probability is great that the go- vernment and Cortes of Spain will prove will- ing to sell it, because this would essentially promote the highest and best interests of the Spanish people. The first, it must be clear to every reflect- ing mind, that, from the peculiarity of its geo- graphical position, and the considerations attendant on it, Cuba is as necessary to the North American republic as any of its present members, and that it belongs naturally to that great family of states of which the Union is the providential nursery. From its locality, it commands the mouth of the Mississippi and the immense and annually increasing trade which must seek this avenue to the ocean. On the numerous navigable streams, mea- suring an aggregate course of some thirty thousand miles, which disembogue themselves through this magnificent river into the Gulf of Mexico, the increase of the population within the last ten years amounts to more than that of the entire Union at the time Louisiana was annexed to it. The natural and main outlet to the products of this entire population, the highway of their direct intercourse with the Atlantic and the Pacific states, can never be secure, but must ever be endangered whilst Cuba is a depen- dency of a distant power, in whose possession it has proved to be a source of constant an- noyance and embarrassment to their interests. Indeed, the Union can never enjoy repose, nor possess reliable security, as long as Cuba is not embraced within its boundaries. Its immediate acquisition by our govern- ment is of paramount importance, and we can- not doubt but that it is a consummation de- voutly wished for by its inhabitants. The intercourse which its proximity to our coast? begets and encourages between them and the citizens of the United States, has, in the pro- gress of time, so united their interests and blended their fortunes that they now look upon each other as if they were one people and had but one destiny. Considerations exist which render delay in the acquisition of this island exceedingly dan- gerous to the United States. The system of immigration and labor lately organized within its limits, and the tyranny and oppression OSTEXD MANIFESTO. 179 which characterize its immediate rulers, threaten an insurrection at every moment, which may result in direful consequences to the American people. Cuba has thus become to us an unceasing danger, and a permanent cause of anxiety and alarm. But we need not enlarge on these topics. It can scarcely be apprehended that foreign powers, in violation of international law, would interpose their influence with Spain to prevent our acquisition of the island. Its in- habitants are now suffering under the worst of all possible governments — that of absolute despotism, delegated by a distant power to irresponsible agents, who are changed at short intervals, and who are tempted to improve the brief opportunity thus afforded to accumulate fortunes by the basest means. As long as this system shall endure, hu- manity may in vain demand the suppression of the African slave trade in the island. This is rendered impossible whilst that infamous traffic remains an irresistible temptation and source of immense profit to needy and avari- cious officials, who, to attain their ends, scru- ple not to trample the most sacred principles under foot. The Spanish government at home may be well disposed, but experience has proved that it cannot control these remote depositaries of its power. Besides, the commercial nations of the world cannot fail to perceive and appre- ciate the great advantages which would result to their people from a dissolution of the forced and unnatural connexion between Spain and Cuba, and the annexation of the latter to the United States. The trade of England and France with Cuba would, in that event, as- sume at once an important and profitable cha- racter, and rapidly extend with the increasing population and prosperity of the island. 2. But if the United States and every com- mercial nation would be benefited by this transfer, the interests of Spain would also be greatly and essentially promoted. She cannot but see what such a sum of money as we are willing to pay for the island, would effect in the development of her vast natural re- sources. Two-thirds of this sum, if employed in the construction of a system of railroads, would ultimately prove a source of greater wealth to the Spanish people than that opened to their vision by Cortez. Their prosperity would date from the ratification of the treaty of ces- sion. France has already constructed continuous lines of railways from Havre, Marseilles, Va- lenciennes, and Strasbourg, via Paris, to the Spanish frontier, and anxiously awaits the day when Spain shall find herself in a con- dition to extend these roads through her northern provinces to Madrid, Seville, Cadiz, Malaga, and the frontiers of Portugal. The "bject once accomplished, Spain would become •* centre of attraction for the travelling world, and secure a permanent and profitable market for her various productions. Her fields, under the stimulus given to in- dustry by remunerating prices, would teem with cereal grain, and her vineyards would bring forth a vastly increased quantity of choice wines. Spain would speedily become, what a bountiful Providence intended she should l»e, one of the first nations of Conti- nental Europe; rich, powerful, and contented. Whilst two-thirds of the price of the island Avould be ample for the completion of her most important public improvements, she might, with the remaining forty millions, satisfy the demands now pressing so heavily upon her credit, and create a sinking fund which would gradually relieve her from the overwhelming debt now paralyzing her energies. Such is her present wretched financial con- dition, that her best bonds are sold upon her own Bourse at about one-third of their par value ; whilst another class, on which she pays no interest, have but a nominal value, and are quoted at about one-sixth of the amount for which they were issued. Besides, these latter are held principally by British creditors who may, from day to day, obtain the effective in- terposition of their own government for the purpose of coercing payment. Intimations to that effect have already been thrown out from high quarters, and unless some new source of revenue shall enable Spain to provide for such exigencies, it is not improbable that they may be realized. Should Spain reject the present golden opportunity for developing her re- sources, and removing her financial embarrass- ments, it may never again return. Cuba, in its palmiest day, never yielded her exchequer, after deducting the expenses of its govern- ment, a clear annual income of more than a million and a half of dollars. These expenses have increased in such a degree as to leave a deficit chargeable on the treasury of Spain to the amount of six hundred thousand dollars. In a pecuniary point of view, therefore, the island is an encumbrance, instead of a source of profit, to its mother country. Under no probable circumstances can Cuba ever yield to Spain one per cent, on the large amount which the United States are willing to pay for its acquisition. But Spain is in im- minent danger of losing Cuba without remu- neration. Extreme oppression, it is now universally admitted, justifies any people in endeavoring to relieve themselves from the yoke of their oppressors. The sufferings which the corrupt, arbitrary, and unrelenting local administra* tion necessarily entails upon the inhabitants of Cuba, cannot fail to stimulate and keep alive that spirit of resistance and revolution against Spain which has, of late years, been so often manifested. In this condition of affairs it is vain to expect that the people of the United States will not be warmly enlisted in favor of their oppressed neighbors. We know that the President is justly inflex- 480 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ible in his determination to execute the neu- trality laws: but, should the Cubans them- selves rise in revolt against the oppression •which they suffer, no human power could prevent citizens of the United States and liberal minded men from other countries from rushing to their assistance. Besides, the pre- sent is an age of adventure, in which restless and daring spirits abound in every portion of the world. It is not improbable, therefore, that Cuba may be wrested from Spain by a successful revolution ; and in that event she will lose both the island and price which we are now willing to pay for it — a price far beyond what was ever paid by one people to another for any province. It may also be remembered that the settle- ment of this vexed question by the cession of Cuba to the United States, would for ever prevent the dangerous complications between nations, to which it might otherwise give birth. It is certain that, should the Cubans them- selves organize an insurrection against the Spanish government, and should other inde- pendent nations come to the aid of Spain in the contest, no human power could, in our opinion, prevent the people and government of the United States from taking part in such a civil war in support of their neighbor and friend. But if Spain, dead to the voice of her own interest, and actuated by stubborn pride and a false sense of honor, should refuse to sell Cuba to the United States, then the ques- tion will arise, What ought to be the course of the American government under such cir- cumstances? Self-preservation is the first law of nature, with states as well as with individuals. All nations have, at different periods, acted upon this maxim. Although it has been made the pretext for committing flagrant injustice, as in the partition of Poland and other similar cases which history records, yet the principle itself, though often abused, has always been recognised. The United States have never acquired a foot of territory except by fair purchase, or, as in the case of Texas, upon the free and voluntary applica- tion of the people of that independent state, who desired to blend their destinies with our own. Even our acquisitions from Mexico are no exception to this rule, because, although we might have claimed them by the right of the conquest in a just war, yet we purchased them for what was considered by both parties a full and ample equivalent. Our past history forbids that we should ac- quire the island of Cuba without the consent of Spain, unless justified by the great law of self-preservation. We must, in any event, pre- serve our own conscious rectitude and our own self-respect. Whilst pursuing this course we can afford to disregard the censures of the world, to which we have been so often and so un- justly exposed. After we shall have offered Spain a price for Cuba far beyond its present value, and this shall have been refused, it will then be time to consider the question, Does Cuba, in the possession of Spain, seriously endanger our internal peace and the existence of our cherished Union ? Should this question be answered in the athrmative, then by every law, human and divine, we shall be justified in wresting it from Spain if we possess the power, and this upon the very same principle that would jus- tify an individual in tearing down the burning house of his neighbor, if there were no other- means of preventing the flames from destroy- ing his own house. Under such circumstances we ought neither to regard the circumstances or count the odds which Spain* might enlist against us. We forbear to enter into the question, whether the present condition of the island would jus- tify such a measure. We should, however, be recreant to our duty, be unworthy of our gallant forefathers, and commit base treason against our posterity, should we permit Cuba to be Africanized and become a second St. Domingo with all its attendant horrors to the white race, and suffer the flames to extend to to our own neighboring shores, seriously to endanger or actually to consume the fair fab- ric of our Union. We tear that the course and current of events are rapidly tending to such a catas- trophe. We, however, hope for the best, though we ought certainly to be prepared for the worst. We also forbear to investigate the present condition of the questions at issue between the United States and Spain. A long series of injuries to our people has been committed in Cuba by Spanish officials, and are unre- dressed. But recently a most flagrant out- rage on the rights of American citizens and on the flag of the United States was perpe- trated in the harbor of Havana, under circum- stances which, without immediate redress, would have justified a resort to measures of war in vindication of national honor. That outrage is not only unatoned, but the Spanish government has deliberately sanctioned the acts of its subordinates and assumed the re- sponsibility attaching to them. Nothing could more impressively teach us the danger to which those peaceful relations it has ever been the policy of the United States to cherish with foreign nations are constantly exposed, than the circumstances of that case. Situated as Spain and the United States are, the latter have forborne to resort to the extreme mea- sures. But this course cannot, with due regard to their own dignity as an independent nation, continue ; and our own recommendations, now submitted, are dictated by the firm belief that the cession of Cuba to the United States, with stipulations as beneficial to Spain as thuse suggested, is the only effective made of set- tling all past differences and of securing the two countries against future collision. We have already witnessed the happy re- PERSONAL LIBERTY BILL.— PIERCE, FRANKLIN. 4b. suits for both countries which followed a simi- lar arrangement in regard to Florida. Yours, very respectfully, James Buchaxax. J. Y. Masox. Pierre Soule. Hon. Wm. L. Marcy, Secretary of State. Personal Liberty Bill. The following is a synopsis of the Personal Liberty Bill, as passed by the legislature of Massachusetts : — "By the 10th section it is provided that 'any person who shall grant a certificate under the act of 1851 shall be deprived of any office he may hold under the commonwealth, and shall be for ever thereafter ineligible to any office of trust, honor, or emolument under the law of the commonwealth.' " The eleventh section declares that ' any person who shall act as counsel or attorney for any claimant under said act shall be de- prived of any commission he may then hold under the laws of the commonwealth, and shall be thereafter incapacitated to appear as counsel or attorney in the courts of the com- monwealth.' " The 16th section forbids any member of the volunteer militia from aiding in the enforcement of the fugitive slave law, and provides that ' any member of the same who shall offend against the provisions of this sec- tion shall be punished by fine of not less than one thousand and not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment in the state prison not less than one year and not more than two years.' The following is the Personal Liberty bill of Vermont: — An act for the protection of personal liberty. "It is hereby enacted by the General As- sembly of the state of Vermont, as follows : — Sec. 1. No court of record in this state, nor any judge thereof, no justice of the peace nor other magistrate, acting under the authority of this state, shall hereafter take cognisance of, or grant any certificate, warrant, or other process, in any case arising under section three of an act of Congress, passed February twelfth, seventeen hundred and ninety-three, entitled ' an act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters,' to any person claiming any other person as a fugitive slave in this state. " Sec. 2. No sheriff, deputy sheriff, high bailiff, constable, jailor, or other officer or citi- zen of this state shall, hereafter, seize, arrest, or detain, or aid in the seizure, arrest or de- tention, or imprisonment in any jail or other building belonging to this state, or to any county, town, city, or person therein, of any person for the reason that he is or may be claimed as a fugitive slave. " Sec. 3. No sheriff, deputy sheriff, high bailiff, constable, or other officer or citizen of this state, shall transport, or remove, or aid or assist in the transportation or removal of any 31 fugitive slave, or any person claimed as such, from any place in this state to any other place within or without the same. " Sec. 4. If any such judge, justice of the peace, magistrate, officer or citizen, shall offend against the two preceding sections, such judge, justice of the peace, magistrate, officer or citi- zen, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section five of this act. " Sec. 5. Any judge of any court of record in this state, any justice of the peace or other magistrate, any sheriff, deputy sheriff, high bailiff, constable, or jailor, or any citizen of this state, who shall offend against the provi- sions of this act, by acting directly or in- directly under the provisions of section three of the act of Congress aforesaid, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, to the use of the state, to be recovered upon in- formation or indictment, or be imprisoned in the state prison not exceeding five years." Pierce, Franklin. Ox the 18th of December, 1837, Mr. Pierce of N. II., in the Senate, in discussing the re- ception of an abolition petition, said, He was in favor of the reception, and that question he desired to meet distinctly, and un- embarrassed by any other motion. When petitions of this character should be received, we would be prepared to act upon them without delay : to reject the prayer of the petitions, to lay them upon the table, or give them any other direction that might be thought best calculated to silence the agitators, and tranquillize the public mind. As a member of the select committee of the other House, of which Mr. Pinckney of S. C. was chairman, he had fully concurred in the sentiments of the report presented by that gentleman at the first session of the twenty -fourth Congress ; and further examination and reflection had only served to confirm him in the opinions which he at that time entertained ; but mad and fanatical as he regarded the schemes of the abolitionists, and deeply as he deplored the consequences of their course upon all sec- tions of the Union, he could give no vote that might be construed into a denial of the right of petition, and thus enable them to change their position, and make up a false issue be- fore the country. On the 21st of February, 1839, Mr: Pierce presented in the Senate a memorial from cer- tain citizens of New Hampshire, praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Co- lumbiua, and from the remarks made by him at the time the following is an extract : — "I do earnestly hope that every honest man, who has sincerely at heart the best in terests of the slave and the master, mayno longer be governed by a blind zeal and im- pulse, but be led to examine this subject, so full of delicacy and danger, in all its bear- ings; and that, when called upon to lend their names and influence to the cause of 482 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. agitation, they may remember that we live under a written Constitution, which is the panoply and protection of the South as well as the North; that it covers the entire Union, and is equally a guarantee for the unmolested enjoyment of the domestic institutions of all its parts ; and I trust, further, that they will no longer close their eyes to the fact that, so far as those in whose welfare they express so much feeling are concerned, this foreign inter- ference has been, and must inevitably continue to be, evil, and only evil." Speech in tiie Convention of New Hamp- shire on the Religious Test in its con- stitution. Mr. Pierce, of Concord, said that he could concur heartily in all that the gentleman from Portsmouth had uttered, except his last re- mark. It was quite obvious that, so far from having taxed the patience of the committee, his speeches upon both the great subjects em- braced in the resolutions under consideration had been listened to with unqualified gratifi- cation. Not because he threw the weight of his high character and the power of his argu- ments into the scale on the side of right in a ease where there was hesitancy — where_ the judgment of members was not definitely formed — where there was a shade of doubt as to the result ; but because it was desirable that the grounds on which we proceed in matters of such grave import should be stated, as they had been, with singular force of rea- soning and beauty of illustration. It was also a service well rendered, not less in vindi- cation of the past than the present. The motives of the fathers of the present constitu- tion and of the people in 1792 had been placed in their true light. So much was due to them. It was also due to this convention and the people whom they represent, and due to the reputation of the state abroad, that it be well understood that both of the provisions— the religious test and the property qualification — had been a dead letter, at least as long as the chairman [Mr. SawyerJ had participated to any extent in the councils of the state. They had been practically inoperative from Mr. P.'s earliest recollection. The chairman would remember that many years ago, at a time of high party excitement, it was suggested that a member of the House of Representatives occupied his seat without the^ requisite pro- perty qualification. But two objections at once occurred to any action upon the subject; the first was that investigation and action, instead of rejecting one member, might probably va- cate twenty seats ; the second was, that no mem- ber could probably be found to move in a mat- ter so utterly repugnant to public sentiment. The religious test in the constitution had undeniably been a stigma upon the state, at home and abroad. It had been repeatedly named to him, and once at least in a foreign land, as unworthy of the intelligent and lib- eral spirit of our countrymen. Although he had at times felt keenly the reproach, he had uniformly referred, as he had no doubt other gentlemen had done, to other parts of the con- stitution as illustrating the true and free spirit of our fathers, and to these as, at least for many years, a blank. The great question of religious toleration was practically settled, and settled in a manner never to be reversed while we retain our present form of govern- ment, more than thirty years ago. The pro- visions now claiming the attention of the com- mittee could hardly be said to involve an open question. They had been the subject of discussion in every lyceum, every academy, debating club, every town ; and there was perhaps no subject upon which public opinion and public feeling was so uniform and deci- sive. The substance — if substance they ever had — having long since passed away, he re- joiced that the proper occasion had at length arrived to dispense with the form. Extract from his speech, at the town meeting, at concord, on the same sub- JECT. " Can it be possible (said he) that the peo- ple of New Hampshire will vote to retain a feature in its fundamental law, engrafted there under peculiar circumstances, repugnant to the plainest ideas of justice and equality, repugnant to the whole scope and tenor of the constitution upon which it stands as a, fungus — dead, to be sure, but still there — a blot and deformity, obnoxious in the last degree to the spirit of the age in which we live ? How can we say that our land is the asylum of the op- pressed of other countries, when we fail to extend over them the shield of equal rights, and say to them, There is the panoply under which, so far as the dearest and most sacred of all rights is concerned, you may shelter yourselves ? I love and revere the faith of my Protestant fathers ; but do not Martin Law- ler, and his countrymen near me, and who have this day exercised the right of freemen, now revere and cling to the faith of their fathers ? Are you to tell them that they can vote for you, but are to be excluded from the privilege of being voted for ? — that while you tax them to maintain your government, they shall not be eligible to positions that control taxation. Shame upon such a provision, while we boast of equal rights ! I hope this provi- sion of our constitution receives the delibe- rate reprobation of every man now in this hall. But, if I am mistaken in this, it is due to the honor of the state, it is due to the plain- est dictates of justice, that whoever may favor this test, should state the reasons upon which he relies. For one, I never think of it with- out a deep sense of regret, and, I may add, of humiliation for my native state." Letter of President Pierce on the Com- promise Measures. Tremont House, Boston, May 27, 1852. ****** I intended to speak to you more fully upon HERCE, FRANKLIN. 483 the subject of the compromise measures than I had an opportunity to do. The importance of the action of the convention upon this ques- tion cannot be over-estimated. I believe there will be no disposition on the part of the South to press resolutions unnecessarily offensive to the sentiments of the North. But can we say as much on our side? Wi41 the North como cheerfully up to the mark of constitutional right ? If not, a breach in our party is inevit- able. The matter should be met at the threshold, because it rises above party, and looks to the very existence of the confederacy. The sentiment of no one state is to be regarded upon this subject; but having fought the bat- tle in New Hampshire upon the fugitive slave law, and upon what we believed to be the ground of constitutional right, we should, of course, desire the approval of the Democracy of the country. What I wish to say to you is this : If the compromise measures are not to be substan- tially and firmly maintained, the plain rights secured by the Constitution will be trampled in the dust. What difference can it make to you or me whether the outrage shall seem to fall on South Carolina, or Maine, or New Hampshire? Are not the rights of each equally dear to us all ? I will never yield to a craven spirit that, from considerations of policy, would endanger the Union. Enter- taining these views, the action of the conven- tion must, in my judgment, be vital. If we of the North who have stood by the constitu- tional rights of the South, are to be abandoned to any time-serving policy, the hopes of democracy and of the Union must sink to- gether. As I told you, my name will not be before the convention ; but I cannot help feeling that what is there to be done will be important be- yond men and parties — transeendently impor- tant to the hopes of democratic progress and civil liberty. ****** Your friend, Frank. Pierce. Extract from the annual message of Mr. Pierce to 34th Congress, 3d session, on the results of the Presidential election. Fellow citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives : — The Constitution requires that the President shall, from time to time, not only recommend to the consideration of Congress such measures as he may judge necessary and expedient, but also that he shall give information to them of the state of the Union. To do this fully in- volves expositions of all matters in the actual condition of the country, domestic or foreign, which essentially concern the general welfare. While performing his constitutional duty in this respect, the President does not speak merely to express personal convictions, but as the executive minister of the government, "nabled by his position, and called upon by | his official obligations, to scan with an im- partial eye the interests of the whole and of every part of the United States. Of the condition of the domestic interests of the Union, its agriculture, mines, manufac- tures, navigation, and commerce, it is neces- sary only to say that the internal prosperity of the country, its continuous and steady ad- vancement in wealth and population, and in private as well as public well-being, attest the wisdom of our institutions, and the predomi- nant spirit of intelligence and patriotism, which, notwithstanding occasional irregulari- ties of opinion or action resulting from popular freedom, has distinguished and characterized the people of America, In the brief interval between the termina- tion of the last and the commencement of the present session of Congress, the public mind has been occupied with the care of selecting, for another constitutional term, the President and Vice President of the United States. The determination of the persons, who are of right, or contingently, to preside over the administration of the government, is, under our system, committed to the states and the people. We appeal to them, by their voice pronounced in the forms of law, to call whom- soever they will to the high post of Chief Magistrate. And thus it is, that as the Senators repre- sent the respective states of the Union, and the members of the House of Representatives the several constituencies of each state, so the President represents the aggregate population of the United States. Their election of him is the explicit and solemn act of the sole sove- reign authority of the Union. It is impossible to misapprehend the great principles which, by their recent political action, the people of the United States have sanctioned and announced. They have asserted the constitutional equali- ty of each and all of the states of the Union as states ; they have affirmed the constitutional equality of each and all of the citizens of the United States as citizens, whatever their re- ligion, wherever their birth, or their resi- dence ; they have maintained the inviolability of the constitutional rights of the different sec- tions of the Union ; and they have proclaimed their devoted and unalterable attachment to the Union and the Constitution, as objects of interest superior to all subjects of local or sectional controversy, as the safeguard of the rights of all, as the spirit and the essence of the liberty, peace, and greatness of the re- public. In doing this, they have, at the same time, emphatically condemned the idea of organiz- ing in these United States mere geographical parties ; of marshalling in hostile array to- wards each other the different parts of the country, North or South, East or West. Schemes of this nature, fraught with in- calculable mischief, and which the considerate sense of the people has rejected, could have had countenance in no part of the country, 484 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. had they not been disguised by suggestions plausible in appearance, acting upon an ex- cited state of the public mind, induced by causes temporary in their character, and it is to be hoped transient in their influence. Perfect liberty of association for political objects and the -widest scope of discussion are the received and ordinary conditions of govern- ment in our country. Our institutions, framed in the spirit of confidence, in the intelligence and integrity of the people, do not forbid citizens, either individually or associated to- gether, to attack by writing, speech, or any other methods short of physical force, the Con- stitution and the very existence of the Union. Under the shelter of this great liberty, and protected by the laws and usages of the go- vernment they assail, associations have been formed in some of the states of individuals who, pretending to seek only to prevent the spread of the institution of slavery into the present or future inchoate states of the Union, are really inflamed with desire to change the domestic institutions of existing states. To accomplish their objects, they dedicate them- selves to the odious task of depreciating the government organization which stands in their way, and of calumniating, with indiscriminate invective, not only the citizens of particular states, with whose laws they find fault, but all others of their fellow-citizens throughout the country who do not participate with them in their assaults upon the Constitution, framed and adopted by our fathers, a-nd claiming for the privileges it has secured, and the blessings it has conferred, the steady support and grate- ful reverence of their children. They seek an object which they well know to be a revolu- tionary one. They are perfectly aware that the change in the relative condition of the white and black races in the slaveholding states, which they would promote, is beyond their lawful authority ; that to them it is a foreign object; that it cannot be effected by any peaceful instrumentality of theirs ; that for them, and the states of which they are citizens, the only path to its accomplishment is through burning cities, and ravaged fields, and slaughtered populations, and all there is most terrible in foreign, complicated with civil and servile war ; and that the first step in the attempt is the forcible disruption of a country embracing in its broad bosom a degree of liberty, and an amount of individual and pub- lic prosperity, to which there is no parallel in history, and substituting in its place hostile governments, driven at once and inevitably into mutual devastation and fratricidal car- nage, transforming the now peaceful and fe- licitous brotherhood into a vast permanent camp of armed men, like the rival monarchies of Europe and Asia. "Well knowing that such, and such only, are the means and the conse- quences of their plans and purposes, they endeavor to prepare the people of the United States for civil war by doing everything in their power to deprive the Constitution and the laws of moral authority, and to undermine the fabric of the Union by appeals to passion and sectional prejudice, by indoctrinating its people with reciprocal hatred, and by educa- ting them to stand face to face as enemies, rather than shoulder to shoulder as friends. It is by the agency of such unwarrantable interference, foreign and domestic, that the minds of many, otherwise good citizens, have been so inflamed into the passionate condem- nation of the domestic institutions of the southern states, as at length to pass insensi- bly to almost equally passionate hostility to- wards their fellow-citizens of those states, and thus finally to fall into temporary fellowship with the avowed and active enemies of the Constitution. Ardently attached to liberty in the abstract, they do not stop to consider prac- tically how the objects they would attain can be accomplished, nor to reflect that, even if the evil were as' great as they deem it, they have no remedy to apply, and that it can be only aggravated by their violence and uncon- stitutional action. A question which is one of the most difficult of all the problems of social institution, political economy, and statesman- ship, they treat with unreasoning intempe- rance of thought and language. Extremes beget extremes. Violent attack from the North finds its inevitable consequence in the growth of a spirit of angry defiance at the South. Thus, in the progress of events, we had reach- ed that consummation which the voice of the people has now so pointedly rebuked, of the attempt of a portion of the states, by a sec- tional organization and movement, to usurp the control of the government of the United States. Population. Increase of in the United States for 50 Years. 1800 5,305,925 1810 7,239,814 1820 9,638,131 1830 12,866,020 1840 17,069,453 1850 23,191,870 Decennial increase per centum. From 1800 to 1810 36.45 From 1810 to 1820 33.35 From 1820 to 1830 33.26 From 1830 to 1840 32.67 From 1840 to 1850 35.87 The population in the year 1800 being 5,305,925, and in the year 1850, 23,191,876, the increase has been 436 per centum on the pop- ulation of 1800 ; calculating the same ratio of increase for the next fifty years, our population in the year 1900 would be 101,349,498, and in the year 1950 it would reach, if the same in- crease continued, 442,907,296. Presidential Election of 1856. Debate on the, in the House of Eepre- eentatives, Dec. 9, 1856. Mr. S. A. Smith of Tenn. But suppose I am wrong in the idea that the votes cast for PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 185G. 485 Fillmore in tin northern states were opposed to the restoration of the Missouri compromise line; yet those who voted for him in the southern states openly avowed that they were opposed to its restoration. It was so proclaimed by all their speakers on the stump. Now, take the votes which Mr. Buchanan re- ceived and the votes given to Mr. Fillmore in the southern states, and there is a clear ma- jority of more than two hundred thousand against the restoration of the Missouri com- promise line. Yet the gentleman from Ohio, in a very extraordinary manner, asserted that the policy of President Pierce upon that sub- ject has been condemned by a majority of three hundred thousand votes. Mr. Sherman. I desire to propound a ques- tion to the gentleman. Mr. Smith of Tenn. I yield for an inter- rogatory, but for nothing else. Mr. Sherman. Does not the gentleman know that thousands of persons in the north- ern states who were opposed to the repeal of the Missouri compromise voted for Mr. Buch- anan ? Mr. Smith of Tenn. ' I do ; but they were utterly opposed to its restoration. Mr. Sherman. Does he not know that the candidate of the Democratic party in the Lan- caster district of Pennsylvania, in which Mr. Buchanan resides, was one of those here who voted against the repeal of the Missouri com- promise — who condemned it upon the iioor of this House, and upon the hustings 1 Mr. Smith of Tenn. I know that Mr. Ileis- ter, who ran in the Lancaster district, took open and bold ground in the late presiden- tial campaign against the restoration of the Missouri compromise. He said that he had voted against the repeal of that compromise ; but he unequivocally opposed its restoration. Mr. Sherman. Was that gentleman, who thus opposed the restoration of the Missouri compromise, elected in the Wheatland dis- trict? Mr. Smith of Tenn. lie was not ; he was defeated. Perhaps, if he had voted for the repeal, he might have been elected. At the time of the repeal of the Missouri compro- mise he belonged to the Whig party, every northern member of which voted against that repeal. Mr. Davidson. Mr. Speaker, is this dis- cussion in order ? The Speaker. The Chair thinks the dis- cussion is in order on a motion to print and refer the message of the President. Mr. Smith of Tenn. It has been asserted in the South, in almost every presidential canvass and in every state canvass, that the Democratic party of the northern states were unsound on the question of the constitutional rights of the South. We have denied this. We have held that the Democratic party North and the Demo- cratic party South occupied one and the same ground. We took the same position in the iate canvass. The gentleman furnishes, as he supposes, material to the opposition to the Democratic party in the South with which to fight us in future Presidential and state can- vasses. But his attempt will be fruitless. The people of the South now understand the position of all the parties in the northern states, and they look to the Democracy as the only one national in its principles and just in its action to all sections of the Union. It was boldly proclaimed yesterday that Mr. Buchanan was a minority president, and that the administration of President Pierce waa ' condemned by the people. It was alleged that Mr. Buchanan was elected under false pre- tenses. A little investigation would have satisfied the gentleman from Ohio (Mr Camp- bell), that neither of these propositions is true in fact. I am prepared to refute all of them. Mr. Buchanan has clear majorities over all others in enough states to make him president without a single electoral vote from any state which he only carried by a plurality of votes. He has carried by clear majorities sixteen states — fourteen southern, and the states of Pennsylvania and Indiana. Those state3 number one hundred and fifty-two electoral votes, being eleven more than the number re- quired to elect a President. So that if the strength of Fremont and Fillmore and Gerrit Smith were all combined he would have enough votes to elect him. Let us try this in another way, for these are facts which go out to the people. The sixteen states which Mr. Buchanan carried by clear majorities have a population, by the last cen- sus, of 12,381,824. The entire population of the United States, by the same census, is put down at 23,099,578.' Therefore he had a clear majority of the people of the Union in favor of his election. Yet it is said that he is a mi- nority president, and that the principle of the restoration of the Missouri compromise was indorsed by the people. Mr. Fremont carried the six New England states, and Wisconsin and Michigan. These eight states have a population of 3,431,000. The states of New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Ohio, and IoAva, were carried by pluralities. They have a population of over 6,000,000. Mr. Fillmore carried Maryland, with a popu- lation of 583,000. So that Mr. Buchanan and the Democratic party have been indorsed by a large majority of the people of the United States. The total number of votes polled for Buchanan at the recent election may be stated in round numbers at 1,800,000 For Fremont, ....... 1.275,000 For Fillmore, 850,000 Total number of votes, . . . 3,925,000 Buchanan over Fremont, . . . 525,000 Over Fillmore, 950,000 Fremont over Fillmore, .... 425,000 Buchanan's plurality over Fremont is 100,00G more than Fremont's plurality over Fillmore. 486 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Fremont lacks about 1,375,000 of a majority of the whole. Buchanan lacks about 325,000 of a majority of the whole. In all the non-slaveholding states taken to- gether, Fremont is in a minority of more than 200,000. His vote, however, exceeds Buch- anan's in said states about 130,000. It is not true, therefore, that sectionalism has carried the day by a popular majority. The people of the country are opposed to sec- tionalism. The people of the North and of the South are in favor of the Union, and of E reserving the rights of every section of the nion. The Democratic party was successful in the recent contest, even under the adverse circumstances which surrounded it, and elect- ed the president by a large majority of the electoral colleges. The states we have carried contain a majority of the population of the United States. Buchanan and Breckenridge have a large majority of the electoral colleges. Why, then, is it said that the verdict of the people was against the policy of the Demo- cratic party, and that the administration of President Pierce has been condemned by the people? The convention which nominated Mr. Buchanan endorsed President Pierce and his administration. This we all know. The very convention which nominated him endors- ed the Kansas-Nebraska bill, which was the great issue in the presidential canvass. Mr. Barclay. I wish to ask the gentleman whether the resolution endorsing the adminis- tration of President Pierce was published and circulated in the Democratic papers of Penn- sylvania ? Mr. Smith of Tenn. I know nothing about what was published in the Pennsylvania pa- pers. It was contained in the official pro- ceedings of the convention, which were pub- lished all over the country. But, sir, I hope that no Pennsylvanian here will esteem the people of that noble state so ignorant as not to know what occurred in the Cincinnati Con- vention, when its proceedings were public, and published in nearly all the journals of the country. Mr. Washburne of 111. Do I understand the gentleman to state that this resolution endorsing the administration of Pierce was published in all the northern Democratic pa- pers ? Mr. Smith of Tenn. Yes, sir, all the lead- ing ones of which I have any knowledge. Mr. Washburne of 111. As part of the plat- form? Mr. Smith of Tenn. As part of the proceed- ings of the Cincinnati Convention. Mr. Washburne of 111. I undertake to say that it was not published in many of the Illi- nois Democratic papers. Mr. Smith of Tenn. It was published in the northern Democratic papers as part of the proceedings of the convention. Ir was pub- lished in the Boston Post, in the New York Day Book, and in the Pennsylvanian. These »re the leading papersof the North which I saw. Mr. Washburne of 111. In my section of the country it not only was not published in those papers, but they denied that such a re- solution was passed. Mr. Smith of Tenn. I am afraid that my friend's part of the country is a benighted place, anyhow, and should not be surprised if so good a thing would never find its way - into his "beat." Is there a Democratic paper in the gentleman's district ? Mr. Washburne of 111. There are two or three which profess to be, but they have only a very limited circulation. Mr. Smith of Tenn. Do they support the regular Democratic candidates ? Mr. Washburne of 111. There were several Democratic papers in my state which did not publish it. I believe the Freeport Bulletin was one. I will not be certain, however. Mr. Smith of Tenn. That evades the ques- tion, and I turn the gentleman over to his col- league [Mr. Marshall]. Mr. Marshall of 111. With the permission of the gentleman from Tennessee, I wish to ask my colleague a question. I understand my colleague to assert that Democratic papers in Illinois repudiate the resolution of the Cin- cinnati Convention endorsing the administra- tion of Franklin Pierce, and denied that such a resolution had been adopted. This is a grave and sweeping charge, and I wish him to state distinctly what Democratic papers in Illinois he refers to. Mr. Washburne of 111. I am not certain. I cannot state with certainty ; but my impres- sion is that the Freeport Bulletin denied that such a resolution had been adopted at Cincin- nati. Mr. Marshall of 111. I wish to be under- stood distinctly as asserting that no paper in Illinois, recognised as an organ of the Demo- cratic party, and circulating among the peo- ple of that state, ever denied the adoption of such a resolution. On the contrary, the De- mocracy of Illinois everywhere, without eva- sion or equivocation, sustained the platform and proceedings of the Cincinnati Convention, the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and the administration of Franklin Pierce. Any assertion to the contrary cannot be sus- tained by the facts. The position of the De- mocracy of Illinois cannot be mistaken by any one who wishes to understand it. They are in favor of withdrawing this question of slavery entirely from the halls of Congress, and of leaviag its adjustment to the people of each state and territory for themselves, without any interference whatever from with- out. And this just principle, I cannot doubt, will be sustained by a large majority of the people of the northern states, when it is fairly and honestly presented, without misrepre- sentation or evasion by our opponents. Mr. AYashburne of 111. Will the gentleman state to the House whether he knows of hiy own knowledge that the State Register and the Chicago Times, two leading Democratic , PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1856. 487 papers in that state, published the resolution among the proceedings of the convention ? Mr. Marshall of 111. Both of them did. And every paper which undertook to publish the entire proceedings published that among the other resolutions of the convention. Mr. Allen. For the information of my colleague, I can state to him that the Chicago Times, the Springfield Register, and the Quin- cy Herald, three of the leading Democratic papers in the northern part of the state, pub- lished that resolution of the Cincinnati Con vention. Mr. Morrison. I desire to state that all the Democratic papers in the eighth Congressional district of Illinois published that resolution ; and not only the Democratic papers, but the Republican papers in that district published it also, and upon it based their assault upon the Democratic party, because that party had endorsed the administration of Franklin Pierce. Mr. Smith of Tenn. I would ask the gentle- man "from Illinois [Mr. Washburne], if he knows one single Democratic paper in his dis- trict which did not publish it ? Mr. Washburne of 111. I have stated that already. Mr. Smith of Tenn. Is it so to your own knowledge ? Mr. Washburne of 111. My impression is that the Freeport Bulletin is one paper which did not publish that resolution. Mr. Smith of Tenn. The resolutions of the Democratic Convention were public matters, and every Democratic member of Congress was entitled, I believe, to eighty copies, and they were distributed among the Northern and Southern states. I hold in my hand one of the resolutions of that convention, which I will read. It is as follows : — " Resolved, That claiming fellowship with, and desiring the cooperation of, all who regard the preservation of the Union under the Constitution as the paramount issue — and repudiating all sectional parties and platforms concerning domestic slavery, which seek to embroil the states and incite to treason and armed resistance to law in the territories, and whose avowed purposes, if consummated, must end in civil war and disunion — the American Democracy recognise and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws esta- blishing the territories of Kansas and Nebraska as embody- ing the only sound and safe solution of the : slavery question' upon which the great national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in its determined conservatism of the Union — non-interference by Congress with slavery in state and territory, or in the District of Columbia." Upon that platform Mr. Buchanan went be- fore the country — a platform made in the state from which the gentleman comes who yester- day addressed the house, and attempted to show that the Democracy of his state were ignorant of the principles upon which they voted for the Democratic candidate. Mr. Grow. I would ask the gentleman if he, and the party with whom he acted in the South, understand that resolution to mean that previous to the formation of a state constitu- tion the people of a territory could prohibit or permit slavery ? Mr. Smith of Tenn. It is well known that there is a difference of opinion between Northern and Southern gentlemen upon what is called the question of " squatter sovereign- ty." I have never regarded it as of any im- portance. I know that a large portion of the people of the North, of all parties, believe that the people, in a territorial capacity, can ex- clude or admit slavery, because they believe it is an inherent right, and one not conferred by Congress. The people of the South believe that, with some exceptions. There are some in the South who believe that the people have an inherent right to admit or exclude slavery in a territorial capacity, and there are many in the North who believe that the people of a territory have not that power until they form a constitution to ask admission as a state into the Union. I have said I regard this as a question of nc practicability. I have held that in a territorial capacity they had not the right to exclude slavery. Yet the majority of the people in the territory will decide this question, after all. In a territory we must have laws, not to esta- blish, but to protect the institution of slavery ; and if a majority of the people of the territory are opposed to the institution, they will refuse to pass laws for its protection. We have the right to take slaves into the territory without any law establishing the in- stitution. But Southern men must be satisfied that there will be laws for their protection be- fore they will take their property, whether negroes or horses, with them into any state or territory of the United States. Mr. H. Marshall. I would inquire whether Mr. Buchanan in the presidential campaign took the Northern or Southern construction of the question ? Mr. Smith of Tenn. He took the bold and strong ground that the people had the right to settle the question for themselves. He has always taken ground against what the gentle- man terms " squatter sovereignty." Mr. II. Marshall. Do I understand the gentleman to say that Mr. Buchanan holds that the people of a territory, prior to the formation of a state constitution, have the right to exclude slavery ? Mr. Smith of Tenn. Mr. Buchanan has never taken any such ground. I will read the ground he has taken. Mr. H. Marshall. I know what he says in his letter of acceptance. As the Democratic party went into the canvass with two construc- tions of the question, I only wish to know which he took, or whether he took both ? Mr. Smith of Tenn. Here is the ground he assumed. The following resolution is a part of the platform adopted by the Democratic National Convention which nominated Mr. Buchanan, and which he most cordially ap- proved: — "Resolved, That we recognise the right of the people of all the territories, including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the legally and fairly-expressed will of a majority of actual resident, and whenever the number of their in- habitants justifies it, to form a constitution, with or without domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other states." That is the ground taken by Mr. Buchanan 488 THE POLITICAL TEXT -BOOK. and the convention which nominated him. The doctrine that the people of a territory have the right to form their own institutions in their own way is the true and Democratic doc- trine. As to the institution of slavery, they ought not to prohibit or establish it until they form a constitution to ask admission as a state into the Union. If the people of a territory are opposed to the institution of slavery, they will not pass laws to protect it, and it will not go there. If, on the contrary, they are in favor of it, they will pass laws for its protection, and it will go there. It will either go there or not, according to the popular sentiment of the people of the territory. The gentleman from Kentucky himself supported a candidate for the presidency who maintained the doctrine of squatter sovereignty. Mr. II. Marshall. Our candidate did no-fc hold that doctrine. He was opposed to it, as every man who supported him North and South was opposed to it. Mr. Smith of Tenn. How many times did the gentleman's candidate vote for the princi- ples of the Wilmot proviso ? Mr. H. Marshall. Do you understand that to be squatter sovereignty ? Mr. Smith of Tenn. The seventh section of the platform upon which the gentleman fought, the battle contains what the gentleman himself considered an endorsement of the doc- trine of squatter sovereignty — the language of the Nebraska bill. Mr. II. Marshall. Not at all. Mr. Smith of Tenn. Yet the gentleman talks to me of squatter sovereignty, when his candidate has voted for the principle of the Wilmot proviso every time it came before the House when he was a member of this body. He denounced the repeal of the Missouri com- promise, which compromise excluded the gen- tleman and myself from going to the territo- ries of Kansas and Nebraska unless we left our servants behind us. Such are the strange scenes presented to us ; and they go to show more forcibly the truth of what I stated to the gentleman from Ohio, that there is a move- ment on foot to unite all the elements of oppo- sition to the Democratic party in the canvasses which are to come oif in the future. It has been frequently stated that the De- mocratic party north and the Democratic party south take different ground in reference to the affairs of Kansas and the future of that terri- tory. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sher- man] said that the "Democratic party in the north assumed the ground that they were a better free-soil party than the Republican party. Now, I have a right to speak on this subject. I was in the canvass north and south. I spoke in free and slave states. I addressed the people of the gentleman's own state at Cincinnati, together with two others, one from Ohio and one from Connecticut. I spoke in Trenton, N. J., with gentlemen from Pennsylvania and New York, one of them " Prince .John," as he is sometimes called. The sentiments uttered by these gentlemen f were precisely those I entertain and have published to my people. The only difference between us was this : I live in a slave state, in the midst of the institution, and like it; they live in free states, and did not like it ; yet they had the patriotism to stand up to a maintenance of all the guarantees of the Con- stitution for the protection of the institution. This, in my judgment, entitles them to the more credit. Mr. Sherman. The gentleman has said that he has spoken at the same meeting with Prince John Van Buren. Now, I would ask him whether he endorses the doctrines pro- mulgated by that gentleman during the late campaign, and whether they would stand upon the same stump and rehearse them together ? Mr. Smith of Tenn. I most certainly agree in all that Mr. Van Buren said at Trenton in reference to the question of slavery. It was the only one of his speeches I heard. It was published, and gentlemen can see it if they so desire. He there boldly avowed -his oppo- sition to any interference with slavery in the states or territories, and stated that he would support the admission of Kansas into the Uuion as a slave or a free state as the people should determine. Mr. Sherman. My question is not an- swered at all. Do you concur in the opinions expressed by John Van Buren in the last cam- paign in regai'd to the events in Kansas and the policy of the repeal of the Missouri com- promise. Mr. Smith of Tenn. I heard nothing from him which I did not concur in, though I do not remember to have heard him speak of events in Kansas. Mr. Sherman. One further question. I would ask the gentleman if he is aware that not only John Van Buren, but that Wendell Phillips, a well-known Abolitionist, voted with the Democratic party ? Mr. Smith of Tenn. I am authorized to deny that Wendell Phillips acted with the De- mocratic party. Mr. Sherman. I have been informed that he did. Mr. Smith of Tenn. Whether he did or not it is not material. I know that a distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Orr], who occupies a seat upon this floor, and the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Cobb], went into the state of Maine, and that the two gen- tlemen from Georgia, [Mr. Stephens and Mr. Cobb], went to Pennsylvania, and avowed openly and put upon the record their senti- ments, which were the same as are avowed here upon this floor, and the same as those held by the Democratic candidate for the pre- sidency. Now, sir, after all this has occurred — after we have avowed North the same sentiments which we did at home — after we have fought the battle and gained the victory, our oppo- nents come here and endeavor to make out that they would have carried the election if PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1856. 489 it had not been for a fraud practised by the Democratic party. I need pursue this subject no further. The gentleman from Ohio also alluded to the delay in the progress of business in the House, at the commencement of the session, on account of the delegate from Kansas, and I must be allowed to make one remark in refer- ence to what he said upon that subject. No one was here contesting the seat of Gen. Whit- field ; and the objection made by the gentle- man from Pennsylvania [Mr. Grow] to his taking the oath of office was one of the most extraordinary of all the singular proceedings of the so-called Republican party. The action of the Democratic party was not factious. All we desired was a fair vote, and that we determined to have. He told us that all the difficulties under which the country had labored had arisen from the opening of this agitation by the Pre- sident, in the repeal of the Missouri compro- mise line. He told us further, that that act had brought about all the civil war which had existed in Kansas, and then to my astonish- ment, he thanked the President for interposing to put a stop to that civil war, which he said would have been existing yet but for the in- terposition of the general government. I was astonished at that, because the gentleman, and the party with which he acts, took the lead in withholding supplies from the army, with which alone the President could inter- fere and put a stop to that civil war. After doing all he could to prevent the President from having the means which enabled him to terminate that fearful strife, he turns round and thanks him for putting a stop to it. He ought to have thanked the people of the country that we have a President who, when this House failed to furnish supplies to the army of the United States, had the courage to call us back and keep us here until we did furnish him with the means which enabled him to accomplish what has called forth the commendation of the gentlemen from Ohio. The Democratic party, the Republican party, and the American party, now see that the bold stand then taken by the President did save the country from a civil war which might have led to bloodshed outside of the limits of Kansas. But after he has done that, and is thanked therefor, he is denounced for what they consider an innuendo against that party which attempted to stop the supplies for the army, and thus favor their own sectional views against the government. Mr. Grow. How did the Republicans at- tempt to stop the supplies at the last session ? Mr. Smith of Tenn. By attempting to put upon a regular appropriation bill an unconsti- tutional provision. Mr. Grow. They voted all the supplies, but proposed to prevent the President from ;arrying on those disturbances in Kansas. I believe gentlemen upon his side of the House coted against the army appropriation bill. Mr. Smith of Tenn. The mode adopted to stop the supplies was worse than a straight, open, direct vote against any supplies to the army of the United States. An amendment was put upon the bill which was in direct con- flict with one of the provisions of the Repub- lican platform under which Col. Fremont wag nominated. That platform declares, as one of its specifications against the President of the United States, that he had deprived the people of the privilege of bearing arms, while one part of the amendment to the army bill de- prived the people of Kansas from bearing arms. But I must congratulate the gentleman upon a sentiment which he uttered yesterday — not that I approve of it. He says that the only purpose of the Republican party was to prevent the extension of slavery. I would ask the gentleman if he believes in the platform upon which Mr. Fremont was nominated ? Mr. Sherman*. I do. Mr. Smith of Tenn. I will now read a part of that platform : — " Resolved, That with our republican fathers we hold it to be a self-evident truth that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our federal government were to secure those rights to all per- sons within its exclusive jurisdiction ; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establish- ing slavery in the United States by positive legislation, pro- hibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, of any individual or associations of individuals, to Lrive legal t.?.-i-t- anre to slavery in any territory of the United States while the present Constitution shall be maintained." Mr. Sherman. Docs not the gentleman know that the contest will show the only ground taken was that of opposition to the extension of slavery into the territories ? Mr. Smith of Tenn. I will publish the whole resolution. I have read enough, how- ever, to show the exact position that has been taken. They will not only resist the exten- sion of slavery by positive enactment, but "prohibit its existence" in the states and territories. Indeed, I would be glad if the Republicans would abandon these positions in their platform ; but, notwithstanding their professions, we find gentlemen of that party daily acting with the senior member from Ohio, [Mr. Giddings], who, more than once, has expressed sympathy for any uprising of the slaves against their masters. Mr. Giddings. Will the gentleman state the times when, and the places where, the declarations were made to which he alludes ? Mr. Smith of Teun. Upon this .floor and in the Philadelphia Convention. He so ex- pressed himself in his speech on the McLeod case. I do not state the precise language h«, used, but only the substance of his remarks. Mr. Giddings. Stand up to it or back out. Mr. Smith of Tenn. I do not care to get into a controversy with the senior member from Ohio. I am too young for that. I did 490 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. not suppose he would deny my statement, and I will publish the remarks of his to which I refer. I say, Mr. Speaker, as a Southern man, that if a bill were introduced into Congress for the establishment of slavery in any territory, I would vote against it. I do not believe that Congress has power either to prohibit or to establish it. I wish to leave the discussion of that matter to the people of the territory ; yet those who refuse to allow the people of the territory to mould their institutions in their own way, talk of " free Kansas." Kansas was enslaved until the repeal of the Missouri compromise, which compromise deprived the people of the territory of the right to regulate their domestic institutions. Then it became free. The right of the people to govern them- selvesis thegreatelement of freedom. Whether Kansas comes in as a free or as a slave state will make no difference with me in my politi- cal action. Whenever the people decide the question for themselves, whenever they fairly express their will upon the subject, I shall stand ready to support that decision, whatever it may be, whether for slavery or against it. This 1 believe to be the position of the Demo- cratic party. The late election has settled more important questions than any other that has occurred since the organization of the government. 1st. It decides the capacity of the people for self-government. 2d. That when the Union is in danger the Democratic party can triumph over all oppo- sition, because the great element of their or- ganization is equal justice to all sections of the country. The Republican party have not only been defeated in the late election, but have been signally rebuked by the people. Their excuses for defeat will avail nothing. The people, when the trial comes, will always defeat any sectional party in the United States. Prussia. Decision of Court in, in the matter of a slave. Berlin, July 28, 1856. Dear Sir : I have at length succeeded in ob- taining copies of the sentences or judgments given in the Prussian courts in this place, in the matter of the slave Marcellino, against his master, Dr. Hitter, of Rio Janeiro. They are long and intricate, and are perfect models of German legal ratiocination. I have had pre- pared a full translation, and intend to preserve it as a specimen of legal philosophy in the " Fatherland." If it should be desired, I will have a copy made for you. At present I send you such an abstract of the case as will be satisfactory upon the point to which your in- quiry referred. There were various other points raised as to time, jurisdiction, &c, the decision of which is of no kind of importance. About 1853, Dr. Ritter came from Rio to Berlin, having with him Marcellino, who was noted on his passport as his slave. In 1854, Marcellino instituted in the royal city court at Berlin, an action against Dr. Ritter for defamation, because Dr. Ritter asserted that he (Marcellino) was a slave ; and that Dr. Ritter had bought him in Rio in March, 1852; that he had treated him as a slave, and would continue to do so on his return to Rio. Marcellino denied the doctor's right to claim him as a slave, and requested that he should be made to prove it within lour weeks. The court said, in their opinion, " A com- plaint of defamation would have been rejected from the beginning, if the Prussian legislation had declared that slavery — that is to say, property in man — is illegal, as well in regard to foreigners as natives, and that every slave setting foot on Prussian territory is free. In such case, the complaint would have been void in a legal sense without regard to any injury resulting from it ; and an obligation to maintain the charge would have been inad- missible and absurd, because slavery could have no legal existence. But the Prussian legislation has not reprobated the institution of slavery in such a decided manner. On the contrary, section one hundred and ninety- eight of the Prussian common law, 1, p. 5, declares expressly that foreigners, being iy the royal countries only for a time, retain their rights to the slave they have brought with them ; and this provision has nowhere been annulled by late legislation." Having established this, the court then ar- gued that, as the law which secured to foreign- ers the right to the slaves they brought with them, seemed to reserve expressly to the per- son claimed, the right to contest the claim ; that, therefore, the plaintiff's action might be maintained, and that he could compel the defendant, Dr. Ritter, to establish his claim in a given time. The judgment of the court was as follows : — " That the defendant, Dr. Ritter, is obliged to institute a suit in due form on account of the claims he makes to Marcellino, the plain- tiff, as being his property, within a term of nine months, in default whereof he shall be perpetually enjoined against setting up any such claim ; and, in that case, the said Dr. Ritter shall be bound to pay the costs of the process, and to refund those of the other party." From this judgment Dr. Ritter appealed, and insisted that plaintiff's action should have been dismissed with costs. After stating the case and examining the various questions raised as to time, jurisdiction, &c, the court of appeal held that there was no real ground for a suit of defamation, " Although the de- fendant has acknowledged that he asserts to have a right, a property in Marcellino as his slave, and that he has not lost it even in Prussia, by virtue of the prescription (S. 198, 1, 5) of the common law : that foreigners, being in the royal countries only for awhile, retain their rights in the slaves they have brought with them." And the reaum given PRUSSIA. PUBLIC LANDS. 491 why the action could not be maintained was, cot that the action would lie in any case, but that, in this case, there was probable cause for making the charge complained of. And there- fore it was no vaiu or unfounded boast to the in- jury of Marcellino. The court said further: — " The plaintiff has arrived here from Brazil as companion and servant of the defendant, from a country in which slavery exists, and he is noted in the passport of defendant as his slave. He himself declares in his complaint that he has been treated until now as a slave ; and the merchant Ree, from Rio de Jaueiro, whose testimony as a witness has been taken in perpeluam memoriam rei, has testified that Marcellino has there lived in the house of Dr. Ritter as a slave, and that he has been treated as slaves live and are treated according to the custom there, in which respect he mentions the manner of addressing and of going with bare feet. Therefore Dr. Ritter has been un- doubtedly, as regards Marcellino, in possession of the rights of a master over his slave, and this relation has existed still on their arrival at Berlin, and of course it has not been altered by the accidental saying or expression that he would exercise his right in Marcellino, only in a limited sense, during his residence in Europe." Under these circumstances, the court add, Dr. Ritter had sufficient reason to say what he did, or make the claim he did, and it cannot be considered an arbitrary, unfounded boast, even if it should turn out that the right of ownership could not be proved, or if it should be abolished. The complaint must therefore be considered unfounded. The judgment of the court of appeals was that the plaintiff in the action for defamation should be nonsuited, and that each party pay half the costs of the two courts, &c. From this abstract of the two judgments, it will be seen in what the two courts agreed and wherein they differed. 1. Both agreed that, according to Prussian law, slavery might exist in the kingdom — that is to say, a foreigner, coming here for a time, could bring with him his slave, and retain him as a slave while he remained. 2. Both agreed that if no slavery could ex- ist, no action of defamation for claiming a per- son as a slave could lie. 3. Both agreed that an action might be brought for making such a charge — it being degrading and injurious. 4. But on the point, whether the action could be maintained in this case, the courts differed. The first court said the charge had been proved, and that defendant must prove the truth of it in nine months, or lose his pretended rights and pay costs. The second court said the charge had been proved ; but under such circumstances of open claim of right, and of proof, as to show that defendant had probable ground for what he said, and therefore the action would not lie, and he should not be compelled to prove his claim. From the decree of the second court there was an appeal to the highest tribunal, in which it was sought to annul or reverse the judg- ment of the second court ; but only on the ground of defects in form. It was unsuccess- ful, and the judgment remains undisturbed. Although in this case the suit was not brought originally by the slave to recover his freedom, but only to recover damages against Dr. Ritter for claiming him as a slave, and to compel the master to prove his right, yet the law and the principles laid down and reo >g- nised by both courts, show conclusively that the rights of a master, who takes a slave into the Prussian territories for a limited time, are respected, and that the slave has no right to claim his freedom, simply because he is on Prussian soil. I hope you will pardon the delay which has taken place: It has not been my fault. Very respectfully, your ob't servant, P. D. Vrooii. General J. A. Thomas. Public Lands. It is not deemed necessary to go into any great detail in a work of this kind on the sub- ject of the public lands. The question of distribution which engages at this time, to a greater extent, the public attention than any other question connected with the public domain, is fully presented in its favorable and adverse light in the report of Mr. Clay, the extract from a report of Mr. Grundy, and the valuable compilation of mat- ter and argument which characterizes the re- cent address of Mr. Faulkner, of Virginia. The Editor feels that in presenting these admirable papers to the readers of his work, he does exact justice to both sides of the ques- tion. To publish more, would be a task of supererogation. The votes on each one of the land distribution bills, which has been before Congress, will be interesting to those who de- sire to ascertain the position of public men, when the question at former times agitated Congress. The subject of railroad grants also excites some attention. A short sketch of their his- tory is embraced under this heading. Really though, this matter is of no political importance whatever, as public men seem to support and oppose these grants, without regard to party lines. The other details of the land legislation of the country are too dry and of too little inter- est to demand a space herein. Mr. Clay's Report on the Public Lands, April 16, 1832. Mr. Clay, from the Committee on Manufac- tures, made to the Senate the following re- port : — 492 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. The Committee on Manufactures have beeu instructed by the Senate to inquire into the expediency of reducing the price of public lands, and of ceding them to the several states within which they are situated, on reasonable terms. Far from desiring to assume the duty involved in this important inquiry, it is known to the Senate that a majority of the committee was desirous that the subject should have been referred to some other committee. But, as the Senate took a different view of the mat- ter, the Committee on Manufactures have felt bound to acquiesce in its decision ; and, hav- ing bestowed on the whole subject the best consideration in their power, now beg leave to submit to the Senate the result of their in- quiries and reflections. The public lands belonging to the general government are situated, 1st, within the limits of the United States as defined by the treaty of peace which terminated the revolutionary war; and, 2dly, within the boundaries of Louisiana and Florida, as ceded by France and Spain, respectively, to the United States. 1st. At the commencement of the revolu- tionary war, there were in some of the states large bodies of waste and unappropriated lands, principally west of the Alleghany moun- tains, and in the Southern and Southwestern quarters of the Union, whilst in others, of more circumscribed or better defined limits, no such resource existed. During the progress of that war, the question was agitated, What should 'be done with these lands in the event of its successful termination? That question was likely to lead to paralyzing divisions and jeal- ousies. The states not containing any con- siderable quantity of waste lands contended that, as the war was waged with united means, with equal sacrifices, and at the common expense, the waste lands ought to be considered as a common property, and not be exclusively appropriated to the benefit of the particular states within which they happened to be situated. These, however, resisted the claim, upon the ground that each state was entitled to the whole of the territory, whether waste or cultivated, included within its chartered limits. To check the progress of discontent, and arrest the serious consequences to which the agita- tion of this question might lead, Congress re- commended to the states to make liberal ces- sions of the waste and unseated lands to the United States ; and, on the 10th day of Octo- ber, 1780, "Resolved, That the unappropriated lands that may be ceded or relinquished to the United States, by any particular state, pursuant to the recommendation of Congress of the Gth of September last, shall be dis- posed of for the common benefit of the United States," &c. In conformity with the recommendation of Congress, the several states containing waste and uncultivated lands made cessions of them to the United States. The declared object having been substantially the same in all' of these eessions, it is only necessary to advert to the terms of some of them. The first, in order of time, was that of New York, made on the 1st day of March, 1781, by its delegation iu Congress, in pursuance of an act of the legislature of the state ; and the terms' of the deed of cession expressly provide that the ceded lands and territories were to be held, "to and for the only use and benefit of such of the states as are, or shall become, parties to the Articles of Confederation." That of Vir- ginia was the next in date, but by far the most important of all the cessions made by the different states, both as respects the extent and value of the country ceded. It compre- hended the right of that commonwealth to the vast territory northwest of the river Ohio, em- bracing, but not confined to the limits of, the present states of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. The deed of cession was executed by the dele- gation of Virginia in Congress, in 1784, agree- ably to an act of the legislature passed in 1783 ; and, among other conditions, the deed explicitly declares " that all the lands within the territory so ceded to the United States, and not reserved for, or appropriated to, any of the before-mentioned purposes, or disposed of in bounties to the officers and soldiers of the American army, shall be considered a common fund for the use and benefit of such of the United States, as have become, or shall be- come, members of the Confederation or federal alliance of the said states, Virginia inclusive, according to their usual respective pi-opor- tions in the general charge and expenditure, and shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatever." Passing by the ces- sions which other states, prompted by a mag- nanimous spirit of union and patriotism, suc- cessively made, we come to the last in the series, that of the state of Georgia, in 1802. The articles of agreement and cession entered into between that state and the United States, among various other conditions, contained the unequivocal declaration "that all the lands ceded by this agreement to the United States shall, after satisfying the above-mentioned payment of one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to the state of Georgia, and the grants recognised by the preceding condi- tions, be considered as a common fund for the use and benefit of the United States, Georgia included, and shall be faithfully disposed of fur that purpose, and for no other use or pur- pose whatever." Thus, by the clear and positive terms of these acts of cession, was a great, public, national trust created and assumed by the general government. It become solemnly bound to hold and administer the lands ceded, as a common fund for the use and benefit of all the states, and for no other use or purpose whatever. To waste or misapply this fund, or to divert it from the common benefit for which it was conveyed, would be a violation of the trust. The general government has no more power, rightfully, to cede the lands thus acquired to one of the new states, without a fair equivalent, than it could retrocede them PUBLIC LANDS. 493 to the state or states from which they were originally obtained. There would indeed be , much more equity in the latter than in the former case. Nor is the moral responsibility of the general government at all weakened by the consideration that, if it were so unmindful of its duty as to disregard the sacred character of the trust, there might be no competent power, peacefully applied, which could coerce its faithful execution. 2d. The other source whence the public lands of the United States have been acquired, are, 1st, the treaty of Louisiana, concluded in 1802 ; and, secondly, the treaty of Florida, signed in 1809. By the first, all the country west of the Mississippi, and extending to the Pacific Ocean, known as Louisiana, which had successively belonged to France, Spain, and France again, including the island of New Orleans, and stretching east of the Mississippi to the Perdido, was transferred to the United States, in consideration of the sum of fifteen millions of dollars which they stipulated to pay, and have since punctually paid, to France, besides other conditions deemed favor- able and important to her interests. By the treaty of Florida, both the provinces of East and West Florida, whether any portion of them was or was not actually comprehended within the true limits of Louisiana, were ceded to the United States, in consideration, besides other things, of the payment of five millions of dollars, which they agreed to pay, and have since accordingly paid. The large pecuniary considerations thus paid to these two foreign powers were drawn from the treasury of the people of the United States ; and, consequently, the countries for which they formed the equivalents ought to be held and deemed for the common benefit of all the people of the United States. To divert the lands from that general object ; to misapply or sacrifice them ; to squander or improvidently cast them away, would be alike subversive of the interests of the people of the United States, and contrary to the plain dic- tates of the duty by which the general govern- ment stands bound to the states and to the whole people. Before proceeding to perform the specific duty assigned to the committee by the Senate, they had thought it desirable to exhibit some general views of this great national resource. For that purpose, a call, through the Senate, for information, has been made upon the exe- cutive branch of the government. A report has not yet been made ; but, as the committee are desirous of avoiding any delay, not alto- gether indispensable, they have availed them- selves of the report from a secretary of the treasury to the House of Representatives, under date the 6th April, 1832, and of such other information as was accessible to them. From that report, it appears that the aggre- gate of all sums of money which have been expended by the United States in the acquisi- tion of the public lands, including interest on account of the purchases of Louisiana and Florida up to the 30th day of September, 1831, and including also expenses in their sale and management, is §48,077,551.40 ; and that the amount of money received at the treasury for proceeds of the sales of the public lands to the 30th of September, 1831, is 137,272,713.31. The government, therefore, has not been reim- bursed by $10,804,838.90. According to the same report, it appears that the estimated amount of unsold lands, on which the foreign and Indian titles have been extinguished, is 227,293,884 acres, within the limits of the new states and territories ; and that the Indian title remains on 113,577,869 acres within the same limits. That there have been granted to Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Alabama, for internal improvements, 2,187,665 acres; for colleges, academies, and universities, in the new states and territories, the quantity of 508,009 ; for education, being the thirty-sixth part of the public lands appropriated for common schools, the amount Of 7,952,538 acres ; and for seats of government in some of the new states and territories, 21,589 acres. By a report of the commissioner of the general land office, com- municated to Congress with the annual mes- sage of the President of the United States in December, 1827, the total quantity of the public lands, beyond the boundaries of the new states and territories, was estimated to be 750,000,000. The aggregate, therefore, of all the unsold and unappropriated public lands of the United States, surveyed andunsurveyed, on which the Indian title remains or has been extinguished, lying within and without the boundaries of the new states and territories, agreeably to the two reports now referred to, is 1,090,871,753 acres. There has been 138,988,224 acres surveyed, and the quantity only of 19,239,412 acres sold up to the 1st January, 1826. When the information called for shall be received, the subsequent surveys and sales up to the present period will be as- certained. The committee are instructed by the Senate to inquire into the expediency of reducing the price of the public lands, and also of ceding them to the several states in which they are situated, on reasonable terms. The committee will proceed to examine these two subjects of inquiry distinctly, beginning first with that Which relates to a reduction of price. 1. According to the existing mode of selling the public lands, they are first offered at public auction for what they will bring in a free and fair competition among the pur- chasers ; when the public sales cease, the lands remaining unsold may be bought, from time to time, at the established rate of one dollar and a quarter per acre. The price was reduced to that sum in 1820, from $2 per acre, at which it had previously stood from the first establishment of the present system of selling public lands. A leading consideration with Congress, in the reduction of the price, was that of substituting cash sales for the credits which had been before allowed, and which, on many accounts, it was deemed expedient to abolish. A further reduction of the price, if called for by the public interests, must be re- 494 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. quired, either, 1st, Because the government now demands more than a fair price for the public lands ; or, 2dly, Because the existing price retards, injuriously, the settlement and population of the new states and territories. These suggestions deserve separate and serious considerations. 1. The committee possess no means of de- termining the exact value of all the public lands now in market ; nor is it material, at the present time, that the precise worth of each township or section should be accurately known. It is presumable that a considerable portion of the immense quantity offered to sale, or held by the United States, would not now command, and may not be intrinsically worth, the minimum price fixed by law ; on the other hand, it is certain that a large part is worth more. If there could be a discrimination made, and the government had any motive to hasten the sales beyond the regular demands of the population, it might be proper to estab- lish different rates, according to the classes of land ; but the government, having no induce- ment to such acceleration, has hitherto pro- ceeded on the liberal policy of establishing a moderate price, and by subdivisions of the sections, so as to accommodate the poorer citizens, has placed the acquisition of a home within the reach of every industrious man. For $100 any one may now purchase eighty, or for §50, forty acres of first-rate land, yield- ing, with proper cultivation, from fifty to eighty bushels of Indian corn per acre, or other equi- valent crops. There is no more satisfactory criterion of the fairness of the price of an article than that arising from the briskness of sales when it is offered in the market. On applying this rule, the conclusion would seem to be irresistible, that the established price is not too high. The amount of the sales in the year 1828, was §1,018,308.75 ; in 1829, $1,517,175.13 ; in 1830, 82,329,356.14: and, during the year 1831, £3,000,000. And the Secretary of the Trea- sury observes in his annual report, at the com- mencement of this session, that " the receipts from the public lands, during the present year, it will be perceived, have likewise exceeded the estimates, and indeed have gone beyond all former example. It is believed that, not- withstanding the large amount of scrip and forfeited land stock that may still be absorbed in payment for lands, yet, if the surveys now projected be completed, the receipts from this source of revenue will not fall greatly below those of the present year." And he estimates the receipts during the current year, from this source, at three millions of dollars. It is in- credible to suppose that the amount of sales would have risen to so large a sum if the price had been unreasonably high. The committee are aware that the annual receipts may be expected to fluctuate, as fresh lands, in favorite districts, are brought into market, and accord- ing to the activity or sluggishness of emigra- tion in different years. Against any considerable reduction of the price of the public lands, unless it be neces- sary to a more rapid population of the new states, which will be hereafter examined, there are weighty, if not decisive considerations. 1. The government is the proprietor of much the largest quantity of the unseated lands of the United States. What it has in market, bears a large proportion to the whole of the occupied lands within their limits. If a considerable quantity of any article, land or any commo- dity whatever, is in market, the price at which it is sold will affect, in some degree, the value of the whole of that article, whether exposed to sale or not. The influence of a reduction of the price of the public lands would proba- bly be felt throughout the Union ; certainly in all the Western States, and most in those which contain, or are nearest to, the public lands. There ought to be the most cogent and conclusive reasons for adopting a mea- sure which might seriously impair the value of the property of the yeomanry of the country. Whilst it is decidedly the most important class in the community, most patient, patriotic, and acquiescent in whatever public policy is pur- sued, it is unable or unwilling to resort to those means of union and concert which other interests employ to make themselves heard and respected. Government should, therefore, feel itself constantly bound to guard, with sedulous care, the rights and welfare of the great body of our yeomanry. Would it be just towards those who have heretofore purchased public lands at higher prices, to say nothing as to the residue of the agricultural interest of the United States, to make such a reduction, and thereby impair the value of their property? Ought not any such plan of reduction, if adopted, to be accompanied with compensa- tion for the injury which they would inevita- bly sustain ? 2. A material reduction of price would ex- cite 'and stimulate the spirit of speculation, now dormant, and probably lead to a transfer of vast quantities of the public domain from the control of government to the hands of the speculator. At the existing price, and with such extensive districts as the public con- stantly offers in the market, there is no great temptation to speculation. The demand is regular, keeping pace with the progress of emigration, and is supplied on known and moderate terms. If the price were much re- duced, the strongest incentives to engrossment of the better lands would be presented to large capitalists ; and the emigrant, instead of being able to purchase from his own government upon uniform and established conditions, might be compelled to give much .higher and more fluctuating prices to the. speculator. An illustration of this effect is afforded by the military bounty lands granted during the late war. Thrown into market at prices below the government rate, they notoriously became an object of speculation, and have principally fall- en into the hands of speculators, retarding the settlement of the districts which include them. 3. The greatest emigration that is believed PUBLIC LANDS. 405 now to take place from any of the states, is from Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The effects of a material reduction in the price of the public lands would be, first, to lessen the value of real estate in those three states ; secondly, to diminish their interest in the public domain, as a common fund for the benefit of all the states ; and, thirdly, to offer what would operate as a bounty to further emigration from those states, occasioning more and more lands, situated within them, to be thrown into the market, thereby not only less- ening the value of their lands, but draining them both of their population and currency. And, lastly, 'Congress has, within a few years, made large and liberal grants of the pub- lic lands to several states. To Ohio, 922,937 acres ; to Indiana, 384,728 acres ; to Illinois, 480,000 acres; and to Alabama, 400,000 acres; amounting, together, to 2,187,065 acres. Considerable portions of these lands yet remain unsold. The reduction of the price of the public lands, generally, would impair the value of those grants, as well as injuriously affect that of the lands which have been sold in virtue of them. On the other hand, it is inferred and con- tended, from the large amount of public land remaining unsold, after having been so long exposed to sale, that the price at which it is held is too high. But this apparent tardiness is satisfactorily explained by the immense quantity of public lands which have been put into the market by government. It is well known that the new states have constantly and urgently pressed the extinction of the Indian title upon lands within their respec- tive limits ; and, after its extinction, that they should be brought into market as rapidly as practicable. The liberal policy of the general government, coinciding with the wishes of the new states, has prompted it to satisfy the wants of emigrants from every part of the Union, by exhibiting vast districts of land for sale in all the states and territories, thus offering every variety of climate and situation to the free choice of settlers. From these causes, it has resulted that the power of emigration has been totally incompetent to absorb the immense bodies of waste lands offered in the market. For the capacity to purchase is, after all, limited by the emigration, and the progres- sive increase of population. If the quantity thrown into the market had been quadrupled, the probability is that there would not have been much more annually sold than actually has been. With such extensive fields for se- lection before them, purchasers, embarrassed as to the choice which they should make, are sometimes probably influenced by caprice or accidental causes. Whilst the better lands remain, those of secondary value will not be purchased. A judicious fanner or planter would sooner give one dollar and a quarter per acre for first rate land, than receive as a donation land of inferior quality, if he were compelled to settle upon it. It is also contended that the price of the public land is a tax, and that, at a period when, in consequence of the payment of the public debt and the financial prosperity of the United States, the government is enabled to dispense with revenue, that tax ought to be reduced, and the revenue arising from the sales be thereby diminished. In the first place, it is to be observed, that if, as has been before stated, the reduction of the price of the public lands should stimulate speculation, the consequence would probably be, at least for some years, an augmentation of the revenue from that source. Should it have the effect of speculation supposed, it would probably also retard the settlement of the new states, by placing the lands engrossed by specula- tors, in anticipation of increased value, be- yond the reach of emigrants. If it were true that the price demanded by government ope- rated as a tax, the question would still remain whether that price exceeded the fair value of the land which emigrants are in the habit of purchasing ; and, if it did not, there would be no just ground for its' reduction. And assum- ing it to be a tax, it might be proper to inquire who pays the tax, the new or the old states — the states that send out, or the states that re- ceive the emigrants. In the next place, re- garded as a tax, those who have heretofore made purchases at the higher rate, have already paid the tax, and are as much de- serving the equitable consideration of the government as those who might hereafter be disposed to purchase at the reduced rate. It is proper to add, that, by the repeal and re- duction contemplated of duties upon articles of foreign import, subsequent purchasers of the public lands, as far as they are consumers of those articles, will share in the general re- lief, and will consequently be enabled to apply more of their means to the purchase of land. But in no reasonable sense can the sale of the public lands be considered as the imposition of a tax. The government, in their disposal, acts as a trustee for the whole people of the United States, and, in that character, holds and offers them in the market. Those who want them buy them, because it is their inclination to buy them. There is no compulsion in the case. The purchase is perfectly voluntary, like that of any other article which is offered in the market. In making it, the purchaser looks exclusively to his own interest. The mo- tive of augmenting the public revenue, or any other motive than that of his own advanta^ ", never enters into his consideration. The go- vernment, therefore, stands to the purchaser in the relation merely of the vendor of a subject, which the purchaser's own welfare prompts him to acquire ; and, in this respect, does not vary from the relation which exists between any private vendor of waste lands, and the purchaser from him. Nor does the use to which the government may think proper to apply the proceeds of the sale of the public lands give the smallest strength to the idea that the purchase of them is tantamount to the payment of a tax. The government may em- 496 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ploy those proceeds as a part of its ordinary rovenue, or it may apply them in any other manner, consistent with the Constitution, which it deems proper. Revenue and taxa- tion are not always relative terms. There may be revenue without taxation. There may be taxation without revenue. There may be sources of established revenue which not only do not imply, but which supersede taxation. Is the consideration paid for land to a private individual to be deemed a tax, because that individual may happen to use it as a part of his income ? 2. Is the reduction of the price of the pub- lic lands necessary to accelerate the settle- ment and population of the states within which they are situated? Those states are Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. If their growth has been unreasonably slow and tardy, we may conclude that some fresh impulse, such as that under consideration, is needed. Prior to the treaty of Greenville, concluded in 1795, there were but few settlements within the limits of the present state of Ohio. Princi- pally since that period, that is, within a term of about forty years, that state, from a wilder- ness, the haunt of savages and wild beasts, has risen into a powerful commonwealth, con- taining, at this time, a population of a mil- lion of souls, and holding the third or fourth rank among the largest states in the Union. During the greater part of that term, the mi- nimum price of the public lands was two dol- lars per acre ; and of the large quantity with which the settlement of that state commenced, there only remain to be sold 5,586,834 acres. The aggregate population of the United States, exclusive of the territories, increased from the year 1820 to 1830 from 9,579,873 to 12,716,697. The rate of the increase during the whole term of ten years, including a frac- tion, may be stated at thirty-three per cent. The principle of population is presumed to have full scope generally in all parts of the United States. Any state, therefore, which has exceeded or fallen short of that rate, may be fairly assumed to have gained or lost, by emigration, nearly tc the extent of the excess or deficiency. From a table accompanying this report, (marked B), the Senate will see presented various interesting views of the pro- gress of population in the several states. In that table, it will be seen that each of the eleven states exceeded, and each of thirteen fell short of an increase at the average rate of thirty-three per cent. The greatest increase, during the term, was in the state of Illinois, where it was one hundred and eighty-five per cent., or at the rate of eighteen and a half per cent, per annum ; and the least was in Dela- ware, where it was less than six per cent. The seven states embracing the public lands had a population, in 1820, of 1,207,165, and, in 1830, 2,238,802, exhibiting an average in- crease of eighty-five per cent. The seventeen etates containing no part of the public lands had a population, in 1820, of 8,372,707, and, in 1830, of 10,477,895, presenting an average increase of only twenty-five per cent. The thirteen states, whose increase, according to the table, was below thirty-three per cent., contained, in 1820, a population of 5,939,759, and, in 1830, of 6,966,600, exhibiting an ave- rage increase of only seventeen per cent. The increase of the seven new states, upon a capi- tal which, at the commencement of the term, was 1,207,165, has been greater than that of the thirteen, whose capital then was 5,939,759. In three of the eleven states (Tennessee, Georgia, and Maine), whose population ex- ceeded the average increase of thirty-three per cent., there were public lands belonging to those states ; and in the fourth (New York) the excess is probably attributable to the ra- pid growth of the city of New York, to waste lands in the western part of that state, and to the great development of its vast resources by means of extensive internal improvements. These authentic views of the progress of population in the seven new states demon- strate that it is most rapid and gratifying ; that it needs no such additional stimulus as a further reduction in the price of the public lands ; and that, by preserving and perse- vering in the established system for selling them, the day is near at hand when those states, now respectable, may become great and powerful members of the confederacy. Complaints exist in the new states, that large bodies of lands, in their respective terri- tories, being owned by the general govern- ment, are exempt from taxation to meet the ordinary expenses of the state governments, and other local charges ; that this exemption continues for five years after the sale of any particular tract ; and that land being the prin- cipal source of the revenue of those states, an undue share of the burden of sustaining the expenses of the state governments falls upon the resident population. To all these com- plaints, it may be answered that, by volun- tary compacts between the new states re- spectively, and the general government, five per cent, of the nett proceeds of all the sales of the public lands included within their limits are appropriated for internal improve- ments leading to or within those states ; that a section of land in each township, or one- thirty-sixth part of the whole of the public lands embraced within their respective boun- daries, has been reserved for purposes of edu- cation ; and that the policy of the general government has been uniformly marked by great liberality towards the new states, in making various and some very extensive grants of the public lands for local purposes. But, in accordance with the same spirit of liberality, the committee would recommend, an appropriation to each of the seven states referred to, of a further sum of ten per cent on the nett proceeds of the sales of that part of the public land which lies within it, for ob- jects of internal improvement in their re- spective limits. The tendency of such an appropriation will be not only to benefit those PUBLIC LANDS. 497 states, but to enhance the value of the public lands remaining to be Bold. II. The committee have now to proceed to the other branch of the inquiry which they were required to make, that of the expediency of ceding the public lands to the several states in which they are situated, on reasonable terms. The inquiry comprehends, in its con- sequences, a cession of the whole public do- main of the United States, whether lying within or beyond the limits of the present states and territories. For although, in the terms of the inquiry, it is limited to the new states, cessions to them would certainly be followed by similar cessions to other new states, as they may, from time to time, be ad- mitted into the Union. Three of the present territories have nearly attained the requisite population entitling them to be received as members of the confederacy, and they shortly will be admitted. Congress could not con- sistently avoid ceding to them the public lands within their limits, after having made such cessions to the other states. The com- pact with the state of Ohio formed the model of compacts with all the other new states as they were successively admitted. Whether the question of a transfer of the public lands be considered in the limited or more extensive view of it which has been stated, it is one of the highest importance, and demanding the most deliberate consideration. From the statements, founded on official re- ports, made in the preceding part of this re- port, it has been seen that the quantity of unsold and unappropriated lands lying within the limits of the new states and territories is 340,871,753 acres, and the quantity beyond those limits is 750,000,000, presenting an ag- gregate of 1,090,871,753 acres. It is difficult to conceive a question of greater magnitude than that of relinquishing this immense amount of national property. Estimating its value according to the minimum price, it pre- sents the enormous sum of £1,363,589,691. If it be said that a large portion of it will never command that price, it is to be observed, on the other hand, that, as fresh lands are brought into market and exposed to sale at public auction, many of them sell at prices exceeding one dollar and a quarter per acre. Supposing the public lands to be worth, on the average, one-half of the minimum price, they would still present the immense sum of $681,794,845. The least favorable view which can be taken of them is, that of considering ' them a capital yielding, at present, an income of three millions of dollars annually. Assum- ing the ordinary rate of six per cent, interest per annum as the standard to ascertain the amount of that capital, it would be fifty mil- lions of dollars. But this income has been progressively increasing. The average in- crease during the six last years has been at the rate of twenty-three per cent, per annum. Supposing it to continue in the same ratio, at the end of a little more than four years the income would be doubled, and make the capi- 32 tal one hundred millions dollars Whilst the population of the United States increases only three per cent, per annum, the increase of the demand for the public lands is at the rate of twenty-three per cent., furnishing an- other evidence that the progress of emigra- tion, and the activity of sales, have not bei checked by the price demanded by govern- ment. In whatever light, therefore, this great sub ject is viewed, the transfer of the public lands from the whole people of the United States, fur wlmse benefit they are now held, to the people inhabiting the new states, must be re- garded as the most momentous measure ever presented to the consideration of Congress. If such a measure could find any justification, it must arise out of some radical and incu- rable defect in the construction of the general government properly to administer the public domain. But the existence of any such defect is contradicted by the most successful experi- ence. No branch of the public service has evinced more system, uniformity, and wisdom, or given more general satisfaction, than that of the administration of the public lands. If the proposed cession to the new states were to be made at a fair price, such as the general government could obtain from indi- vidual purchasers under the present system, there would be no motive for it, unless the new states are more competent to dispose of the public lands than the common government. They are now sold under one uniform plan, regulated and controlled by a single legislative authority, and the practical operation is per- fectly understood. If they were transferred to the new states, the subsequent disposition would be according to laws emanating from various legislative sources. Competition would probably arise between the new states in the terms which they would offer to purchasers, Each state would be desirous of inviting the greatest number of emigrants, not only for the laudable purpose of populating rapidly its own territories, but Avith the view to the acquisi- tion of funds to enable it to fulfil its engage- ments to the general government. Collisions between the states would probably arise, and their injurious consequences may be ima- gined. A spirit of hazardous speculation would be engendered. Various schemes in the new states would be put afloat to sell or divide the public lands. Companies and com- binations would be formed in this country, if not in foreign countries, presenting gigantic and tempting, but delusive projects; and the history of legislation, in some of the states of the Union, admonishes us that a too ready ear is sometimes given by a majority, in a legislative assembly, to such projects. A decisive objection to such a transfer for a fair equivalent, is, that it would establish a new and dangerous relation between the gene- ral government and the new states. In abol- ishing the credit which had been allowed to purchasers of the public lands prior to the year 1820, Congress was principally governed 498 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. by the consideration of the inexpediency and hazard of accumulating a large amount of debt in the new states, all bordering on each other. Such an accumulation was deemed unwise and unsafe. It presented a new bond of interest, of sympathy, and of union, par- tially operating to the possible prejudice of the common bond of the whole Union. But that debt was a debt due from individuals, and it was attended with this encouraging se- curity, that purchasers, as they successively completed the payments for their lands, would naturally be disposed to aid the government in enforcing payment from delinquents. The project which the committee are now consider- ing is, to sell to the states, in their sovereign character, and, consequently, to render them public debtors to the general government to an immense amount. This would inevitably, create between the debtor states a common feeling, and a common interest, distinct from the rest of the Union. Those states are all in the western and southwestern quarter of the Union, remotest from the centre of federal power. The debt would be felt as a load from which they would constantly be desirous to relieve themselves ; and it would operate as a strong temptation, weakening, if not dan- gerous to the existing confederacy. The com- mittee have the most animating hopes, and the greatest confidence in the strength and power and durability of our happy Union ; and the attachment and warm affection of every member of the confederacy cannot be doubted ; but we have authority higher than human, for the instruction, that it is wise to avoid all temptation. In the state of Illinois, with a population, at the last census, of 157,445, there are 31,395,669 acres of public land, including that part on which the Indian title remains to be extin- guished. If we suppose it to be worth only half the minimum price, it would amount to $19,622,480. How would that state be able to pay such an enormous debt ? How could it pay even the annual interest upon it ? Supposing the debtor states to fail to com- ply with their engagements, in what mode could they be enforced by the general govern- ment? In treaties between ir.4ependent na- tions, the ultimate remedy is well known. The apprehension of an appeal to thht, remedy, seconding the sense of justice and the regard for character which prevail among Christian and civilized nations, constitutes, generally, adequate security for the performance of na- tional compacts. But this last remedy would be totally inadmissible in case of delinquency on the part of the debtor states. The rela- tions between the general government and the members of the confederacy are happily those of peace, friendship, and fraternity, and ex- clude all idea of force and war. Could the judiciary coerce the debtor states? On what could their process operate? Could the pro- fierty of innocent citizens, residing within the units of those states, be justly seized by the general government, and held responsible for debts contracted by the states themselves in their sovereign character ? If a mortgage upon the lands ceded were retained, that mortgage would prevent or retard subsequent sales by the states ; and if individuals bought, subject to the encumbrance, a parental government could never resort to the painful measure of disturbing them in their possessions. Delinquency on the part of the debtor states would be inevitable, and there would be no effectual remedy for the delinquency. They would come again and again to Congress, soli- citing time and indulgence, until, finding the weight of the debt intolerable, Congress, wea- ried by reiterated applications for relief, would finally resolve to spunge the debt ; or, if Con- gress attempted to enforce its payment, an- other and a worse alternative would be em- braced. If the proposed cession be made for a price merely nominal, it would be contrary to the express conditions of the original cessions from primitive states to Congress, and contrary to the obligations' which the general government stands under to the whole people of these United States, arising out of the fact that the acquisitions of Louisiana and Florida, and from Georgia, were obtained at a great ex- pense, borne from the common treasure, and incurred for the common benefit. Such a gra- tuitous cession could not be made without a positive violation of a solemn trust, and with- out manifest injustice to the old states. And its inequality among the new states would be as marked as its injustice to the old would be indefensible. Thus Missouri, with a popula- tion of 140,455, would acquire 38,292,151 acres ; and the state of Ohio, with a popula- tion of 935,884, would obtain only 5,586,834 acres. Supposing a division of the land among the citizens of those two states, re- spectively, the citizen of Ohio would obtain less than six acres for his share, and the citi- zen of Missouri upwards of two hundred and seventy-two acres as his proportion. Upon full and thorough consideration, the committee have come to the conclusion that it is inexpedient either to reduce the price of the public lands, 6*r to cede them to the new states. They believe, on the contrary, that sound policy coincides with the duty which has devolved on the general government to the whole of the states, and the whole of the people of the Union, and enjoins the preser- vation of the existing system, as having been triea and approved after long and triumphant experience. But, in consequence of the ex- traordinary financial prosperity which the United States enjoy, the question merits ex- amination, whether, whilst the general govern- ment steadily retains the control of this great national resource in its own hands, after the payment of the public debt, the proceeds of the sales of the public lands, no longer needed to meet the ordinary expenses of government, may not be beneficially appropriated to some other objects for a limited time. Governments, no more than individuals, FUBLIC LANDS. 499 should be seduced or intoxicated by prospe- rity, however flattering or great it may be. The country now happily enjoys it in a most unexampled degree. We have abundant rea- son to be grateful for the blessings of peace and plenty, and freedom from debt. But we must be forgetful of all history and experi- ence if we indulge the delusive hope that we shall always be exempt from calamity and re- verses. Seasons of national adversity, of suf- fering, and of war, will assuredly come. A wise government should expect and provide for them. Instead of wasting or squandering its resources in a period of general prospe- rity, it should husband and cherish them for those times of trial and difficulty which, in the dispensations of Providence, may be cer- tainly anticipated. Entertaining these views, and, as the proceeds of the sales of the public lands are not wanted for ordinary revenue, which will be abundantly supplied from the imposts, the committee respectfully recom- mend that an appropriation of them be made to some other purpose, for a limited time, subject to be resumed in the contingency of war. Should such an event unfortunately occur, the fund may be withdrawn from its peaceful destination, and applied, in aid of other means, to the vigorous prosecution of the war, and, afterwards, to the payment of any debt which may be contracted in conse- quence of its existence. And, when peace shall be again restored, and the debt of the new war shall have been extinguished, the fund may be again appropriated to some fit object other than that of the ordinary ex- penses of government. Thus may this great resource be preserved, and rendered subser- vient, in peace and in war, to the common benefit of all the states composing the Union. The inquiry remains, what ought to be the specific application of the fund under the re- striction stated ? After deducting the ten per cent, proposed to be set apart for the new states, a portion of the committee would have preferred that the residue should be applied to the objects of internal improvement, and colonization of the free blacks, under the di- rection of the general government. But a majority of the committee believes it better, as an alternative for the scheme of cession to new states, and as being most likely to give general satisfaction, that the residue be di- vided among the twenty-four states, according to their federal representative population, to be applied to education, internal improvement, or colonization, or to the redemption of any existing debt contracted for internal improve- ments, as each state, judging for itself, shall deem most conformable with its own interests and policy. Assuming the annual product of the sales of the public lands to be three mil- lions of dollars, the table hereto annexed, marked C, shows what each state would be entitled to receive, according to the principle of division which has been stated. In order 'hat the propriety of the proposed appropria- tion should again, at a day not very far dis- tant, be brought under the review of Con- gress, the committee would recommend that it be limited to a period of five years, subject to the condition of war not breaking out in the mean time. By an appropriation so re- stricted as to time, each state will be enabled to estimate the probable extent of its propor- tion, and to adapt its measures of education, improvement, or colonization, or extinction of existing debt, accordingly. In conformity with the views and princi- ples which the committee have now submitted, they beg leave to report the accompanying bill, entitled "An act to appropriate, for a limited time, the proceeds of the sales of the public lands of the United States." Extract from the Report of Mr. Grundy, of Tennessee, made January 31, 1840 : " But if the proceeds of land sales, and the income of the government from other sources, are to be considered different funds, and one can be applied to purposes to which the other cannot, what will be the practical result? That the United States can purchase lands with the revenue raised from duties on im- ports, has never been doubted. Out of those means has Louisiana and the Floridas been paid for, and numerous purchases made of the Indians. Can it be maintained that the mo- ney with which these purchases were made could not be distributed among the states for the objects contemplated, but that the money arising from the s»les of the same property may be ? Can the nature of the public money be altered by being invested in lands, and then replaced from the proceeds of sales ? If so, the United States have only to convert their money into lands, and their lands into money again, to acquire a power over the public reve- nue which is not given them by the Constitu- tion. At this moment a portion of the revenue arising from customs, is, in fact, invested in public lands. If the cost of Louisiana and the Floridas be included, the public lands have not refunded the amount paid for their acqui- sition and preparation for sale, by a large amount ; and if the principle were now intro- duced, that the proceeds of land sales may be given to the states, although the money paid for them could not, we should see a gross in- consistency adopted in the practice of our go- vernment, the results of which it would be impossible to foresee. In every view we take of the subject, we are satisfied that there is no difference between the power which Congress possesses over the revenue which arises from customs and the money received from the sales of the public lands ; and to construe a difference out of the language used in the com- pact of cession, would be to defeat the very object for which that language was employed. The whole scope and object of the conditions annexed to the cessions were evidently to make the lands common property, and their pro- ceeds a revenue to be applied to general pur- poses, precisely like that derived from all other 500 THE TOLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. sources. To make these cessions so read as to defeat the great object they had in view, would not be favorable to the faith of com- pacts, or the preservation of constitutional restraints. "We, therefore, conclude that the applica- tion of the moneys arising from the sales of public lands to the payment of said debts, or their distribution among the states for such purposes, is as unjust, inexpedient, and un- constitutional as a similar application of any other portion of the public revenue; and, moreover, in direct violation of the terms and spirit of the compacts of cession. " Nor can such a measure be palliated by the plea that there is, or is likely to be, a sur- plus in the treasury, over and above what is wanted for the ordinary purposes of the gene- ral government. On the contrary, the pro- gressive reduction of the tariff of duties now in operation will so reduce the revenue as to make the proceeds of the public lands neces- sary to meet the wants of the most economical administration ; and if they are diverted from their present objects, their place must be sup- plied by an increased tariff, or a tax directly on the people ; and what is the difference be- tween a tax to raise money for distribution, and a tax to enable the government to distri- bute, or to supply the place of moneys distri- buted? The practical effect is precisely the same. If three or four millions of dollars — the proceeds of the sales of the public lands — be annually distributed to the states, and thereby a necessity be created, as no doubt it will be, to increase the tariff to that amount, is it not the same thing as though the tariff were increased for the purpose of distribution ? And by this operation what is gained ? The general government has given away to the states three or four millions of dollars annually, and has taxed the people to the same amount, to make up the deficit in its own revenue. " Your committee cannot refrain from no- ticing some of the consequences which must follow from the measure proposed, with regard to the public lands. It must retard the set- tlement of the new states; it must operate against the allowance of pre-emption rights ; against the graduation of the price of the public lands, and every other indulgence which a liberal spirit towards the new states might dictate and recommend. " It is believed that a different policy ought to be pursued ; that the strength and wealth of the nation consist, not so much in the mo- ney to be exacted as the price of the public lands, as in the increase of its population and the cultivation of its soil. " Your committee cannot but look with dis- trust and apprehension upon every scheme calculated to disturb the balance of power, as constitutionally and practically adjusted be- tween the state and general governments. Each state reserved to itself, in the formation of the Constitution, an unrestricted power of taxation, competent to supply them with the means of executing all their constitutional powers. At the same time the power of taxa- tion was conferred upon the general govern- ment, merely as the means of enabling it to execute its few delegated powers. So far the system has worked well ; and each govern- ment has provided for itself. Why shall we not permit them to travel quietly on in the paths of safety and peace ? Is there any dan- ger in the beaten track, or any certain good to be obtained by departing from it? Whe- ther taxes are laid by the states or by the United States, they are still taxes on the peo- ple ; whether the states or the United States be in debt, it is still the debt of the people. To throw the burden from one sovereignty upon another will not pay the debt, nor de- tract from its oppressiveness upon the people, except so far as it may produce the unjust re- sult of compelling one part of the people to pay the debts of another. If it produce the further effect of lessening the responsibility of the representative to his constituency, in the contracting of debts and laying of taxes, it should for that reason alone be opposed by every friend of republican government. " All is well as it is. The intelligence and energy of the people, in the various states, are competent to extricate them from present em- barrassments, and guard against their recur- rence by means much more cheap and safe than by* deranging our system of government and entailing a debt on the United States, calculated to oppress and impoverish our chil- dren and our children's children. The states did not come into the Union with the expecta- tion to be taxed for the payment of the debts of their sister states, having agreed only to contribute what may be necessary for the legitimate purposes of the general government. To compel them to pay the debts of their neighbors, contracted for internal improve- ments or any other object of a state character, is to impose upon them burdens not antici- pated, and to which they have never, by any concession, agreed to submit." Address of the Hon. Chas. Jas. Faulkner of Virginia, to his Constituents, against Distribution. Land System of the United States, iciih its general results upon the prosperity and hap- piness of the people. — " At an early period of our history Congress adopted a system for sur- veying and selling the public lands, devised with much care and great deliberation, the ad- vantages of which have been fully tested In- experience. According to that system, all public lands offered for sale are previously accurately surveyed by skilful surveyors in ranges of townships of six miles square each, which townships are subdivided into thirty-six equal divisions or square miles, called sections, by lines crossing each other at right angles, and generally containing G40 acres. These sec- tions are again divided into quarters, and prior to the year 1820 no person could purchase a less quantity than a quarter. In that year a PUBLIC LANDS. 501 provision was made for the further division of the sections into eighths, thereby allowing a purchaser to buy only eighty acres if he wished to purchase no more. Since that time, further to extend accommodation to the pur- chasers of the public lands, and especially to the poorer classes, the sections have again been divided into sixteenths, admitting a purchase of only forty acres. " This uniform system of surveying and dividing the public lands applies to all the states and territories within which they are situated. Its great advantages are manifest. It insures perfect security of title and cer- tainty of boundary, and consequently avoids those perplexing land disputes — the worst of all species of litigation — the distressing effects of which have been fatally experienced in some of the states. But these are not the only advantages, great as they unquestionably are. The system lays the foundation of useful civil institutions, the benefit of which is not con- fined to the present generation, but will be transmitted to posterity." Under the operation of the system thus briefly sketched, the progress of the settlement and population of the public domain of the United States has been altogether unexampled. Many of our ablest statesmen have por- trayed, in strains of the highest eloquence, the wonderful results of this system upon the com- fort and happiness of the individual citizen, as well as upon the general growth and pros- perity of the republic. Mr. Webster thus speaks of it : — "Sir. I maintain Congress has acted wisely, and done its duty on this subject. I hope it will continue to do it. Departing from the original idea, so soon as it was found practicable and convenient, of selling by townships, Congress ha« disposed of the soil in smaller and still smaller portions, till at length it sells in parcels of no more than eighty acres, thus putting it into the power of every man in the country, however poor, but who has health and strength, to become a freehold! r if he desires — not of barren acres, but of rich and fertile soil. The government has performed all the conditions of the grant. While it has regarded the public lands as a common fund, and has sought to make what reasonably could be made of them as a source of revenue. it has also applied its best wisdom to sell and settle them as fast and as happily as possible; and, whensoever numbers would warrant it, each territory has been successively admitted into the Union, with all the rights of au independ- ent stale." Mr. Clay, in a strain of still more fervent oratory, thus descants upon the system : — "And if there be in the operations of this government one which more than auy other displays consummate wisdom aud statesmanship, it is that system by which the public lauds have been so successfully administered. We should pause, solemnly pause before we subvert it. We should touch it hesitatingly aud with the gentlest haud. The prudent management of the public lands, in the hands of the general government, will be more manifest by contrasting it with that of several of the states which had the disposal of large bodies of waste lands. Virginia pos- sessed an ample domain west of the mountains ami in the present state of Kentucky, over and above her munificent cession to the general government. Pressed for pecuniary means by the revolutionary war, she brought her wild lands during its progress into market, receiving payment iu paper money. There were no previous surreys of the waste lands, no townships, no sections, no official definition or description of tracts; each purchaser made his own location, describing the laud bought as he thought proper. These locations or descriptions were often vague and uncertain. The consequence was that the same tract was not unfrequently entered various times by different pur- chasers, so as to be literally shingled over with conflicting claims. The state, perhaps, 6old in this way much more land than it was entitled to. but then it received nothing in return that was valuable; whilst the purchasers, in consequence of the clashing and interference between their rights, were exposed to tedious, vexatious, and ruinous litigation. Kentucky long and severely suffered from this cause, and is just emerging from the troubles brought upon her by improvident land legislation. Western Virginia has also suffered greatly, though not to the same extent." After referring to the evils of their system of management as displayed in the history of Georgia and Kentucky, he proceeds : — " These observations in respect to the course of the respectable states referred to, iu relation to their public lauds, are not prompted by any unkind feeling towards them, but to show the superiority of the land system of the United States." ******** "The progress of settlement and the improvement in the fortunes and conditions of individuals under the operation of this beneficent system, are as simple as they are manifest. Pioneers of a more adventurous character, advancing before the tide of emigration, penetrate to the uninhabited regions of the west. They apply the axe to the forest, which falls before them, or the plough to the prairie, deeply sinking its share in the unbroken wild grasses in which it abounds. They build houses, plant orchards, enclose fields, cultivate the earth, and rear up families around them. Meantime the tide of emigration flows upon them; their improved farms rise in value; a demand for them takes place ; they sell to the new comers at a great advance, and proceed further west with ample means to purchase from govern- ment, at reasonable prices, sufficient land for all the members of their families. Another and another tide succeeds, the first pushing on westwardly the previous settlers, who in their turn sell out their farms, constantly augmenting in price, until they arrive at a fixed and stationary value. In this way thousands and tens of thousands are daily improving their circumstances and bettering their condition. I have often witnessed this gratifying progress. On the same farm you may sometimes behold standing together the first rude cabiu of round and unhewn logs and wooden chimneys, the hewed log-house, chinked and shingled, with stone or brick chimneys, aud, lastly, the comfortable brick or stone dwelling; each denoting the different occupants of the farm, or the several stages of the condition of the same occupant. What other nation can boast of such an outlet for its increasing popu- lation—such bountiful means of promoting their prosperity and securing their independence? " To the public lands of the United States, and especially to the existing system by which they are distributed with so much regularity and equity, are we indebted for these signal benefits in our natioual condition. And every consideration of duty to ourselves and to posterity enjoins that we should abstain from the adoption of any wild project that would cast away this vast national propert)' U'iftlen by the general government in sacred trust for the whole people of the United States, and forbids that we should rashly touch a system which has been so successfully tested by experience." ******** "Such is a rapid outline of this invaluable national property, of the system which regulates its management and distribution, and of the effects of that system. We might here pause and wonder that there should be a disposition with any to waste or throw away this great resource, or to abolish a system fraught with so many munificent advantages. Nevertheless there are such who, impatient with the slow and natural operation of wise laws, have put forth various pretension- and projects concerning the public lands within a few years past. " Quantity of public laud and its actual pre- sent value. — The entire area of the public domain is estimated at about 1.584,000,000 acres. Of that amount there is within the states, exclusive of California, 471,892,439 acres. This immense quantity of unsold and unoc- cupied public land has led to many erroneous estimates of its true value, and has suggested many of those wild and disorganizing scheme:; for its disposition which have been forced upon the public attention of late years, lie- garding the entire public domain as produc- tive capital, available for present and inime- 502 THE POLITICAL TEXT-DOOK. diate use, the most visionary and extravagant hopes have been excited as to the benefits to be derived from its division and distribution. These errors have been exposed with such marked ability in a report from the Committee on Public Lands, submitted to the Senate in January, 1840, that I shall take the liberty of presenting again before the public mind, its clear and irresistible reasoning. That report, it is true, was made prior to our pur- chase of that portion of the public domain which lies within the state of California and the territories of Utah and New Mexico, but that fact does not, in the very slightest degree, affect the force of the argument, or even vary its calculations and conclusions. The average annual proceeds of the public domain do not materially vary now from what they were prior to those important additions to our ter- ritorial possessions. * " It appears from a report from the Com- missioner of the General Land Office (see Doc. 46, 3d sess. 25th Congress), that the whole quantity in acres of the public domain, on the 30th September, 1838, to which the Indian title was not extinguished, amounted to 766,000,000, in round numbers. There were, at the same time, as appears by the same report, in the states and territories, 319,000,000 of acres to which the Indian title was extinguished, making the whole public domain in the aggregate, at that time, to be 1,085,000,000 of acres ; from which about 5,000,000 of acres may be deducted for sales since made, leaving now about 1,080,000,000 of acres. It appears that, on the 1st of January last, there were, in the new states, 154,000,000 of acres to which the Indian titles were extinguished, and 9,500,000 acres to which the Indian title was not extinguished ; making, in the aggregate, 163,500,000 acres. From this deduct, for disputed grants, many of which are large, to which the right of the government may not be established, 3,500,000 acres, which would leave 160,000,000 subject to the operation of this bill, being less than one-sixth of the whole public domain. " Those who have not reflected on the sub- ject are liable to form very erroneous estimates of the true value of the public lands. It is very natural to conclude that, as none are sold for less than $1.25 per acre, the 160,000,000 of acres unsold, in the new states, are worth $200,000,000 ; but such a conclusion would be utterly fallacious. If the whole could be sold at once, at that price, for cash in hand, or on perfectly safe security, with interest, and with- out expense, the conclusion would be correct ; but such is far from being the case. They can only be sold at that price, through a long period of years, in small portions at a time, and at a heavy expense, all of which must be taken into the estimate to form a correct opinion of their real value, or, to express the idea differently, their actual present value. * The report from which this extract is taken, though made by Mr. Norvell, of Michigan, was written by Mr. Calhoun. " In order to determine what that really i?, it will be necessary to assume what would probably be the gross annual proceeds of the sales of the public lands embraced by the bill, on the supposition that the present price, and the land system, as it now stands, will be con- tinued. The committee are fully aware that the assumption must be, in a great measure, conjectural. There are not, and cannot be, from the nature of the subject, any certain data on which to rest calculation. All that can be done is, to assume a sum sufficiently liberal to guard against the possibility of an under estimate ; and, proceeding on that principle, after a full consideration of the whole ground, the committee have come to the conclusion that it would be a liberal assump- tion to take the sum of $2,500,000 as their average gross annual income, on the supposi- tion of the continuance of the system till the whole shall be sold. The assumption supposes that the whole of the lands embraced in the bill will be sold at $1.25 per acre, and that the average sales annually will yield $2,500,000, till the last acre is sold ; an assumption which all, the least conversant with the subject, will readily allow to be ample. " Taking, then, that sum as the annual gross income, it is clear that the real value of the lands in question cannot exceed a sum which, at the legal interest of 6 per cent., would give an annual income of $2,500,000; or, to express it differently, cannot exceed the present value of a permanent annuity of that amount — that is, a fraction over $41,000,000. " So far is clear, and it is equally so that it must be less than that sum. The reason is obvious : to derive an income of $2,500,000 from lands at $1.25 per acre, there must be annually sold 2,000,000 of acres, which would dispose, at that rate, of the whole 160,000,000 of acres in eighty years. It follows, of course, that their true present value, instead of being worth a permanent annuity of $2,500,000, ■would be worth one of that amount for eighty years only, which is little more than $34,000*000. That sum, then, it is manifest, would be the true present value of all the un- sold lands in the new states, on the data as- sumed, provided they could be sold without expense, trouble, or cost by the government ; but a> that cannot be, it becomes necessary to determine what deduction ought to be made on that account to ascertain what, in fact, is their real present value. "In determining this, the committee have taken experience as vheir guide. They have carefully ascertained, under the actual opera- tion of the system, to the present time, what deductions ought to be made, under all the various heads, as incident to the system, on the actual quantity of land sold by the go- vernment, and have apportioned them rateably on the lands to be sold, on the supposition that what remains to be sold will be subject to as great a reduction, in proportion, as that which has been ; in other words, that the ad- ministration of the public lands hereafter, if PUBLIC LANDS. 503 the present system should be continued as it stands, would be neither more nor less eco- nomical or prudent than it has been. In making their estimates, they have included under expense not only what is appropriately comprehended under it, but whatever goes to diminish the net income from the lands — such as grants and donations other than the 10th section reserved for schools, the two and three per cent, fund reserved out of the sales for internal improvement, the expenditures on internal improvement incident to the public domain, but not charged to that fund, and the increased expense of legislation. " The result is, that the expense of the man- agement of the public lands embraced in the bill (on the supposition that the administration will be neither more nor less economical than the past, and that they will yield annually the sum supposed, and of course be sold in the pe- riod assigned) would amount to a fraction over $44,000,000, which, divided by eighty, the number of years required to dispose of the lands, would give $550,000 as the average annual expense. This sum, regarded as an annuity for eighty years, and estimated as a present charge, would make a fraction less than $7,600,000, which, deducted from the sum. of $34,000,000, the present value of the lands, without estimating expenses, would give for the actual present value of the lands the sum of $26,400,000. " But as small as this sum may appear to many, the committee believe that it is over, rather than under, the true estimate. It makes no allowance for defalcations and losses incident to the management of the fiscal con- cerns of the land system, and assumes that every acre will be sold at $1.25 per acre, which no one can expect who will recollect that a large portion is sterile and worthless, consisting of pine barrens, swamps, unproduc- tive prairies, and stony and mountainous tracts, which are at present unsaleable at any price, and will be so for a long time to come. To this may be added that more than one half has been in market for five, ten, fifteen, and twenty years and upwards without being sold, and are the remnants left, after the repeated selections of all that were considered as valu- able, even under the late rage for speculation, stimulated to the greatest excess by a bloated currency. Against this it is admitted that there is a considerable quantity not yet sur- veyed and brought into market, of which a portion may sell for more than $1.25 per acre ; hut experience shows that the quantity sold above that price is so small that its effect on the general average price does not exceed 2 4-5 cents per acre, and is too inconsiderable to take into the estimate. " Taking, then, all circumstances into con- sideration, the committee feel assured that the result to which they have been brought is too high rather than too low; but they do not deem it material whether it be, in truth, a few millions more or less. Their object is not per- fect precision, but to give a correct general impression of the value of the lands embraced in the bill, in order to correct the utterly fallacious conception which even many of the well informed entertain on the subject. So long as the value of the lands embraced in the bill is estimated at hundreds of millions of dollars, instead of the few millions which they are really worth, so long it will be impossible to obtain for the measure which it proposes that impartial and deliberate consideration necessary to a correct decision, and hence the necessity of removing such erroneous impres- sions preliminary to the discussion of the general merits of the bill, to which the com- mittee will now proceed." Extraordinary efibrts have been made within the last few months, by the opposition papers of this district and state, to excite discontent by vivid and reiterated declarations of the gross mismanagement of the public domain. Tabular statements have been paraded before your eyes of the enormous donations made by Congress to the new states for school, railroad, and other purposes. Editors and orators have dwelt with real or affected indignation upon the reckless squandering of the public lands, the extraordinary favors shown to the new states and the injustice done to the old, the rapid decline of Virginia and the unparalleled growth of the northwestern states, all the result of a concerted movement, originating in party purposes, and all designed to prepare the public mind for a revival of the oft- repeated and discarded policy of distribution. That there is not some just ground for dis- content with the legislation of Congress for the last seven or eight years I do not deny. One might naturally infer such to be my opinion at least, for my vote has been uni- formly arrayed against every bill disposing in any form of the public lands submitted to the body of which I was a member, during the six years of my service. But it will be found, upon examination, that much of this clamor grows out of a misconception of the true character of the legislation of Congress, or is ascribable to natural and unavoidable causes, over which Congress and human government can have no control. I will examine separately the three classes of grants, which are the theme of greatest de- nunciation by the opposition press, and sub- mit to your consideration the reasons of just policy upon which they respectively rest, and you will thus have the means of deciding for yourselves whether you have been robbed or plundered to the extent that you are led to suppose by those vigilant sentinels, who claim now to be the only safe depositories of the public interest. The new states, created out of the territory of the United States, have always had, at the period of their admission, large vacant and unappropriated public lands within their lim- its. Coming into the confederacy, as mem- bers of the federal alliance, with all the rights of independent states, subject to the Constitu- tion of the United States, they would have the &U4 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. unquestioned power to tax for state purposes all the lands within their jurisdiction, whether belonging to the federal government or to in- dividuals. To guard against this exercise of state power, it has been the practice of the government, from our earliest history, to enter into a compact, as follows, with the state seek- ing admission into the Union, by which the United States agree to transfer to the state one section of land in each township for " the use of schools," and five per cent, of the net pro- ceeds of the sale of the public lands lying within the state, after deducting all expenses incident to the same, for public roads. " Provided that the foregoing propositions herein offered are on the condition, that the said convention which shall form the constitution of said state, shall provide, by a clause in said constitution, or an ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of the United States, that said state shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil within the same by the United States, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to bona tide purchasers thereof; and that no tax shall Ik; imposed on lands the property of the United States; and that in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents." It will be seen that the grant of school lands, &c, is made by Congress as a consider- ation for the attainment of three important objects : — 1st. That the state shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil within the same by the United .States. 2d. That no tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the United States. 3d. That in no case shall non-resident pro- prietors be taxed higher than residents. The importance of those stipulations to the United States may be at once seen by reference to the fact, that we have at this time (exclu- sive of California) 471,892,439 acres of land lying within the jurisdiction of the states, which is altogether exempt from taxation. As Mr. Webster remarked in January, 1839, "whilst held by the United States these lands are not subject to state taxation. They con- tribute nothing to the burdens thrown on other lands. Here is a great proprietor in a state, holding large territory, exempt from common burdens." It is also important in securing to those citi- zens of Virginia, and other states, who j;iay think proper to purchase, but do not fi 1 :<\ it convenient to reside in the new states, immu- nity from unjust and unequal taxation. Swamp Lands. — In almost every state or territory of the United States, where the go- vernment holds public lands, and more par- ticularly in the southern states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, and Florida, are found 1 a rge parcels of it overflowed by water. These lands are entirely unfit for cultivation, indeed -usceptible of being surveyed, and serve buf to infect the states in which they are situ- ated with disease, not confined to the lands themselves, but spreading far and wide in the adjacent country, and depreciating the domain belonging to the government within the reach of the misama arising from them. The exist- ence of such a nuisance in the states was for many years a sulyeet of loud complaint. Congress at length yielded to these just com- plaints, and by act of the 28th of Sept., 1850, granted to the states in which they were lo- cated, " the whole of those swamp and over- flowed lands made unfit thereby for cultiva- tion," * * * "provided, that the pro- ceeds of said lands, whether from sale or by direct appropriation in kind, shall be applied exclusively, as far as necessary, to the pur- pose of reclaiming said lands." The states would, doubtless, have much preferred that the general government had retained the lands and undertaken itself the work of drainage. But in the absence of any such improbable action by the federal government, it was not to be endured that these lands should remain in their then condition — unfit for sale — de- structive of the value of the adjacent public domain ; and a source of disease and death to the inhabitants of the states. So manifest seemed the propriety of this measure, grant- ing the " swamp lands" to the states for that purpose, that the bill passed the Senate with- out a dissenting voice, whilst in the House it passed by a vote of 120 yeas to 53 nays ; but eight southern men, and amongst them but one member, from Virginia, voting against it. Railroad Grants. — The policy and results of these grants by Congress have been so clearly exhibited in the annual report of the Secretary of the Interior of December 5, 1853, that it will only be necessary to take from it the following extract : — "In the territories and new states, where many of the public lands remain for a long period unsold, liberal grants should be made for those great highways, which to a certain extent may be considered local in their character, though general in their influence, and not conflicting with the interests of the old states. In this way, without any expenditure of money, the general government can greatly increase the ralue of the public domain. It has never made such a donation without being fully repaid. The principle of granting alternate sections and selling those reserved at double the ordinary price, has been found by experience to be most salutary. By reason of the improvements made with such grants, large tracts oi land that had long lain wastv' have been brought into market and found a ready sale; th - surrounding country has been peopled; the revenue has been augmented by the increased consumption of foreign merchandise; and the state in which the improve- ments have been thus made, and not unfrequently the adjacent states, have been largely benefited. Without these donations and consequent improvements, some of the finest portions of the new slates would have continued a wilderness; lands that had been for fifteen or twenty years in the market might have remained as much longer unsold, and thus the prosperity and advancement of the whole countr}' greatly retarded. The loss to the government would have been serious, without any corresponding benefit. The true policy is to bring the lands into market, and by all legitimate means dispose of them as speedily as possible; justice to those who have been induced to settle in the new states and territories and the interest of the government alike demand it. The strongest political and economical considerations, therefore, dictate this course. "On the 20th of September. 1S50, a grant of lands was made to the states of Illinois, Mississippi, and Alabama, to aid in the construction of the great central railroad from Chicago to Mobile. To afford these states an opportunity of making their selections, the lands along the supposed routes of the road were for a short period withdrawn from market, most of them being of little value to the states in which they were, or to the general government, until the grants were made and it was ascertained the road would be constructed; but then they were bought tip with avidity, and are now considered as most choice and valuable. " The Illinois Central Railroad Company was incorporated, and the route of the road and its brandies within that state designated by an act of the legislature in February, 1S51. Inning the half-year ending December 31, 1850, the quan- tity of land sold and located with bounty land warrant* in the distriet traversed by the road was 342,487.88 acres. The PUBLIC LANDS. 505 alternate (sections reserved to the United States were re- ieised from reservation and brought into market, in July, August, and September, 1852, and during that and the next succeeding quarter the sales and locations amounted to 1.274,522.28 acres; showing an increase over the corres- ponding half-year next preceding the location of the road of 932.034.40 acres. " The unselected lands in the Augusta and Columbus dis- tricts of the state of Mississippi were restored to market in the month of September last, and notwithstanding the sales in those districts had been for many years very limited, the lauds thus restored met with ready sales at enhanced prices. The quantity sold at Augusta iu the mouth of September, 1849, was only 424 acres, and in the same month in the years 1850, 1851, and 1852, much less; and yet, in five days in September last, after the route of the road had been estab- lished and the alternate sections designated by the state, 19,530 acres were sold for $34,056; being $9643 more than their aggregate value at the minimum price. In the Co- lumbus district, in the short space of twelve days, in the monlh of September last, 22.504 acres were disposed of; whereas, in all the month of September, 1849, the quantity Bold was only 235S acres. "The lands withdrawn from market iu June, 1S52, to enable the state of Missouri to locate the routes and select the lands granted to her by the act approved the 10th of that month for the construction of certain railroads, were restored to market on the 5th of July last, and between that day and the 30th of September following 318,839 acres were sold; being nearly 150,000 acres more than were sold in the corresponding quarters in 1S50, 1S51, and 1852 com- bined. A like effect has been produced upon the sales of the alternate sections reserved to the United Suites, wherever similar grants have been made. * * * * * * * "There can be as little doubt of the constitutionality of such grants as of their propriety. The right to donate a part for the enhancement of the value of the residue can no longer be questioned. The principle has been adopted and acted upon for nearly thirty years; and since experi- ence has shown it to be productive of so much good, no sound reason is perceived why it should now be abandoned. It has been of incalculable importance to the great West, and either directly or indirectly to all the states. " Something is manifestly due to the hardy pioneer, with- out whose labor, industr}', and enterprise, the We,st would now be of little moment. No one who has not been an eye- witness can appreciate the hardships and privations endured by him, and government should certainly not hesitate to aid him, especially when it can be done without detriment to the other states, or to any other interests." I will now proceed to examine some of the most prominent of the schemes or plans which, as Mr. Clay has well remarked, "restless men, impatient of the slow operation of wise laws, are constantly throwing before the popular mind in reference to the public lands." The first I shall notice is the scheme for a Division of the Public Lands among the States. — Several plans having this object in view have been laid before Congress during the last few years ; and although at times pressed with some seeming earnestness, they have attracted but little favor, and have been soon abandoned. The practical difficulties in the way of any fair and equal division of the public domain — the striking imperfection and injustice of all the schemes so far submitted, the pernicious consequences which must flow from such an unwise measure, if adopted, and the constitutional impediments to the execu- tion of all such plans — have made them rather the subject of just ridicule than of grave dis- cussion, being regarded rather as bids for local popularity at home than designed by their projectors as serious efforts of legislative policy. Mr. Webster, in his celebrated speech de- livered in the Senate in 1829 upon Foote's resolution, has placed the duties and obliga- cions of the national government on this sub- ject in their true light. After reciting the conditions and trusts upon which the federal government held this public property, and for the fulfilment of which the natiouaf faith was and is pledged, he says : — " One of these conditions or trusts, as I have already said, was that the lands should be sold and settled at such time and manner as Congress shall direct. The government has always felt itself bound iu regard to sale and settlement to exercise its own best judgment, and not to transfer that discretion to others. It has not felt itself at liberty to dis- pose of the soil, therefore, in large masses to individuals, thus leaving to them the time and manner of settlement. It had stipulated to use its own judgment." Again, in the same speech, he said : — "I look upon the public lands as a public fund, and that we are no more authorized to give them away gratuitously, than to give away gratuitously the money in the treasury/' Again, in 1837, he repeats, with still greater emphasis, the same ideas: — " Now, I ask, where is the power to make this grant? If we look upon it as a cession for the benefit of the states in which the lands lie, if it was a gratuitous grant in any de- gree, whence is the power obtained to authorize Congress to give away the public lands? Well, the answer to this question might be, that the proposition is not to make a gift of it, as certain returns were to be made to Congress by the new states. Now, by the Constitution of the country, the trust, the disposition of the public lands was conferred on Congress ; and I ask, is it possible that any man can maintain the proposition that as they were placed in their hands, as belonging to the whole people of the United States, they could transfer the general disposition of them ? It appears to me that they might just as well entertain this proposition as to farm out the custom house iu New York on certain terms. •• Nor do I know that Congress has any more authority to give away the public lands than the proceeds of a custom house on particular stipulations; nor can they surrender the control of it any more than they can assign to others the power of collecting the revenue of the custom house in Boston, or elsewhere. I see, therefore, objections insur- mountable, whether they assume the shape of a gratuitous cession or a trust. In either case, it transcends the power of Congress. It is to make the public lands a common fund for the benefit of the whole people of the Union. The great object is to sell the public lands gradually; and whilst it is in a state of ownership I have always held that Con- gress might make it more valuable by the creation of rail- roads, canals, and other improvements of this sort. I have felt no difficulty, therefore, iu supporting grants to accom- plish these objects, because it was a very efficient mode of increasing the value of the public domain." Mr. Clay, in a report made to the Senate in 1832, said :— "By the clear and positive terms of the acts of cession a great public national trust was created and assumed by the general government. It became solemnly bound to 'hold and administer the lands ceded as a common fund for the use and benefit of all the states, and for no other use or purpose whatever. To divert it from the common benefit for which it was conveyed, would be a violation of the trust." But apart from the constitutional difficulties so apparent and so clearly set forth by Messrs. Webster and Clay, how would it be possible to make any partition of the public lands that could be at all satisfactory to Virginia and the other Atlantic states ? According to every bill which has been submitted on the subject — and indeed from the very necessity of the case, the portion coming to the new states would have to be assigned to them within their respective jurisdictions. And would Virginia and her sister states of the South be content to have hers allotted to her in Utah, New Mexico, Oregon, or Washington, or the other distant or remote territories? If any such partition were made, such would be the inevitable as- signment of the remote lands. And if the 506 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. share of Virginia were assigned to her in some distant territory, in what manner would she make it availablo '? It now costs the fe- deral government near one million of dollars annually to keep up its Land Office. What would be the cost of thirty-one land offices kept up by the several states ? It now costs the federal government some eleven millions of dollars to maintain one army to defend her land and protect her settlers. What would it cost to maintain thirty-one armies for the same purpose ? Mr. Clay, in his celebrated report, presents other pernicious consequences which would result from this scheme of dividing the lands amongst the states : — "The lands are now sold under one uniform plan, regu- lated and controlled by a single legislative authority, and the practical operation is perfectly understood. If they were transferred to the states, the subsequent disposition would be according to laws emanating from various legislative sources. Competition would probably arise between the states in the terms which they would offer to purchasers. Each state would be desirous of inviting the greatest num- ber of emigrants, not only for the laudable purpose of popu- lating rapidly its own territories, but with the view to the acquisition of funds to enable it to fulfil its engagements to the general government. Collisions between the states would probably arise, and their injurious consequences may be imagined. A spirit of hazardous speculation would be engendered. Various schemes in the new states would be put afloat tn sell or divide the public lands. Companies and combinations would be formed in this country, if not in foreign countries, presenting gigantic and tempting but delusive projects, and the history of legislatvm in scrme of the states of the Union admonishes us that a too ready ear ia sometimes given by a majority, in a legislative assembly, to such projects." But I will not pursue this reckless and rev- olutionary scheme further. Politicians may find such hobbies useful in riding successfully over a Congressional district. But the sober judgment of the country cannot regard them otherwise than as either visionary or wicked. I now approach the examination of another scheme, which being less radical, revolting and disorganizing, has more supporters than the preceding ; but which is obnoxious to many of the objections which apply to a parti- tion of the public lands. I mean the — Distribution of the proceeds of the Public Lands. — This measure, as a practical question of public policy, was first brought before the country in 1832. There were peculiar cir- cumstances in the then condition of the coun- try, which caused it to be looked upon with favor when first proposed. But the able and searching scrutiny to which it was subjected by the statesmen of that period, soon revealed the pernicious principles which lay concealed under its imposing exterior, and after a fitful struggle of ten or twelve years it passed from the political issues of the day, and from that period it has hardly been deemed to possess vitality sufficient to render it worthy of a pass- ing newspaper paragraph. It has recently been revived by the oppo- sition press, as a political issue peculiarly adapted to the condition and circumstances of Virginia. We hear not a word of it beyond the limits of this commonwealth. In every other state it reposes in the same quiet grave in which it was deposited in 1844. But here in this state, where, at no period of its history, it ever obtained the slightest countenance and favor, it has alone been deemed worthy of resurrection. To whom are we indebted for its revival ? To any spontaneous movement of the popular mind ? No ! To the action of any organized political body ? No. But to the wild and erratic editorials of the Richmond Whig. Month after month was it occupied in drum- ming, urging, and pressing this question upon the public mind before the slightest response was heard to its rabid and fiery appeals. But at length the admirable bearing which it might have in dividing and distracting the overgrown Democratic party of this state was seen — and instantly it was seized upon by every opposition press in the state, and made the rallying cry of the approaching election. It was believed that the condition of our treasury, the high rate of our taxes, and the just desire to complete many railroad projects now lying in an unfinished condition, would render the people not very scrupulous as to the means by which their burdens might be lessened, and their improvements finished. They flattered themselves that the occasion was particularly opportune to break down the Democratic organization of this state. It was known that that party had, for a quarter of a century, arrayed itself against the expediency and constitutionality of the distribution poli- cy; and if, under the pressure of taxation, and the eager thirst for public improvement, they would now enlist the people in these views, they saw, in such a movement, the cer- tain means of destruction to that party which had made the opposite doctrine cardinal prin- ciples of its political faith. The thin disguise of attempting to treat a fundamental canon of the Democratic policy as no party question, and of postponing their own aspirations to those of some Democrat who would side with their policy, was only confirmatory of the motives in which the agi- tation had its recent origin. For without the aid of the Democrats — without detaching a segment of the party from the main body — how could they accomplish their cherished ob- ject, tfhe destruction and disorganization of the party itself ? Does any man who advocates the distribu tion policy, for one moment believe that we shall ever hear of it again after the approach- ing spring election is over, unless it be referred to simply as the springe in which many an in- cautious Democrat has been caught ? Does he believe there is the slightest chance of carrrying such a measure through the national legisla- ture. From whence is it to derive its support? Not from a Democratic President, a Democratic Senate, or a Democratic House of Representa- tives. For they all stand pledged by the Democratic platform to regard it both as un- wise and unconstitutional. Not from the re- presentatives of the land states, who have been consistent in their hostility to the policy. Not from the representatives of the planting states, who regard it but as the harbinger of a return to high protective duties. It has no prospect PUBLIC LANDS. 507 of support from any quarter except the manu- facturing states of New England, and they constitute too small a force to justify the belief that they can succeed in the establishment of that policy. Looking, therefore, to the time and source of this movement — to the impracticability of its success — to the insignificant amount that would be received from distribution if it could be ac- complished — and its utter inadequacy to any of the objects contemplated by it, I do not feel that I am uncharitable in saying, that the sole purpose, real, sought or anticipated by its originators, is to distract and divide the Dem- ocratic party of this state. But whilst these are my own firm convic- tions, I will proceed to examine it, not as a party question, but as a question of national policy and constitutional law, and address myself to the reason and judgment of all men in this district, totally irrespective of party. Is distribution constitutional. — The first inquiry of every Southern man, in the discus- sion of a question of federal policy, is whether the measure is in accordance with the Consti- tution of the United States, an instrument to which he looks with peculiar reverence, and which all who take part in the government are sworn to support. The constitutional view of this subject has been treated by Mr. Calhoun with such con- summate ability, and with such brevity and precision, that I cannot afford a richer treat to my readers than by incorporating it into this address. Speech of Mr. Calhoun, January 23, 1841. "Whether the government can constitutionally distribute ihe revenue from the public lands among the states must depend on the fact whether they belong to them in their united federal character, or individually and separately. If in the former, it is manifest that the government, as their common agent or trustee, can have no right to distri- bute among them, for their individual, separate use, a fund derived from property held in their united and federal cha- racter, without a special power for that purpose which is not pretended. A position so clear of itself and resting on the established principles of law, when applied to individu- als holding property in like manner, needs no illustration. If. on the contrary, they belong to the states in their indi- vidual and separate character, then the government would not only have the right but would be bound to apply the revenue to the separate use of the states. So far is incon- trovertible, which presents the question :. In which of the two characters are the lands held by the states? " To give a satisfactory answer to this question, it will be necessary to distinguish between the lands that have been ceded by the states, and those that have been purchased by the government out of the common funds of the Union. "The principal cessions were made by Virginia and Georgia. The former of all the tract of country between the Ohio, the Mississippi, and the lakes, including the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illiuois, and Michigan, and the territory of Wisconsin; and the latter, of the tract included in Ala- bama and Mississippi. I shall begin with the cession of Virginia, as it is on that the advocates for distribution mainly rely to establish the right. "I hold "in my hand an extract of all that portion of the Virginia deed of cession which has any bearing on the point at issue, taken from the volume lying on the table before me, with the place marked, and to which any one desirous of examining the deed may refer. The cession is ' to the United States in Congress assembled, for the benefit of said states.' Every word implies the states in their united fede- ral character. That is the meaning of the phrase United States. It stands in contradistinction to the states taken separately and individually ; and if there could be, by pos- sibility, any doubt on that point, it would be removed by the expression 'in Congress assembled' — an assemblage which constituted the very knot that united them. I re- gard the execution of such a deed to the United States, so assembled, so conclusive that the cession was to them in their united and aggregate character, in contradistinction to their individual and separate character, and, by necessary consequence, that the lands so ceded belonged to them in their former and not in their latter character, that I am a' a loss for words to make it clearer. To deny it, would be to deny that there is any truth in language. " But strong as this is, it is not all. The deed proceedt and says, that all the lands so ceded ' shall be considered a common fund for the use and benefit of such of the United States as have become, or shall become, members of the confederation or federal alliance of said states, Virginia inclusive, and concludes by saying, 'and shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatever.' If it were possible to raise a doubt before, those full, clear, and explicit terms would dispei it. It is impossible for language to be clearer. To be ' con sidered a common fund' is an expression directly in contra, distinction to separate or individual, and is, by necessary implication, as clear a negative of the latter as if it bad been positively expressed. This common fund to ' be for the use and benefit of such of the United States as have become, or shall become, members of the confederation or federal alliance.' That is as clear as language can express it, for their common use in their united federal character, Virginia being included as the grantor, out of abundant caution." ******* " The concluding words of the grant are, 'shall be faith- fully and bona fide disposed of for that use, and no other use or purpose whatsoever.' For that use— that is the com- mon use of the states in their capacity of members of the confederation or federal alliance — and no other; as posi- tively forbidding to use the fund to be derived from the lauds for the separate use of the states, or to be distributed among them for their separate or individual use, as proposed by this amendment, as it is possible for words to do." * * * * * * * " The residue of the public lands, including Florida, and all the region beyond the Mississippi, extending to the Pa- cific Ocean, and constituting by far the greater part, stands on a different footing. They were purchased out of the common funds of the Union collected by taxes, and belong, beyond all question, to the people of the United States in their federal and aggregate capacity. This has not been and cannot be denied ; and yet it is proposed to distribute the common fund derived from the sales of these, as well as from the ceded lands, in direct violation of the admitted principle, that the agent or trustee of a common concern has no risht without express authority to apply the joint funds to "the separate use and benefit of its individual members." * * * * * * * " The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay), and, as I now understand, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), agree, that the revenue from taxes can be applied only to the objects specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Thus repudiating the general welfare principle, as applied to the money power, so far as the revenue may be derived from that source. To this extent they profess to be good State Rights Jeffersonian Republicans. Now, sir, I would be happy to be informed by either of the able senators, by what political alchemy the revenue from taxes, by being vested in land, or other property, can, when again turned into revenue by sales, be entirely freed from nil the consti- tutional restrictions to which they were liable before the investment, according to their own confessions. A satisfac- tory explanation of so curious and apparently incompre- hensible a process would be a treat. '•When I look. Mr. President, to what induced the states, and especially Virginia, to make this magnificent cession to the Union, and the high and patriotic motives urged by the old Congress to induce them to do it, and turn to what is now proposed, I am struck with the contrast and the great mutation to which human affairs are subject. . The great and patriotic men of former times regarded it as essential to the consummation of the Union and the preservation of the public faith that the lands should be ceded as a common fund; but now. men distinguished for their ability and influence are striving with aTl their might to undo their holy work. Yes, sir; distribution and cession are the very reverse, in character and effect ; the tendency of one is to union, and the other to disunion. The wisest of modern statesmen, and who had the keenest and deepest glance into futurity (Edmund Burke), truly said that the revenue is the state ; to which I add. that to distribute the revenue, in a confederated community, amongst its members, is to dissolve the community— that is, with us, the Union— as time will prove, if ever this fatal measure should be adopted." Having disposed of the constitutional ques- tion, the next inquiry is, What are the objec- tions to it on the score of expediency and sound policy ? 508 THE POLITICAL TEXriOOK. They are numerous. 1. Distribution is deceptive. — It is an impos- ture upon the public mind. It seeks to pro- duce the impression that it is giving money to the people, when it is in fact, taking money from them. It professes to lessen taxes, when it in fact increases them. We have two go- vernments to support — a federal government and a state government. They are both sup- ported by taxation. The first by indirect, the latter by direct taxation. If you withdraw the proceeds of the public lands' from the na- tional treasury, to distribute them among the states, you must supply the deficiency by tax- ation in the form of duties upon consumption. The result of such an operation, therefore, is to put money in the hands of the legislature for state expenditures, whilst the farmer and mechanic must, with superadded costs, repay the amount by increased price upon every article, of foreign growth and production which he buys from the stores. General Jackson clearly perceived and ex- posed this imposture in his message of Decem- ber, 1S33, in which he assigns his reasons for disapproving the bill. He said : — " It is difficult to perceive what advantages would accrue to the old states or the new from the system of di.-tributiou which this bill proposes, if it were otherwise unobjectionable. It requires no argument to prove that if three millions of dollars a year, or any other sum, shall be taken out of the treasury by this bill for distribution, it must be replaced by the same sum collected from the people by some other means. The old states will receive annually a sum of money from the treasury, but they will pay in a larger sum, together with the expenses of collection and distri- bution." Mr. Buchanan, our present distinguished Chief Magistrate, with equal clearness, ex- posed its trickery in 1841 : — '•But the absurdity of the measure at this time did not stop here. This bill was made the pretext or the reason why we should pass the tax or revenue bill. The deficiency created by the one bill, it is said, must be supplied by the other. And how supplied? By a tax of twenty per cent, upon coffee and tea — articles which the habits of the people of Pennsylvania had rendered necessaries of life, and which entered largely into the consumption of every family, poor or rich. While that bill thus taxed coffee and tea, it left railroad iron imported for the use of corporations free of duly; and yet. strange as it might seem, a Pennsylvania Senator was asked to violate the express language of his instructions, and vote for the land bill which it was avowed would render this odious tax absolutely necessary. The annual distribution under the laud bill would be equal to but a little more than an eleven-penny-bit to each individual in Pennsylvania, whilst the tax to which each of them would be subjected, in consequence of its passage, on the articles of coffee Mid tea alone, must considerably exceed that amount. This, huly, was wise legislation!" 2. Distribution impairs the simplicity and economy of the state governments. — It stimu- lates extravagant expenditures — increased in- debtedness — and will result in additional bur- dens upon the people, in the form of higher and more oppressive taxation. Does any man Cm- a moment believe that the annual distribu- tion paid by the federal government to the states would be applied to lessen the existing taxes ? Does he not know that small as the distributive share of Virginia might be, it would only be used as a stimulant to new and larger appropriations ? Why are all the un- finished railroads now so clamorous for distri- bution ? Why are the people on the line of these projected improvements so anxk us for the triumph of the policy ? Is it not because they believe and avow that the fund, if re- ceived, will be applied to the construction of these roads, or made the basis upon which new state bonds would be issued ? General Jackson, whose keen sagacity and genuine fidelity to the interests of the people cannot be questioned, has left upon the record the following emphatic declaration of his views on this aspect of the subject. In his eighth annual message he said : — "All will admit that the simplicity and economy of the state governments mainly depend on the fact that money has to be supplied to support them by the same men, or their agents, who vote it away in appropriations. Hence, when there are extravagant and wasteful appropriations, there must be a corresponding increase in taxes: and the people, becoming awakened, will necessarily scrutinize the character of measures which thus increase their burdens. By the watchful eye of self-interest, the agents of the people in the state governments are repressed and kept within the limits of a just economy. But if the necessity of levying the taxes he taken from those who make the appropiiations and thrown upon a more distant and less responsible set of public agents, who have power to approach the people by an indirect and stealthy taxation, there is reason to fear that prodigality will soon supersede those characteristics which have thus far made us look with so much pride and confluence to the rtate governments as the main stay of our Union and libert".'?. The state legislatures, instead of studying to restrict ttic:" state expenditures to the smallest possible sum. will claim credit for their profusion, and harass the general government for increased supplies. Practically, there would soon be but one taxing power, and that vested in a body of men far removed from the people, in which the farming and mechanic interests would scarcely be repre- sented. The states would gradually lose their purity, as well as their independence ; they would not dare to murmur at the proceedings of the general government, lest they should lose their supplies : all would be merged in a practical consolidation, cemented bt wide-spread corruption, which would only be eradicated by one of those bloody revolutions which occasionally overthrow the despotic systems of the old world." * * • * * * * • * . * " A system liable to such objections can never bo supposed to have been sanctioned by the framers of the Constitution when they conferred on Congress the taxing power: and I feel persuaded that a mature examination of the? subject will satisfy every one that there are insurmountable diffi- culties in the operation of any plan which can be devised of collecting revenue for the purpose of distributing it. Congress is only authorized to levy taxes -to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States/ There is no such provision as would authorize Congress to collect together the property of the country, under the name of revenue, for the purpose of dividing it, equally or unequally, among the states or the people." 3. Distribution leads to consolidation and the concentration of all power in the national govern- ment. — Upon this point, also, I take great plea- sure in fortifying my views by an extract from General Jackson's message, disapproving the laud distribution bill of 1833. He says : — "But this bill assumes a new principle. Its object is not to return to the people an unavoidable surplus of revenue paid in by them, but to create a surplus for distribution among the states. It seizes the entire proceeds of one source of revenue and sets them apart as a surplus, making it necessary to raise the moneys for supporting the government and meeting the general charges from other sources. It even throws the entire land system upon the customs for it- support, and makes the public lands a perpetual charge upon the treasury. It does not return to the people moneys accidentally or unavoidably paid by them 1. 1 1 he government, by which thev are not wanted, but compels the people to pay moneys "into the treasury for the mere purpose of creating a surplus for distribution to their state govern- ments. If this principle be once admitted,«it is not difficult to perceive to what consequences it may lead." ******* * "It appears to me that a more direct road to consolidation •annot be devised. Money is power, and iu that government ! which pay* all the vublic officers of the states will all PUBLIC LANDS. 509 political power be substantially concentrated. The state governments, if governments they might then be called, would lose ail their independence and dignity. The economy which now distinguishes them would be converted into a prolusion limited only by the extent of the supply. Rcing the dependants of the general government, and looking to its treasury as the source of all their emoluments, the state officers, under whatever names they might pass, and by whatever forms their duties might be prescribed, would, in effect, be the mere stipendiaries and instruments of the ccutral power." ■•It is too obvious that such a course would subvert our well-balanced system of government, and ultimately deprive us of all the blessings now derived from our happy Union." 4. Distrdtulion is a virtual recognition of the power of Congress to appropriate money from the national treasury for objects of local inter- nal improvement. — This power, which for a quarter of a century has been repudiated and disavowed by all political parties in this country, bids fair to be again recognised if the distribution policy becomes triumphant. Of what avail is it to assert that Congress cannot make a direct appropriation from the treasury for such objects, if you concede the power of Congress to do the same act indirectly by placing its funds into the state treasuries to be applied for such purposes? What now gives energy and power to this general move- ment in favor of distribution ? Is it not in a great measure the local internal improvement enterprises of the state ? Do they not expect and are they not struggling to construct and complete their roads by federal money, first to be distributed by Congress to the states, and by the states to be transferred to them ? Upon this point, too, I take pleasure in fortifying my position by the opinion of Presi- dent Jackson. In the veto message, before referred to, he said : — " But there are other principles asserted in the bill which would have impelled me to withhold my signature, had I not seen in it a violation of the compacts by which the United States acquired title to a large portion of the public lands. It reasserts the principle, contained in the bill autho- rizing a subscription to the stock of the Maysville, Washing- ton, Paris, and Lexington Turnpike Road Company, from which I was compelled to withhold my consent, for reasons contained in my message of the 27th of May, 1830, to the House of Representatives. The leading principle then asserted was, that Congress possesses no constitutional power to appropriate any part of the moneys of the United States for objects of a local character within the states. That principle. I cannot be mistaken in supposing, has received the unequivocal sanction of the American people, and all subsequent reflection has but satisfied me more thoroughly that the interests of our people and the purity of our govern- ment, if not its existence, depend on its observance. The public lands are the common property of the United States, and the moneys arising from their sale are a part of the public revenue. This bill professes to raise from and appro- priate a portion of this public revenue to certain states, pro- viding expressly that it shall ' be applied to objects of internal improvement or education within those states,' and then proceeds to appropriate the balance to all the states, with the declaration that it shall be applied ' to such purposes as the legislature of the said respective states shall deem pro- per.' The former appropriation is expressly for internal improvements or education, without qualification as to the kind of improvements, and therefore in express violation of the principle maintained in my objections to the turnpike- road bill above referred to. The latter appropriation is more broad, and gives the money to be applied to any local pur- pose whatsoever. It will not be denied, that under the pro- visions of the bill a portion of the money might have been applied to making the very road to which the bill of 1830 had reference, and must, of course, come within the scope of the same principle. If the money of the United States cannot be applied to local purposes through its own agents, as little can it be permitted to be thus expended through the agency of the 6tat» governments." 5. Distribution is a virtual recognition of the power and duty of Congress to assume the debts of Cue states. — Does not every distribu- tion^, who argues with you on the subject, place prominently before you, as one of the very objects of his policy, the application of the funds to the payment of the existing debt of the states? When some years ago a reso- lution was introduced into the Senate of the United States, declaring that the federal government had no power to assume the debt of the states, Mr. Clay, in an impassioned manner, exclaimed, "When, where, and by whom was the extravagant idea ever enter- tained of an assumption of the state debts by the general government ?" There was not a solitary voice raised in favor of such a measure in the Senate. Little did Mr. Clay imagine that in so short a time many who now profess to be devotedly attached to his memory, should be found maintaining the policy of distribution upon the express and exclusive ground that the federal government will there- by be assuming and paying so much of the debt of the states. 6. Distribution in Us operation injurious to the interests of the poor man. — In that admira- ble system which has heretofore distinguished the disposition and management of our public lands, two important results have constantly been kept in view — settlement and revenue. By certainty of title and cheapness of price, proper inducements have been offered to the poor man to abandon the crowded marts of the East, and to find in the West a home where, by his hardy toil and honest labor, he may rear his family in comfort and affluence. To enable the government successfully to pro- mote settlement — the paramount leading ob- ject of the national trust — it was essential that the price of the public lands should be fixed at a sum so reasonable as to bring the purchase within the means of every poor man in the country. Whilst the government has not been indifferent to revenue, it has never- theless made that consideration subordinate to the other higher and nobler purpose of the trust. But if the system of distribution be adopted, you will immediately reverse the former wise and liberal policy of the govern- ment. Then revenue — -not settlement — will become the primary, paramount, and leading object of the system ; and relying as the states will upon their annual stipends from the national treasury, the government will be re- quired to adjust prices with the scales of a Shylock, and fix the price of the land at that sum which will bring the most money into the treasury for the purpose of distribution. Set- tlement, as the primary policy of the govern- ment, will then be abandoned ; the interests of the poor man seeking a home in the West will be disregarded amidst the clamor for large dividends, and the management and disposal of the public lands will be regulated by all the paltry and selfish considerations which govern a close corporation in making its annual re- port of profits to a body of hungry stockholders olO THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. From the Democratic National Platforms for the last twenty years. " That the federal government is one of limited power, derived solely from the Constitution; and the grants of power made therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government; and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful consti- tutional powers. "That the Constitution does not confer authority upon the federal government, directly or indirectly, to assume the dibts of the several states, contracted for local and in- ternal improvements or other state purposes, nor would such assumption be just or expedient. " That the proceeds of the public lands ought to be sacredly applied to the national objects specified in the Constitution, and that we are opposed to any law for the distribution of such proceeds among the states as alike inexpedient in policy, and repugnant to the Constitution." What would be the amount for annual dis- tribution? — Amongst the artifices resorted to by the opposition press to dignify the present issue, and to attract the attention and cupidity of the people, are the false and fallacious state- ments of the amount that would be for distri- bution. In this discreditable game, I regret to see that the respectable editors of the National Intelligencer have played so con- spicuous a part. They have prepared tabular statements designed for general circulation, and which have been eagerly seized upon by our editors in this state, exhibiting the total gross aggregate receipts from the public lands, from 1789 to the 1st July, 1856, amounting, according to the statement, to $122,311,294, which they very generously proceed to dis- tribute ; and they announce the wonderful discovery, that if this amount, instead of hav- ing been applied to the national objects speci- fied in the Constitution, such, for example, as fighting the battles of our country against foreign invaders, were at this moment in the national treasury and ready for distribution, the share of Virginia would be $9,337,773, all duly set forth in flaring capitals. Wonderful discovery ! And they might, with equal fairness, have made out tabular statements to show that if all the money which had been collected from customs, from the foundation of the government to the present time, was at this moment in the national trea- sury ready for distribution, what an amazing pile it would be ! But I beg leave to assure the editors of the National Intelligencer, that, as poor and needy as they may suppose the people of Virginia to be, and as fond of money, they prefer their laws, liberties, institutions, and independence even to the golden visions which they have portrayed before them ; nor do they look back with any regret to the ex- penditures of the last seventy years, when they feel that the money has been nobly ap- plied to the acquisition of their liberties, the preservation of their national independence, and the maintenance of that noble system of civil government under which we live. But why are such visionary statements placed be- fore the popular mind ? Is it not to bewilder and mislead the public judgment? Is there a sane politician in the country who would countenance a distribution of money not now in the treasury, and which during a period of seventy years has been expended in support of the government ? Then why parade such statements before the popular mind, if not de- signed purposely to produce false hopes which they know are utterly absurd and unattain- able? The editors of the National Intelligencer, in giving to the public the gross aggregate re- ceipts of the public lands, do not favor us with the sums with which that fund is chargeable for costs of original purchase, extinguishment of Indian titles, expenses of surveys, &c. Had they condescended to do so, we should have the remarkable idea boldly presented of dis- tributing a fund which is already many mil- lions in debt to the public treasury, added to the absurdity of distributing a fund which had already many years since been disposed of by Congress in accordance with the consti- tutional necessities of the government. I shall supply the omission of the editors of the National Intelligencer, by the following exhibit of the charges upon the land fund : — Extinguishing Indian titles $106,179,000 Purchase of Louisiana, principal and interest 23,600,000 Purchase of Florida, principal and interest . 6,500,000 Paid to Georgia 3,082,000 Paid to Mexico (Mesilla purchase included) . 25,000,000 Released claims 6,000,000 Paid Texas 10.000,000 Land Office expenses, surveys and explorations 15,000,000 $195,361,000 But what would be the actual amount annu- ally for distribution, if any such unwise mea- sure should become a law ? Mr. King, of Alabama, in bis report, estimated the everage annual proceeds at #1,750,000. Mr. Calhoun estimates them, in his report, in a previous part of this address, at 152,500,000. Mr. Clay estimated them at $3,000,000. By referring to the tabular statements contained in that curious exposition of the National Intelligen- cer, before referred to, it will be seen that, for the last sixteen years, to wit, since 1840, there are but four years in which the amount of the proceeds of the public lands exceeded three millions of dollars ; twelve years in which they fell below three millions ; six years in which they fell below two millions, and one year in which they fell below one million. It is true, the receipts for the year ending the 1st of July, 1856, were $8,917,644 ; and yet we are informed by the Secretary of the Trea- sury, in his last annual report, that the re- ceipts for the first quarter, of the present fiscal year, have fallen below the correspond- ing quarter of the last year $1,463,345.48, rendering it probable that the receipts for the present year will not much exceed three mil- lions of dollars. I think it may then be fairly assumed that the annual average proceeds of the public lands are about $3,000,000, of which sum, upon the principle of all the bills which have heretofore been presented and passed, Virgi- nia would receive $141,600 — a sum not suffi- cient to construct five miles of railroad a year, and not sufficient, if so applied, to diminish, in any perceptible degree, the burden of our existing taxes. PUBLIC LANDS. 511 I cannot withh ;ld the following character- istic specimen of Mr. Benton's style of oratory, which exhibits, in a striking manner, the small game which the distributionists are pur- suing. Speaking in the Senate in 1841 on the land distribution bill, he said : — " I scorn the bill. I scout its vaunted popularity. I de- test it. Nor can I conceive of an object more pitiable and contemptible than that of the demagogue haranguing for votes, and exhibiting his tables of dollars and acres, in order to show each voter or each state, how much money they will be able to obtain from the treasury if the land bill passes. 6uch haranguing, and such exhibition is the address of impudence and knavery to supposed ignorance, meanness, and folly. It is treating the people as if they were penny wise and pound foolish, and still more mean than foolish. Why, the land revenue, after deducting the expenses, if fairly divided among the people, would not exceed nine-pence a head per annum; if fairly divided among the states, and applied to their debts, it would not supersede above nine-pence per annum of taxation upon the units of the population. The day for land sales has gone by. The sales of this year do not exceed a million and a half of dollars, which would not leave more than a million for distribution, which, among sixteen millions of people, would be exactly four-pence half-penny, Virginia money, per head ; a fip in New York, and and a picaillon in Louisiana. At two millions, it would be nine-pence a head in Virginia, equivalent to a levy in New York, and a hit in Louisiana; precisely the amount which, in specie times, a gentleman gives to a negro boy for holding bis horse a minute at the door. And tor this miserable doit — this insignificant subdivision of a shilling — a York shilling — can the demagogue suppose that the people are base enough to violate their Constitution — mean enough to sur- render the defence of their country, and stupid enough to be taxed in their coffee, tea, salt, sugar, coats, hats, blankets, shoes, shirts, and every article of comfort, decency, or neces- sity, which they eat, drink, or wear, or on which they stand, sit, sleep, or lie?" And yet, with no professed object in view but to plunder the national treasury of this contemptible pittance, and then to supply that deficiency thus created by a new tax upon consumption, has a bold and defiant issue been joined this spring with the Democratic party ; the opposition press of this state every- where glittering in steel and calling to arms ; conventions summoned to bring forth candi- dates for Congress and for the General Assem- bly ; and even some well meaning and most excellent Democrats seduced from their allegi- ance to confederate with the bitter and uncom- promising enemies of their party and prin- ciples. Tariff of 1857. — The time selected for the revival of the distribution policy is not less remarkable than the policy itself. When it was urged upon the consideration of Congress between 1833 and 1841, there was then this palliation for it, to wit, that the tariff was then regulated by a formal compact for a period of nine years, and under which com- pact there would necessarily be a surplus in the treasury resulting from duties on imports. But now it is sought to be revived upon the heel of the legislation of the last Congress re- ducing the receipts from customs below the revenue standard of the government. The average expenditure of the federal govern- ment is now ascertained to be, with our im- mensely extended territory, about $48,000,000 a year. The rate of taxation during the last session of Congress has been so reduced, in connexion with the extended list of free arti- cles, that by the tariff which goes into opera- tion on the 1st of July, 1857, the revenue, if the importations of the present year and com- ing year be the same, will be diminished some §17,000,000, making our revenue from customs for the next fiscal year some §47,000,000 — one million less than the ordinary expenses of the government. We looked to the public lands as supplying at least $3,000,000 more, which would give a federal revenue of §50,000,000, against an expenditure of $48,000,000, leaving but $2,000,000 to cover those contingencies to which every government is liable. Withdraw from the national treasury the proceeds of the lands, and it is manifest, from this statement, the revenue will fall below the average ex- penses of the government. Congress would then be compelled to recede from the advances which it made last winter in the direc'nn of free trade, and to revive the burdens which it has heretofore imposed upon the commercial industry of the nation. This would be espe- cially unfortunate, in view of the fact, that, by the tariff which goes into operation on the 1st of July, 1857, many articles which enter into the mechanical labor of the country, and add to the profit of the mechanic, without injury to the consumer, are placed upon the free list, or pay a mere nominal duty. Look- ing, then, to the necessary operation of the tariff of 1857 upon the interests of the me- chanic, and regarding distribution as incon- sistent with the provisions and policy of that act, I can but regard every movement to pro- mote distribution at this time but as a blow deliberately aimed at the mechanical interests of the country. Mr. Clay.— His bill in 1832.— No politician was in principle more opposed to distribution than Mr. Clay. To that extent, at least, he retained the benefits of his early republican training, and coincided with the policy of the Democratic party. Many passages might be extracted from his speeches in proof of thie fact ; but I will content myself with two. In his speech of January 28, 1841, he said:— " The Republican party of 1798, in whose school I was brought up, and to whose rule of interpreting the Consti- tution I have ever adhered, maintained that this was a limited government; that it had no powers hut granted powers, or powers necessary and proper to carry into effect the granted powers ; and that, in any given instance of the exercise of power, it was necessary to show the specific grant of it, or that the proposed measure was necessary and proper to carry into effect a specifically granted power or powers." " There is, then, I repeat, no power or authority in the general government to lay and collect taxes, in order to distribute the proceeds among the states. Such a financial project, if any administration were mad enough to adopt it, would be a flagrant usurpation." Again : Mr. Clay, upon another occasion, said : — " For one, however, I will again repeat the declaration which I made early in the session, that I unite cordially with those who condemn the application of any principle of distribution among the several states to surplus revenu« derived from taxation." It is true, Mr. Clay modified his opinions upon this subject so far as he yielded his assent to the bill for the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands ; and yet it is difficult to see any distinction, either in prin- ciple or practical results, between a distribu- 512 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tion from the national treasury of moneys col- lected from customs, or moneys derived from the sale of the public lands. They both do now, and have from the foundation of the government, constituted the revenue of the Union ; and the same objections must apply to the withdrawal of either for the purposes of gift or donation to the states. Mr. Clay was a bold and dashing politician. He did not permit himself in the latter period of his life to be trammelled by nice constitutional limitations. His construction of the power of the national government became broad, liberal, and Hamiltonian ; and when the po- litical necessity was sufficiently urgent, he never failed to see in the Constitution ample authority to do anything which he believed to be essential to the interests of the country. Originally opposed to a national bank as a measure in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, he promptly sacrificed his constitutional objections when he believed the necessities of the government required such an instrument of finance. Clear in his opin- ions as to the rights of the people of the South to an unrestricted enjoyment of the benefits of the public domain, he nevertheless did not hesitate, when the hurricane of 1820 was passing over the country, with the hope of staying its destructive ravages, to give his ap- proval to that unconstitutional prohibition by which the people of the South were excluded from any fair participation in the occupation and settlement of two-thirds of the national territory. So in 1832, as deeply impressed as he was with the inexpediency and unconsti- tutionality of distribution, he, nevertheless, with a view, as he believed, of saving the public lands from being ceded to the states in which they lay, recommended a plan for the distribution of their proceeds amongst the states. Time does not permit me to go into any extended history of the events of that day. It may be sufficient to say that powerful influences were at work to force from Con- gress a cession of the public lands to the iand states. A proposition to cede prospec- tively, after the "1st of July, 1835, 'all 'the lands remaining unsold on that day, had actually passed the Senate, but was defeated in the House. The proposition to inquire into the expediency of making a cession of these lauds to the land states was, in 1832, against his own solemn protestations, referred by the Senate to Mr. Clay, as chairman of the Com- mittee on Manufactures, for a report. He believed the condition of the land question at that time to be such that either the govern- ment must surrender its interests in the lands to the states in which they lay, or adopt some other measure less objectionable. From this emergency resulted his bill for the distribution of the proceeds of their sale — a measure which, I believe, he would not at that day have sanctioned if he had not believed it was the only alternative for cession. Accordingly, in his celebrated report, he Bays : — "A majority of the committee believes it better as an alternative for the scheme of cession to the new states, and as beii;g most likely to give general satisfaction, that the residue be divided among the twenty-four states, according to their federal representative population," &c. And again, at a subsequent period, when the same measure was before the Senate, brought forward by Mr. Crittenden, he and his party were reproached with attempts to force it upon the country. Mr. Clay, refer- ring to certain projects before the Senate to squander the public domain, and among others cessions to the land states of the wh'ole within their limits, said: — " Under these circumstances, my colleague presents a conservative measure, and proposes, in lieu of one of these wasteful projects, by way of amendment, an equitable distribution among all the states of the avails of the public lands. With what propriety, then, can it be said that we, who are acting solely on the defensive, have forced tho measure upon our opponents? Let them withdraw their bill, and I will answer for it that my colleague will withdraw his amendment, and will not at this session press any measure of distribution. No, sir ; no." I am prepared to do Mr. Clay the justice to say that his bill did accomplish the great ob- ject which its illustrious author had in view when he introduced it. It has performed its functions. It destroyed the greater monster cession. For fifteen years we have seen no man rise in either House of Congress the ad- vocate of ceding the public lands to the states. We hear of no such class of politicians now in the country ; and it is well known that Mr. Clay himself, although a long time in Con* gress subsequent to 1844, was never known after that day to revive any such proposition again in that body. Webster, Hives, and Benton. — It is manifest to all who have read the extracts previously taken from the speeches of Mr. Webster, that, with his strong constitutional impressions of the public lands being a public fund for the common benefit of the United States in their federal capacity, he must have yielded a very reluctant assent to the proposition to divide these funds amongst the states for their sepa- rate use. I have therefore sought, with no little labor, to find amongst his writings or speeches some argument in support of that proposition. But I have looked in vain. Al- though in Congress many years, during which time the bill was pressed upon the country, and when, doubtless, as a party measure, he gave it his vote, I can find no vindication by him, in that body, of a policy so directly in conflict with his earlier and unanswerable opinions on that subject. Knowing, too, that Mr. Rives was one of the Whig Senators from Virginia, at the extra session of 1841, when the bankrupt bill, the land distribution bill, and a batch of similar measures were forced upon the country, de- stined scarcely to survive the Congress which passed them, I felt curious to know what a Senator from Virginia, raised at the feet of James Madison, and intimate with Jefferson, could say in support of a measure so directly in conflict with all the teachings of these great masters. Mr. Rives voted for the bill — Mr. Rives made a speech in the Senate in support PUBLIC LANDS. 51b of the bill — Mr. Rives procured his notes of the reporter for revision — a vacant space ap- pears in the index of the Congressional Globe inviting its insertion. Mr. Rives yet lives, but no speech of Mr. Rives has yet appeared to vindicate his position on that occasion. Did he find, when he came to review his position, and in the still and quiet repose of his. cham- ber to ponder over the principles involved in that measure, that they were such as he could not exactly reconcile to his judgment and pa- triotism ? ■ Did a more careful scrutiny satisfy him that his arguments were fallacious and his positions irreconcileable with the true theory and with the honest practice of the go- vernment ? Did he shrink from a submission of the grounds of his opinion to the stern and impartial judgment of his state ? And was he content to let it pass as the vote of the mere partisan, to be defended upon such con- siderations as might justify and excuse an exact compliance with the behests of party ? Does Virginia derive no benefit from the public lands ? — Notwithstanding the clear and unanswerable exposition of facts con- tained in this address, we shall still, as in the days of our revolutionary struggle, have our Johnny Hooks running through the country, exclaiming beef ! beef! money! money! land! land ! and declaring that Virginia derives no benefit from the public domain, but that all its advantages are monopolized by the south- ern and northwestern land states. Is this true ? Does not Virginia derive every bene- fit from the public lands, and in a higher and greater degree than she herself anticipated when she united with her sister states in a surrender of them to the federal government ? Were they not granted for the " common de- fence and support of the Union," and have their proceeds not been so applied ? Have they not gone into your national treasury, and been applied to pay off the debts of your revo- lutionary war ? of your second war of inde- pendence ? and of the Mexican war ? to the maintenance of your army, your navy, and your judiciary — to defend you in war, and give wings to your commerce in peace ? Did she not make large reservations of land be- tween the Scioto and Miami rivers for the benefit of her officers and soldiers of the revo- lutionary war ? and have not these reserva- tions been most liberally and bountifully ap- plied to their relief, and in amount far beyond their extent ? Did she not impose it as a con- dition of the grant, " that the territory so ceded shall be laid out and formed into states, containing a suitable extent of territory, and that the states so formed shall be distinct re- publican states, and admitted members of the Federal Union, having the same rights of so- vereignty, freedom, and independence as the other states?" And has not this condition been faithfully fulfilled? Five free, prosperous, and sovereign states — co-equal members of our federal alliance — now occupy that terri- tory, which at the period of the grant was the oheerless abode of the untutored savage and 33 the untameable wild beast. From every part of that then wild and uncultivated wilderness is now heard the voice of Christian and civil- ized man, doing homage to his great Creator, and rejoicing in the blessings of the freest and noblest system of popular government which the world has ever seen. Is it no source of pride to Virginia ? Does it inspire her with no lofty reminiscences to reflect that she has had some agency in this mighty work of Christianity, civilization, and liberty? But what is meant by those who say the people of Virginia derive no benefit from these public lands? Who, in their opinion, are the people of Virginia ? Are they those alone who hap- pen to be presidents, stockholders, or persons interested in railroad corporations ? Is it even alone the rich, the high born, the pros- perous, the wealthy, who feel that they are in the enjoyment of a goodly heritage of broad acres, and who are content to spend their lives under the shades of their patrimonial oaks ? Are there no other persons born upon our soil who are entitled to be called the people of Virginia ? Are there no poor, no destitute, no unfortunate, and no heart-broken amongst our people, who, unblessed by the advantages of birth and fortune, have, for the last fifty years, are now, and will for centuries yet to come, look to our great possessions in the West as a refuge where they can find a cheap home, and protect themselves and their children from penury and want ? Every poor man in Virginia feels at this moment that he has, under our present system, a valuable appreci- able interest in the public domain, of which he can avail himself at any moment, and which he would be very reluctant to surren- der. Again, has not Virginia, in common with her sister states, derived a large benefit from these public lands, in the vast increase of consumers which it has added to the country, and who, by contributing their proportion to the general expenditures of the federal govern- ment, lessen the burden which would otherwise fall upon her people? The celebrated Edmund Burke, in his speech recommending that the forest lands of the British crown should be brought into market and converted into pri- vate property, at a moderate price, laid down the following just and profound maxims of political economy : — "The revenue to be derived from the sale of the forest lands will not be so considerable as many have imagined ; and I conceive it would be unwise to screw it up to the utmost, or even to suffer bidders to enhance according to their eagerness, wherein the expense of that purchase may- weaken the capital to be employed in their cultivation. * * * The principal revenue which I propose to draw from these uncultivated wastes is to spring from the improvement and population of the kingdom, events infinitely more advantageous to the revenues of the crown, than the rents of the best landed estates which it can hold. * * * It is thus that I would dispose of the unprofitable landed estates of the crown, throw them into the mass of private property, by which they will come, through the course of circulation and through the political secretions of the state, iuto well- regulated revenue." The history of the landed system of our country furnishes the most convincing proof of the value of cultivation. At the time that public lands were first acquired by the United 514 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. States, the most extraordinary expectations were indulged in with reference to them. It was supposed that they could be converted into the means at once of paying off the large public debt, of supporting the government, and after doing all this, of leaving a nice sum over and above what would be required for these purposes. The experience of the govern- ment for seventy years has exposed the fallacy of these expectations, and established conclu- sively that it is from their cultivation, and not their sale, that great benefit is to be derived. The products from sale have been proportion- ately meagre, whilst the revenue from culti- vation has defrayed the expenses of three wars, and enabled the government to be sup- ported in a style infinitely beyond the expec- tation of those who framed it. The gross pro- ceeds of the sales of the public lands has been but a little over $122,000,000, whilst that derived from the customs, after pay- ing all the expenses of collection, amounts to $1,000,000,000. " This immense amount of revenue springs from the use of soil reduced to private property. For the duties are de- rived from imported goods ; the goods are received in exchange for exports ; and the exports, with a small reduction for the profits of the sea, are the produce of the farm and forest. This is but half the picture. The other half must be shown, and will display the cultivation of the soil in its immense exports, as giving birth to commerce and navigation, and supplying employment to all the trades connected with these two grand branches of national industry, while the busi- ness of selling the land is a meagre and leaner operation. While such has been the difference between sale and cultivation, no powers of calculation can carry out the difference and show what it will be ; for whilst the sale of the land is a single operation, and can be per- formed but once, the extraction of revenue from its cultivation is an annual and per- petual process, increasing in productiveness through all time with the increase of popula- tion, the amelioration of soil, the improve- ment of the country, and the application of science to the industrial pursuits." What possible benefit, in the very nature of things, could Virginia derive from the public lands that she does not now enjoy ? Unlike Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Missis- sippi, Arkansas, &c, she has none of the public domain within her limits ; and whilst therefore she cannot participate in the inci- dental benefits derived from having them within her borders, so likewise is she not exposed to the burdens, disadvantages, and annoyances incident to having immense wastes of land without cultivation or improvement, in a state yielding no revenue and paying no taxes. With the single exception, then, of such advantages as might accrue to her from having the public lands within her limits, of what other is she deprived ? The proceeds | of their sale go into the common treasury of 4he Union, and to that extent diminish taxes which her people would otherwise have to pay. Her poor can there find cheap homes, embracing every variety of soil, climate, and production. Her moneyed men, if they do not choose to take up their abode in the new states, may invest their spare cash for the advantage of their children, looking to the day when population and settlement will have given increased value to the investment ; and in this act of provident foresight they are pro- tected by compacts between the federal govern- ment and the states, by which the latter for ever debar themselves of the right of making any injurious discrimination in the matter of taxation between resident and non-resident proprietors. I again repeat, what higher or other benefit can it be possible to give to Vir- ginia on the public domain ? Is Virginia on the decline? — This is one of those favorite topics upon which the distribu- tionists, chiming in with the abolition orators of the North, and stealing from them both their figures of speech and figures of arithme- tic, descant with more than their customary eloquence and power. We are told Virginia is poor and oppressed by debt ; that her popula- tion is rapidly flying beyond her limits ; that her Lands are depreciating in value, and that we shall soon return to our primeval condition of a wilderness, unless we can get from the national treasury our dividend of the land fund — a fund averaging a little more than ten cents per head to each white inhabitant of the state. Our condition is feelingly compared with that of Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa, &c, and their rapid growth contrasted with our rapid and hopeless decline. It is true that Virginia, taken altogether as a state, does not exhibit at this time the rapid growth which we seein the young republics of the northwest. It would be strange, indeed, if it were so — quite as strange as if a man of mature years should grow as rapidly in height as a boy of fourteen. But to assert that Virginia is declining in wealth, population, improvement, or anything else that contributes to form the material power of a great commonwealth, is utterly false and unfounded, and exhibits a total unacquaintance with her actual condition. In the extent, value, and variety of our mineral resources, ours is beyond all question the richest state in the Union, and the time is near at hand when ti'iey will be in the full progress of develop- ment. Our population is surely and steadily on the increase ; our lands are becoming every clay more productive ; large wastos are being brought into successful cultivation ; public improvements are penetrating every poition of the state, and immigration is seeking the advantages of our genial climate and adding every day to our resources and capacity to bear taxation. The official statistics of our state, which have just come to hand, enable us very conclusively to overthrow the theories of the northern abo- lition writers and the southern distribution ad- vocates, founded upon the supposed decline of Virginia. The returns of the recent reassess- PUBLIC LANDS. 515 mentof the real estate of this commonwealth ex- hibits an extent of progress and improvement of the highest and most gratifying character. By referring to the reassessment of lands made in 1856, and comparing it with the assessment made in 1850, less than six years ago, it will be seen that within that short time there has been an increase in the value of real estate of up- wards of one hundred millions of dollars. Total assessment of 1850 . . §274,680,226 Total assessment of 1856 . . 376,297,227 Assessment of 1856 over that of 1850 $101,61 7.0( As the result in each of the counties Congressional district cannot fail to be ject of interest to the public, I herewith them. in this a sub- l insert Counties. Assessment of 1850. Assessment of 1856. Increase per cent. Berkeley .... Clarke Frederick .... Hampshire .... Jefferson .... $4,408,018 3.381,165 3.256,112 2,963,778 6,135.047 9,156,846 687,259 1,701,563 1,594,217 $5,097,188 3.832.537 5,742,751 3,863,845 6,708.899 11.600,097 727,152 2,100,422 2.200,099 15 13 76 30 9 26 6 23 38 33,284,005 41,872,990 Increase of value in gross . . . $S,5S8,985 Per- ceutage of increase .... 25 per cent. There is another subject developed by the recent assessment of striking interest to every Virginia statesman, and that is the rapid in- crease of population and rapid appreciation of property observable in many portions of the western part of this state. To enable you to form some judgment of this gratifying fact, I hereunto append the results from several of those counties. Counties. Assessment of 1850. Assessment of 1856. Increase per cent. Floyd Wyoming .... $495,647 440.812 658.951 1,168.799 240,504 127,397 $1,120,293 4,282.451 1,615.068 2,9S0,604 510,266 380,196 125 871 145 155 112 198 3,132.110 10,888.878 Increase of value ii Is there anythin Indiana, or Iowa, ing communities o hibit an advancem and wonderful th taining these resu depend upon the c vernment. She r crumbs that fall f Dives — to invoke t more fatal to her the distributionis 1 for ; nor has she 1 her birthright for Self-reliance is in this world with Teach your sons t l gross . . . g in the pi or any of t * the north ent in wea an these? ts, Virgin harities oi tas not hac rom the ta leaidoftlu than the ci s are so )een comp< a mess of lie great e states and o work — tc $7,756,768 ogress of 1 le new an( west, that 1th more s And yet a has not ' the natio to feed u] ble of the it annual g ip of Circe loudly cla ;lled so fai jottage. lement of with indh ach them llinois, 1 grow- can ex- ;riking in at- had to nal go- ion the federal ratuity which moring to sell success r iduals. to look means of living — to their own labor as the teach them to rely upon the energies and resources that they find within themselves, and you will have taught them a lesson of far greater value than all the lands and slaves which you can bequeath to them. A child differently reared will, in nine cases out of ten, prove a burden to himself and a curse to his parents. So it is with nations and states. Virginia can alone prosper by the labor, the enterprise, the means of Virginia. Let the distributionist succeed in instilling his fatal poison into the public mind — let him succeed in persuading the people of Virginia that their proper policy is to depend not upon themselves, but upon the strong arm of the federal government — that they are too poor or too proud to work, and that their necessities should be supplied from the overflowings of the national treasury — and you will not only arrest the now onward march of material improvements in this state, but you will so enervate and emasculate your people as to make them unfit depositaries of that high and holy trust of popular government under which they at this moment live in such prosperity and happiness. Difference between deposite and distribu- tion. — The difference is vital both in the power asserted and in the practical operation of the principles involved. Congress may deposite ; it cannot constitutionally distribute. Again, distribution, as proposed, is to be an act of annual recurrence, a fixed and established policy, causing an habitual dependence of the states upon the federal government for their annuities, stimulating them to extravagance by an absence of all responsibility for its return, and creating a surplus for the mere purpose of distribution. Whilst a deposite, so far as it has ever been countenanced by any respectable statesman in this country, can only be of rare occurrence, growing out of an unforeseen and unexpected condition of the treasury, designed as a temporary expedient to relieve its plethora, and always accompa- nied by efficient legislation to arrest the recur- rence of a similar surplus. The one is advo- cated as a regular mode of supplying a state with the means of expenditure ; the other is justified as a rare and occasional alternative to protect the currency and business of the nation from evils of the most disturbing and alarming character. I can think of but one contingency in which it is probable that the federal government will ever call upon the states for the sums depositr ed with them, and that might take place, if we should ever be involved in a war with some great naval power like Great Britain, when our commerce might be swept from the ocean and the federal revenues from imports wholly cut off. And in that event a call upon the states would be far less onerous to the people than a resort to direct taxation, a power vested in Congress by the Constitution, and which it exercised in 1813 — '14 during our late war with Great Britain. 516 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. The condition of our treasury during the session of the late Congress, was not unlike ■what it was in 1836, when the deposite act of that year passed. Owing to causes wholly unforeseen and unexpected we found that we should have, under the existing rate of duties, a surplus in the treasury on the 30th of June, 1857, of $25,000,000, and on the 30th of June, 1858, of $50,000,000, all of which heing in specie, taken from general circulation and locked up in the treasury, could not fail to derange the moneyed affairs of the country and spread bankruptcy and ruin from one extre- mity of the Union to the other. To guard against these evils it became our imperative duty to reduce the duties on imports, and thus lessen the revenue. This we did, but our new tariff could only go into operation at the be- ginning of the new fiscal year, the 1st of July, 1857. It could not, therefore, affect the sur- plus of $25,000,000 which would be in the treasury on that day. What was to be done with that surplus ? If there had been any just national and constitutional objects de- manding that expenditure, and of which there was any probability it would have been so applied, I should have preferred that direction to have been given to it. But we had conclu- sive evidence, by the rejection of the bill for constructing ten steam sloops, and other bills of equal national importance, that no hope could be entertained of giving that direction to the surplus, but on the contrary, that our redundant treasury was stimulating to wild, corrupting, and extravagant schemes of ex- penditure. With this state of facts before me — and the Committee of Ways and Means having reported a bill framed upon the prin- ciples of the act of 1836, to deposit that sur- plus with the states, I cast my vote without hesitation for the bill. It passed the House of Representatives by a very decided vote — I think by a majority of 40 — but was lost in the Senate from their inability, as I learn, to reach it before the close of Congress, from the pressure of other business having precedence over it. Veto Message of President Pierce. The following is the message of the Presi- dent of the United States, returning to the Senate the bill entitled " An act making a grant of public lands to the several states for the benefit of indigent insane persons," with a statement of the objections which have re- quired him to withhold from it his approval. To the Senate of the United States: The bill, entitled "An act making a grant of public lands to the several states for the benefit of indigent insane persons," which was presented to me on the 27th ultimo, has been maturely considered, and is returned to the Senate, the house in which it originated, with a statement of the objections which have required me to withhold from it my ap- proval. In the performance of this duty, prescribed by the Constitution, I have been compelled to resist the deep sympathies of my own heart in favor of the humane purpose sought to be ac- complished, and to overcome the reluctance with which I dissent from the conclusions of the two houses of Congress, and present my OAvn opinions in opposition to the action of a co-ordinate branch of the government which possesses so fully my confidence and re- spect. If, in presenting my objections to this bill, I should say more than strictly belongs to the measure, or is required for the discharge of my official obligation, let it be attributed to a sin- cere desire to justify my act before those whose good opinion I so highly value, and to that earnestness which springs from my deliberate conviction that a strict adherence to the terms and purposes of the federal compact offers-' the best, if not the only security for the preserva- tion of our blessed inheritance of representa- tive liberty. The bill provides in substance : First. That ten millions of acres of land be granted to the several states, to be apportioned among them in the compound ratio of the geo- graphical area and representation of said states in the House of Representatives. Second. That wherever there ar£ public lands in a state, subject to sale at the regular price of private entry, the proportion of said ten millions of acres falling to such state shall be selected from such lands within it ; and that to the states in which there are no such public lands, land scrip shall be issued to the amount of their distributive shares, respec- tively, said scrip not to be entered by said states, but to be sold by them, and subject to entry by their assignees : Provided, That none of it shall be sold at less than one dollar per acre, under penalty of forfeiture of the same to the United States. Third. That the expenses of the manage- ment and superintendence of said lands, and of the moneys received therefrom, shall be paid by the states to which they may belong, out of the treasury of said states. Fourth. That the gross proceeds of the sales of such lands or land scrip, so granted, shall be invested by the several states in safe stocks, to constitute a perpetual fund, the principal of which shall remain for ever undiminished, and the interest to be appropriated to the main- tenance of the indigent insane within the sev- eral states. Fifth. That annual returns of lands or scrip PUBLIC LANDS. 517 sold shall be made by the states to the Secre- tary of the Interior, and the whole grant be Bubject to certain conditions and limitations {described in the bill, to be assented to by egislative acts of said states. This bill, therefore, proposes that the federal government shall make provision, to the amount of the value of ten millions of acres of land, for an eleemosynary object within the several states, to be administered by the political au- thority of the same ; and it presents at the threshold the question whether any such act on the part of the federal government is war- ranted and sanctioned by the Constitution, the provisions and principles of which are to be protected and sustained as a first and para- mount duty. It cannot be questioned, that if Congress have power to make provision for the indigent insane without the limits of this District, it has the same power to provide for the indigent who are not insane, and thus to transfer to the federal government the charge of all the poor in all the states. It has the same power to provide hospitals and other local establish- ments for the care and cure of every species of human infirmity, and thus to assume all that duty, of either public philanthropy or public necessity, to the dependent, the orphan, the sick, or the needy, which is now discharged by the states themselves, or by corporate institu- tions, or private endowments, existing under the legislation of the states. The whole field of public beneficence is thrown open to the care and culture of the federal government. Generous impulses no longer encounter the limitations and control of our imperious funda- mental law. For, however worthy may be the f resent object in itself, it is only one of a class, t is not exclusively worthy of benevolent re- gard. Whatever considerations dictate sym- pathy for this particular object, apply in like manner, if not in the same degree, to idiocy, to physical disease, to extreme destitution. If Congress may and ought to provide for any one of these objects, it may and ought to pro- vide for them all. And if it be done in this case, what answer shall be given when Con- gress shall be called upon, as it doubtless will be, to pursue a similar course of legislation in the others ? It will obviously be vain to reply that the object is worthy, but that the applica- tion has taken a wrong direction. The power will have been deliberately assumed, the gene- ral obligation will, by this act, have been ac- knowledged, and the question of means and expediency will alone be left for consideration. The decision upon the principle in any one case determines it for the whole class. The question presented, therefore, clearly is upon the constitutionality and propriety of the fede- ral government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely — that of providing for the care and support of all those, among the people of the United States, who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy. I readily, and, I trust, feelingly acknow- ledged the duty incumbent on us all, as men and citizens, and as among the highest and holiest of our duties, to provide for those who, in the mysterious order of Providence, aro subject to want, and to disease of body or mind ; but I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the federal govern- ment the great almoner of public charitj throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and sub- versive of the whole theory upon which the union of these states is founded. And if it were admissible to contemplate the exercise of this power for any object whatever, I cannot avoid the belief that it would in the end be prejudicial, rather than beneficial, in the noble offices of charity to have the charge of them transferred from the states to the federal gov- vernment. Are we not too prone to forget that the federal Union is the creature of the states, not they of the federal Union? We were the inhabitants of colonies, distinct in local government one from the other, before the revolution. By that revolution, the colo- nies each became an independent state. They achieved that independence, and secured its recognition by the agency of a consulting body, which, from being an assembly of the ministers of distinct sovereignties, instructed to agree to no form of government which did not leave the domestic concerns of each state to itself, was appropriately denominated a Congress. When, having tried the experiment of the confederation, they resolved to change that for the present federal Union, and thus to confer on the federal government more ample authority, they scrupulously measured such of the functions of their cherished sovereignty as they chose to delegate to the general gov- ernment. With this aim, and to this end, the fathers of the republic framed the Constitu- tion, in and by which the independent and sovereign states united themselves for certain specified objects and purposes, and for those only, leaving all powers not therein set forth as conferred on one or another of the three great departments — the legislative, the execu- tive, and the judicial — indubitably with the states. And when the people of the several states had, in their state conventions, and thus alone, given effect and force to the Constitu- tion, not content that any doubt should in future arise as to the scope and character of this act, they engrafted thereon the explicit declaration that " the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor pro- hibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people," can it be controverted that the great mass of the busi- ness of government, that involved in the social relations the internal arrangements of the 518 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. body politic, the mental and moral culture of men, the development of local resources of wealth, the punishment of crimes in general, the preservation of order, the relief of the needy or otherwise unfortunate members of society, did, in practice, remain with the states; that none of these objects of local con- cern are by the Constitution expressly or im- pliedly prohibited to the states ; and that none of them are, by any express language of the Constitution, transferred to the United States? Can it 1)0 claimed that any of these functions of local administration and legislation are vested in the federal government by any im- plication ? I have never found anything in the Constitution which is susceptible of such a construction. No one of the enumerated powers touches the subject, or has even a re- mote analogy to it. The powers conferred upon the United States have reference to fede- ral relations, or to the means of accomplishing or executing things of federal relation. So, also, of the same character are the powers taken away from the states by enumeration. In either case, the powers granted, and the powers restricted, were so granted or so re- stricted only where it was requisite for the maintenance of peace and harmony between the states, or for the purpose of protecting their common interests, and defending their com- mon sovereignty against aggression from abroad or insurrection at home. I shall not discuss at length the question of power sometimes claimed for the general gov- ernment under the clause of the eighth section of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power " to lay and collect taxes, duties, im- posts, and excises, to pay debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," because if it has not al- ready been settled upon sound reason and au- thority it never will be. I take the received and just construction of that article, as if written to lay and collect taxes, duties, im- posts, and excises, in order to pay the debts, and in order to provide for the common de- fence and general welfare. It is not a sub- stantive general power to provide for the wel- fare of the United States, but is a limitation on the grant of power to raise money by taxes, duties, and imposts. If it were otherwise, all the rest of the Constitution, consisting of carefully-enumerated and cautiously-guarded grants of specific powers, would have been useless, if not delusive. It would be impossi- ble, in that view, to escape from the conclu- sion that these were inserted only to mislead for the present, and, instead of enlightening and defining the pathway of the future, to in- volve its action in the mazes of doubtful con- struction. Such a conclusion the character of the men who framed that sacred instrument will never permit us to form. Indeed, to sup- pose it susceptible of any other construction, wculd be to consign all the rights of the states, and of the people of the states, to the mere discretion of Congress, and thus to clothe the federal government with authority to control the sovereign states, by which they would have been dwarfed into provinces or depart- ments, and all sovereignty vested in an abso- lute consolidated central power, against which the spirit of liberty has so often, and in so many countries, struggled in vain. In my judgment, you cannot, by tributes to humanity, make any adequate compensation for the wrong you would inflict, by removing the sources of power and political action from those who are to be thereby affected. If the time shall ever arrive when, for an object appealing however strongly to our sympathies, the dignity of the states shall bow to the dictation of Congress, by conforming their legislation thereto, when the power, and majesty, and honor of those who created shall become subordinate to the thing of their creation, I but feebly utter my apprehensions when I express my firm con- viction that we shall see " the beginning of the end." Fortunately, we are not left in doubt as to the purpose of the Constitution, any more than as to its express language ; for although the history of its formation, as recorded in the Madison papers, shows that the federal gov- ernment, in its present form, emerged from the conflict of opposing influences, which have continued to divide statesmen from that day to this, yet the rule of clearly defined powers and of strict construction presided over the actual conclusion and subsequent adoption of the Constitution. President Madison, in the "Fed- eralist," says: " The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state gov- ernments are numerous and indefinite." "Its [the general government's] jurisdiction ex- tends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several states a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects." In the same spirit, President Jefferson in- vokes " the support of the state governments in all their rights, as the most competent ad- ministrations for our domestic concerns, and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies." And President Jackson said that our true strength and wisdom are not pro- moted by invasions of the rights and powers of the several states, but that, on the contrary, the}' consist, " not in binding the states more closely to the centre, but in leaving each more unobstructed in its proper orbit." The framers of the Constitution, in refusing to confer on the federal government any juris- diction oveer these purely local objects, in my judgment manifested a wise forecast and broad comprehension of the true interests of these objects themselves, It is clear that public charities within the states can be effi- ciently administered only by their authority. The bill before me concedes this, for it does not PUBLIC LANDS. 519 commit the funds it provides to the adminis- tration of any other authority. I cannot but repeat what I have before ex- pressed, that if the several states — many of which have already laid the foundation of mu- nificent establishments of local beneficence, and nearly all of which are proceeding to es- tablish them — shall be led to suppose, as should this bill become a law they will be, that Cmgress is to make provision for such objects, the fountains of charity will be dried up at home ; and the several states, instead of bestowing their own means on the social wants of their own people, may themselves, through the strong temptation which appeals to states as to individuals, become humble supplicants for the bounty of the federal government, reversing their true relations to this Union. Having stated my views of the limitation of the powers conferred bythe eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, I deem it pro- per to call attention to the third section of the fourth article, and to the provisions of the sixth article, bearing directly upon the question un- der consideration, which, instead of aiding the claim to power exercised in this case, tend, it is believed, strongly to illustrate and explain positions, which, even without such support, I cannot regard as questionable. The third section of the fourth article of the Constitu- tion is in the following terms : " The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States ; and nothing in this Constitu- tion shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any parti- cular state." The sixth article is as follows, to wit, that " all debts contracted and engage- ments entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the Uni- ted States, under this Constitution, as under the Confederation." For a correct under- standing of the terms used in the third sec- tion of the fourth article, above quoted, refer- ence should be had to the history of the times in which the Constitution was formed and adopted. It was decided upon, in convention, on the 17th of September, 1787, and by it Con- gress was empowered " to dispose of," &c, " the territory or other property belonging to the United States." The only territory then belonging to the United States was that then recently ceded by the several states, to wit, by New York in 1781, by Virginia in 1784, by Massachusetts in 1785, and by South Carolina in August, 1787, only the month before the formation of the Constitution. The cession from Virginia contained the following provi- sion : " That all the lands within the territory so cidedto the United States, and not reserved for or appropriated to any of the before-men- tioned purposes, or disposed of in bounties to the officers and soldiers of the American army, shall be considered a common fund foi the use and benefit of such of the United States as have become or shall become mem- bers of the confederation or federal alliance of the said states, Virginia excluded, accord- ing to their usual respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure, and shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed o/*for that pur- pose, and for no other purpose or use whatso- ever." Here the object for which these lands are to be disposed of is clearly set forth, and the power to dispose of them granted by the third section of the fourth article of the Constitu- tion clearly contemplates such disposition only. If such be the fact, and in my mind there can be no doubt of it, then you have again not only no implication in favor of the contempla- ted grant, but the strongest authority against it. Furthermore, this bill is in violation of the faith of the government, pledged in the act of January 28, 1847. The nineteenth section of that act declares: "That for the payment of the stock, which may be created under the provisions of this act, the sales of the public lands are hereby pledged; and it is hereby made the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to use and apply all moneys which may be re- ceived into the treasury for the sales of the public lands, after the first day of January, 1848, first, to pay the interest on all stocks issued by virtue of this act ; and, secondly, to use the balance of said receipts, after pay- ing the interest aforesaid, in the purchase of said stocks at their market value," &c. The debts then contracted have not been liquida- ted, and the language of this section, and the obligations of the United States under it, are too plain to need comment. I have been unable to discover any distinc- tion on constitutional grounds, or grounds of expediency, between an appropriation of ten millions of dollars, directly from the money in the treasury, for the object contemplated, and the appropriation of lands presented for my sanction ; and yet I cannot doubt, that if the bill proposed ten millions of dollars from the treasury of the United States, for the sup- port of the indigent insane in t the several states, that the constitutional question involv- ed in the act would have attracted forcibly the attention of Congress. I respectfully submit that, in a constitution- al point of view, it is wholly immaterial whe- ther the appropriation be in money or in land. The public domain is the common property of the Union, just as much as the surplus pro- ceeds of that, and of duties on imports, re- maining unexpended in the treasury. As such it has been pledged, is now pledged, and may need to be so pledged again for public indebt- edness. As property it is distinguished from actual money chiefly in this respect, that its profita- ble management sometimes requires that por- 520 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tions of it be appropriated to local objects in tbe states wherein it may happen to lie, as would be done by any prudent proprietor to enhance the sale-value of his private do- main. All such grants of land are, in fact, a dispo- sal of it for value received, but they afford no precedent or constitutional reason for giving away the public lands. Still less do they give sanction to appropriations for objects which have not been intrusted to the federal govern- ment, and therefore belong exclusively to the states. To assume that the public lands are appli- cable to ordinary state objects, whether of pub- lic structures, police, charity, or expenses of state administration, would be to disregard, to the amount of the value of the public lands, all the limitations of the Constitution, and confound to that extent all distinctions between the rights and powers of the states and those of the United States. For if the public lands may be applied to the support of the poor, whether sane or insane ; if the dis- posal of them and their proceeds be not sub- ject to the ordinary limitations of the Consti- tution, then Congress possesses unqualified power to provide for expenditures in the states by means of the public lands, even to the de- gree of defraying the salaries of governors, judges, and all other expenses of the govern- ment and internal administration within the several states. The conclusion, from the general survey of the whole subject, is to my mind irresistible, and closes the question both of right and of ex- pediency, so far as regards the principle of the appropriation proposed in this bill. Would not the admission of such power in Congress, to dispose of the public domain, work the practical abrogation of some of the most im- portant provisions of the Constitution ? If the systematic reservation of a definite portion of the public lands, (the sixteenth sections,) in the states, for the purposes of education, and occasional grants for similar purposes, be cited as contradicting these con- clusions, the answer, as it appears to me, is obvious and satisfactory. Such reservations and grants, besides being a part of the condi- tions on which the proprietary right of the United States is maintained along with the eminent domain of a particular state, and by which the public land remains free from taxa- tion in the state in which it lies, as long as it remains the property of the United States, are the acts of a mere land-owner disposing of a small share of his property in a way to aug- ment the value of the residue, and in this mode to encourage the early occupation of it by the industrious and intelligent pioneer. The great example of apparent donation of lands to the states, likely to be relied upon as sustaining the principles of this bill, is the re- linquishment of swamp lands to the states in which they are situated ; but this also, like other grants already referred to, was based expressly upon grounds clearly distinguish- able in principle from any which can be as- sumed for the bill herewith returned, viz., upon the interest and duty of the proprietor. They were charged, and not without reason, to be a nuisance tc the inhabitants of the sur- rounding country. The measure was predi- cated, not only upon the ground of the disease inflicted upon the people of the states, which the United States could not justify as a just and honest proprietor, but also upon an express limitation of the application of the proceeds, in the first instance, to purposes of levees and drains, thus protecting the health of the inha- bitants, and, at the same time, enhancing the value of the remaining lands belonging to the general government. It is not to be denied that Congress, while administering the public lands as a proprietor within the principle distinctly announced in my annual message, may sometimes have failed to distinguish accurately between ob- jects which are and which are not within its constitutional powers. After the most careful examination, I find but two examples in the acts of Congress which furnish any precedent for the present bill ; and those examples will, in my opinion, serve rather as a warning, than as an induce- ment to tread in the same path. The first is the act of March 3d, 1819, granting a township of land to the Connecti- cut asylum for the education of the deaf and dumb ; the second that of April 5, 1826, making a similar grant of land to the Kentucky asy- lum for teaching the deaf and dumb — the first, more than thirty years after the adoption of the Constitution, and the second, more than a quarter of a century ago. These acts were unimportant as to the amount appropriated, and, so far as I can .ascertain, were passed on two grounds: first, that the object was a cha- ritable one ; and, secondly, that it was nation- al. To say that it was a charitable object, is only to say that it was an object of expendi- ture proper for the competent authority ; but it no more tended to show that it was a proper object of expenditure by the United States, than is any other purely local object appeal- ing to the best sympathies of the human heart in any of the states. And the suggestion that a school for the mental culture of the deaf and dumb in Connecticut, or Kentucky, is a na- tional object, only shows how loosely this ex- pression has been used, when the purpose was to procure appropriations by Congress. It is not perceived how a school of this charae ter is otherwise national than is any establish- ment of religious or moral instruction. All the pursuits of industry, everything which promotes the material or intellectual well-be- ing of the race, every ear of corn or boll of cotton which grows, is national in the same PUBLIC LANDS. 521 sense, for each one of these things goes to swell the aggregate of national prosperity and happiness of the United States ; but it con- founds all meaning of language to say that these things are "national" as equivalent to " federal," so as to come within any of the classes of appropriation for which Congress is authorized by the Constitution to legislate. It is a marked point of the history of the Constitution, that when it was proposed to empower Congress to establish a university, the proposition was confined to the district intend- ed for the future seat of government of the United States, and that even that proposed clause was omitted in consideration of the ex- clusive powers conferred on Congress to legis- late for that district. Could a more decisive indication of the true construction and the spirit of the Constitution, in regard to all mat- ters of this nature, have been given? It proves that such objects were considered by the convention as appertaining to local legis- lation only, that they were not comprehended, either expressly or by implication, in the grant of general power to Congress, and that consequently they remained with the several 6tates. The general result at which I have arrived, is the necessary consequence of those views of the relative rights, powers, and duties of the states and of the federal government, which I have long entertained, and often expressed, and in reference to which my convictions do but increase in force with time and experi- ence. I have thus discharged the unwelcome duty of respectfully stating my objections to this bill, with which I cheerfully submit the whole subject to the wisdom of Congress. Franklin Pierce. Washington, May 3, 1854. Congressional History of Distribution, and Votes thereon. On the lGth of April, 1832, in the Senate of the United States, Mr. Clay, from the Com- mittee on Manufactures, reported a bill from that committee for a distribution of the pro- deeds of the public lands. It was brought to a vote, in the Senate, on the 3d of July, 1832, aad passed by yeas and nays as follows : — Ybas.— Messrs. Bell of N. H.. Chambers of Md., Clay of 'Ky., Clayton of Del., Dallas of Pa., Diekerson of N. J., Dud- ley of N. Y., Ewing of 0., Foot of Conn., Frelinghuysen of N. J.. Hendricks of Ind.. Holmes of Me., Johnston of La., Knight of U. I., Naudain of Del., Poindexter of Miss.. Prentiss of Vt, Rubbing of R. I.. Ruggles of 0., Seymour of Vt., Silsbee of Mass.. Sprague of Me., Tomlinson of Conn., Waggaman of Lfc, Webster of Mass., Wilkins of Pa.— 26. Nats.— Messrs. Benton of Mo., Brown of N. C, Ellis of Miss., Forsyth of Ga., Grundy of Tenn., Hayne of S. C, Hill ;f N. H.. Kane of 111., King of Ala.. Mangum of N. C, Marcy »f N. Y., Miller of S. C, Robinson of 111., Smith of Md., Taze- well of Ya., Troup of Ga., Tyler of Va, White of Tenn.— 18. On the 3d of July, 1832, in the House of Representatives, Mr. Wilde of Georgia moved to lay the bill on the table, which was car- ried : — Yeas. — Messrs. Alexander of Ya., Anderson of Me., Archer of Va., Ashley of Mo., J. S. Barbour of Ya., Barnwell of S. C, .Tas. Bates of Me., Beardsley of N. Y., J. Pell of Tenn., Bergen of N. Y., Bethune of N. C, Jas. Blair of S. C, Boon of Ind., Bouck of N. Y., Bouldin of Ya., Branch of N. C, Jno. C. Brodhead of N. Y., Cambreleng of N. Y., Carr of Ind., Chandler of N. H., Chinn of Va., Claiborne of Ya., Clay of Ala., Clayton of Ga., Coke of Ya., Lewis Condict of N. J., Conner of N. C, Coulter of Pa., Warren R. Davis of S. C, Dayan of N. Y., Doubleday of N. Y., Drayton of S. C, Felder of 8. C, Fitzgerald of Tenn., Ford of Pa., Foster of Ga., Gaither of Ky., Gilmore of Pa., Gordon of Va., Griffin of S. C, Thos. II. Hall of N. C, Wm. Hall of Tenn., Harper of N. II.. Hawes of N. Y., Hawkins of N. C, Hoffman of N. Y., Holland of Me., Horn of Pa., Howard of Md., Hubbard of N. H., Isacks of Tenn., Jarvis of Me., Jenifer of Md., Cave Johnson of Tenn., Kavanaugh of Me., Jno. King of N. Y., Lamar of Ga., Lan- sing of N. Y., Lecompte of Ky., Lewis of Ala., Lyon of Ky., Mann of Pa., Mardis of Ala., Mason of Va., McCarty of Ind., McDuffie of S. C, Mclntire of Me., McKay of N. C, Mitchell of S. C, Muhlenberg of Pa., Newman of Ga.. Nuckolls of S. C, Patton of Va., Pierson of N. C, Plummer of Miss., Polk of Tenn., Reed of Mass., Roane of Va., Soule of N. Y., Speight of N. C, Standifer of Tenn., Stephens of Ga., Francis Thomas of Md., Wiley Thompson of Ga., Verplanck of N. Y., Ward of N. Y., Wayne of Ga., Weeks of N. H., Campbell P. White of N. Y., Wickliffe of Ky., Wilde of Ga.— 91. Nats.— Messrs. J. Q. Adams of Mass., C. Allen of Ky., H. Allen of Vt, Allison of Pa., Appleton of Mass., Armstrong of Va., Arnold of Tenn., Babcock of N. Y., Banks of Pa., Bar- ber of Conn., Barriuger of N. C, Barstow of N. Y., Isaac C. Bates of Mass., Jno. Blair of Tenn., Briggs of Mass., Bucher of Pa., Bullard of La., Burd of Pa., Burges of R. I., Choate of Mass., Collier of N. C, Conditof N. J.,Eleutheros Cooke of 0., Bates Cooke of N. Y., Cooper of N. J., Corwin of 0., Crane of 0., Crawford of Penn., Creighton of 0., Daniel of Ky.. Davis of Mass., Dearborn of Mass., Denny of Pa., Dewart of Pa., Dodd- ridge of Va., Ellsworth of Conn., G. Evans of Me.. J. Evans, of Pa., II. Everett of Vt, Findlay of 0., Grennell of Mass- Hodges of Mass., Heisterof Pa., Hughes of N. J., Huntington? of Conn., Ihrie of Pa., Ingersoll of Conn., Irvin of 0.. Ken- dall of Mass., Kennon of O., A. King of Pa., H. King of Pa., Leavitt of 0., Letcher of Ky., Marshall of Ky., Maxwell of Va.. McCoy of Va., McKennan of Pa., Mercer of Va., Milligan of Del.. Pearce of R. I., Pitcher of N. Y., Potts of Pa., Ran- dolph of N. J., Reed of N. Y., Root of N. Y., Russel, W. B. Shepard of N.C., A. H. Shepperd of N. C, Slade of Vt, S. A. Smith of Va.. Southard of N. J., Stanberry of 0., Stewart of Pa., Sutherland of Pa., Taylor of N. Y., Thomas of La., J. Thomson of 0., Tompkins of Ky., Vance of 0., Vinton of 0., Washington of Md., Watmough of Pa., Wheeler of N. Y., E. Whittlesey of 0., Wilkin of N. Y., Williams of N. C, Young of Conn.— 88. So the bill was in effect repealed. Mr. Clay's bill, appropriating for a limited time the proceeds of the sale of the public lands, being a distribution bill, passed the Senate on the 25th of January, 1833, by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Bell of Tenn., Chambers of Md., Clay ol Ky., Clayton of Del.. Dallasof Pa., Diekerson of N. J., Dudley of N. Y.. Ewing of 0., Foot of Conn., Frelinghuysen of N. J., Hendricks of Ind., Holmes of Me., Johnston of La., Knight of R. I., Poindexter of Miss., Prentiss of Vt. Robbins of R. I., Buggies of 0., Seymour of Vt, Silsbee of Mass., Sprague of Me., Tomlinson of Conn., Waggaman of La., Wilkins of Pa. —24. Nats. — Messrs. Benton of Mo., Black of Miss.. Brown of N. C, Buckner of Mo., Calhoun of S. C, Forsyth of Ga., Grun- dy of Tenn.. Hill of N. II., Kane of 111., Kiug of Ala., Man- gum of N. C, Miller of S. C, Moore of Ala., Rives of Va., Robinson of 111.. Smith of Md., Tipton of Ind., Tyler of Va., White of Tenn., Wright of N. Y— 20. It passed the House, on the 2d of March, . 1833, by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Adams of Mass., Chilton Allen of Ky., Heman Allen of Vt., Arnold of Tenn., Babcock, Banks of Pa., Noyes Barber of Conn.. Jno. S. Barbour of Va., Bar- linger of N. C, Barstow of N. Y., Beardsley of N. Y., Brigga of Mass., Bucher of Pa., Bullard of La., Burd of Pa., Eleu- theros Cooke of 0., Bates Cooke of N. Y., Cooper of N. J., Cor- win of 0., Coulter of Pa., Crane of 0., Crawford of Pa, 522 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Creighton of 0., Daniel of Ky., John Davis of Mass., Dear- born of Mass., Denny of I'a., Dewart of l'a., Dickson of N. Y., Ellsworth of Conn., George Evans of Me., Joshua Evans of Pa., Edward Everett of Mass.. Horace Everett of Vt.,(iilmore of l'a., Grennell of Mass., Hiland Hall of Vt., Hiester of l'a., Hodges of Mass., Hogan of N. Y., Hughes of N. J., Hunt- ington of Conn., Ihrie of Pa., Irvin of 0., Jenifer of Md., Joseph Johnson, Kavanaugh of Me.. Kendall of Mass., Ken- non of 0., Adam King of l'a., Henry King of Pa., Kerr of »ld., Leavitt of 0., Letcher of Ky., Marshall of Ky., Max- well of Va., McCarty of Iud., Robert McCoy of Va., McKen- nan of Pa., Mercer of Va., Milligau of Del., Muhlenberg of Pa., Nelson of Mass., Newton of Va., Pearce of B. I., Pen- dleton of N. Y., Pierson of N. Y., Pitcher of N. Y.. Potts of Pa., Randolph of N. J., John Reed of Mass., Root of N. Y., Russell of 0., Augustine II. Shepperd of N. C, Sladeof Vt., Smith of Pa., Southard of N. J., Stanberry of 0., Stewart of Pa., Sutherland of Pa., Taylor of N. Y., Philemon Thomas of La., John Thomson of Ga., Tompkins of Ky., Verplanck of N. Y., Vinton of 0., Wardwell of N. Y., Washington of Md., Watmough of Pa., Wilkin of N. Y., Elisha Whittlesey of 0., Frederick Whittlesey of N. Y., Edward White of La.. Wickliffe of Ky., Williams of N. C— 96. Nats. — Messrs. Alexander of Va., Archer of Va., Ashley of Mo., Barnwell of S. C, Bethune of N. C, John Blair of S. C, Boon of Ind., Cambreleng of N. Y., Carr of Ind., Chinn of Va., Claiborne of Va., Clay of Ala., Coke of Va., Duncan of III., Felder of S. C, Gordon of Va., Griffin of S. C.Wm. Hall of N. C, Hawkins of N. C. Horn of Pa., Isacks of Tenn., Jarvis of Maine, Richard M. Johnson of Ky., Lecompte of Ky., Lewis of Ala., Lyon of Ky., Mardis of Ala., Mason of Va., Wm. McCoy of Va., Mclntire of Me., McKay of N. C, Plummer of Miss., Roane of Va., Sewall of Md., Staudifer of Tenn., Wiley Thomson of Ga., Ward of N. Y., Campbell P. White of N. Y., Worthington of Md.-39. On the 29th of December, 1835, Mr. Clay again introduced his Land Distribution Bill. It passed the Senate on the 4th of May, 1836, by yeas and nays as follows: — Yeas. — Messrs. Black of Miss., Buchanan of Pa., Clay of Ky., Clayton of Del., Crittenden of Ky., Davis of Mass., Ewing of 0., Goldsborough of Md., Hendricks of Ind., Kent of Md., Knight of R. I., Leigh of Va., McKean of Pa., Man- gum of N. C, Naudain of Del., Nicholas of La., Porter of La., Prentiss of Vt., Preston of S. C, Robbins of R. I., Southard of N. J., Swift of Va., Tomlinson of Conn., Web- ster of Mass., White of Tenn. — 25. Nats. — Messrs. Benton of Mo., Calhoun of S. C Cuthbert of Ga., Ewing of 111., Grundy of Tenn., Hill of N. II., Hub- bard of N. II., King of Ala., King of Ga., Linn of Mo., Moore of Ala., Morris of 0., Niles of Conn.. Rives of Va., Robinson of 111., Buggies of Me.. Shepley of Me , Tallmadge of N. Y., Walker of Miss., Wright of N. Y— 20. In the House on the 22d of June, 1836, Mr. Haws of Ky. moved to lay the bill on the table, which motion was carried by the fol- lowing vote : — Yeas.— Messrs. Ash of Pa., Beat of Va., Bockee of N. Y., Boon of Ind., Borden of Mass.. Bouldin of Va., Boyd of Ky., Brown of N. Y., Burns of N. II., Byuum of N. C. Cambre- leng of N. Y., Carr of Ind., Casey of 111., Chaney of 0., Chapman of Ala., Chapin of N. Y., Cleveland of Ga., Coles of Va., Connor of N. C, Craig of Va., Cramer of N. Y., Cushman of N. IL, Dickerson of N. J., Doubleday of N. Y., Dromgoole of Va.. Dunlap of Tenn., Fairfield of Me., Farlin of N. Y., Fowler of N. J., Fry of Pa., W. K. Fuller of N. Y., J. Garland of Va., Gillett of N. Y., Grantland of Ga., Gray- son of S. C, Haley of Conn., J. Hall of Me., A. G. Harrison of Mo.. Ilawes of Ky., Hawkins of N. C, Haynes of Ga., Hopkins of Va., Howard of Md., Huntington of N. Y., Huntsman of Tenn., Ingham of Conn., W. Jackson of Mass., J. Jackson of Ga., Jarvis of Me., J. Johnson of A' a., R. M. Johnson of Ky., C. Johnson of Tenn., J. W. Jones of Va., B. Jones of 0., Judson of CoDn., Kilgore of 0., Lansing of N. Y., Lawler of Ala., G. Lee of N. Y., J. Lee of N. Y., F. Lee of N. J., Leonard of N. Y., Logan of Pa., Loyall of Va., Lucas of Va., Lyon of Ala., Martin of Ala., J. Y. Mason of Va., W. Mason of N. Y., M. Mason of Me , May of 111., Mc- Keon of N. Y., McKim of Ind., McLene of 0., Miller of Pa., Montgomery of N. C, Moore of N. Y., Morgan of Va., Muh- lenberg of l'a., Page of N. Y., Patterson of 0., Patton of Va., F. Pierce of N. IL, D. J. Pearce of R. I., Phelps of Conn., Pinckney of S C. Jno. Reynolds of 111., Jos. Reynolds of N. Y., Roane of Va., Seymour of N. Y., Shields of Tenn.. Shinn of N. J., Sickles of N. Y., Smith of Me., Speight of N. C, Sutherland of Pa., Taylor of N. Y., J. Thompson of 0.. Toucey of Conn., Towns of Ga., Ward of N. Y., Ward- well of N. Y., Webster of 0., T. T. Whittlesey of Conn.— 104. Nats. — Messrs. John Q. Adams of Mass., C. Allen of Ky., II. Allen of Vt., Anthony of Pa., Bond of 0.. Briggs of Mass., Buchanan of Pa., Bunch of Tenn., J. Calhoon, of Ky., W. B. Calhoon of Mass., Carter of Tenn., Childs of N. Y., N. H. Clairborne of Va., J. F. H. Clairborne of Miss., Clark of Pa., Corwin of 0., Crane of 0., Cushing of Mass., Darling- ton of Pa., Deberry of N. C, Denny of Pa., Dickson of Miss., Everett of Vt., Forester of Tenn., French of Ky., R. Gar- laud of La., Granger of N. Y.. Graves of Ky., Grennell of Mass., Hard of N. Y., Hardin of Ky., Harlan of Ky., Har- per of Pa., Haaeltine of N. Y., Henderson of Pa., Heister of l'a., Hoar of Mass., Howell of 0., Hubley of Pa., Hunt of N. Y., Ingersoll of Pa., James of Vt., Jenifer of Md., II. Johnson of La., Kinnard of Ind., Lane of Ind., Laporte of Pa., Lawrence of Mass.. Lay of N. Y., L. Lea of Tenn., Lin- coln of Mass., Love of N. Y., J. Mann of Pa., S. Mason of 0., Maury of Tenn., McCarty of Ind., McKay of N. C, Mc- Kennan of Pa., Mercer of Va., Milligan of Del., Morris of Pa., Parker of N. J., J. A. Pearce of Md., Pettigrew of N. C, Peyton of Tenn., Phillips of Mass., Potts of Pa., Reed of Mass., Rencher of N. C, Robertson of Va., Russell of N. Y.. W. B. Shepard of N. C, A. H. Shepperd of N. C, Slade of Vt., Spangler of 0., Standifer of Tenn., Storer of 0., Talia- ferro of Va.. Underwood of Ky., Vinton of 0., White of Fa., E. Whittlesey of 0., L. Williams of N. C, S. Williams of Ky., Wise of Va.— 85. On the 22d of June, 1841, Mr. W. C. John- son of Md., from the Committee on Public Lands, reported a bill to appropriate, for a limited time, the proceeds of the public lands. On the 6th of July, 1841, the bill was brought to a vote in the House, and passed by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Adams of Mass., Allen of Maine, L. W. Andrews of Ky., S. J. Andrews of 0., Arnold of Tenn., Aycrigg of N. J., Babcock of N. Y., Baker of Mass., Barnard of N. Y., Birdseye of N. Y., Black of Pa., Blair of N. Y., Boardman of Conn., Borden of Mass., Botts of Va., Briggs of Mass., Brockway of Conn., Bronson of Me., J. Brown of Pa., Buruell of Mass., Calhoun of Mass., Thos. J. Campbell of Tenn., Caruthers of Tenn., Chittenden of N. Y., Jno. C. Clark of N. Y.. Stanley N. Clark of N. Y., Cooper of Pa., Cowen of 0., Cranston of R. I., Cravens of Ind., Cushing of Mass., Deberry of N. C, J. Edwards of Pa., Everett of Vt., Fessenden of Me.. Fillmore of N. Y., A. Lawrence Foster of N. Y., Gates of N. Y.. Gentry of Tenn., Giddings of 0., Goggin of Va., Patrick G. Goode of 0., Green of Ky., Greig of N. Y.. Hall of Vt., Halstead of N. J., Wm. S. Hastings of Mass., Henry of Pa., Hudson of Mass.. Hunt of N. Y., Jas. Irvin of Pa., Wm. W. Irvin of Pa., James of Pa., Wm. Cost Johnson of Md., Isaac D. Jones of Md., J. P. Kennedy of Md., Lane of Ind., Lawrence of Pa., Linn of N. Y.. Thos. F. Marshall of Ky., Samson Mason of 0., Mathiot of 0., Mattocks of Vt., Maynard of N. Y.. Moore of La., Morgan of N. Y., Morris of 0., Morrow of 0., Osborne of Conn., Owsley of Ky., Pearce of Md., Pen- dleton of 0., Pope of Ky., Powell of Va., Promt of Ind., Beuj. Randall of Me., Alex. Randall of Md., Randolph of N. J., Rayner of N. C, Ridgway of 0., Rodney of Del., Russell of 0., Saltonstall of Mass., Sergeant of Pa., Simonton of Pa., Slade of Vt, Smith of Conn., Sollers of Md., Sprigg of Ky., Stanly of N. C. Stokeley of 0., Stratton of N. J.. Stuart of N. C, Summers of Va., Taliaferro of Va., Jno. B. Thompson of Ky., Richd. W. Thompson of Ind., Tillinghast of R. I., Toland of Pa., Tomlinson of N. Y., Triplett of Ky., Trumbull of Conn., Underwood of Ky., Van Rensselaer of N. Y., AVallace of Ind., Washington of N. C, Edward D. White of La., Jos. L. White of Ind., Thos. W. Williams of Conn., Lewis Williams of N. C, Jos. L.Williams of Tenn., Winthrop of Mass., Y r orke of N. J., Agustus Young of Vt., Jno. Young of N. Y. — 116. Nats. — Messrs. Alford of Ga., Arrington of N. C, Atherton of N. II. , Banks of Va., Beeson of Pa., Bidlack of Pa., Bowne of N. Y., Boyd of Ky., Brewster of N. Y., A.V. Brown of Tenn., Milton Brown of Tenn., Burke of N. H., Sampson II. Butler of S. C. Wm. Butler of S. C, W. 0. Butler of Ky., Green W. Caldwell of N. C, P. C. Caldwell of S. C, Jno. Campbell of S. C, Cary of Va., Chapman of Ala., Clifford of Me., Clinton of N. Y., Coles of Va.. Daniel of N. C, R. D. Davis of N. Y., J. B. Dawson of La., Dean of 0.. Dimock of Pa., Doan of 0., Doigof N.Y., Eastman of N. H.,J.C. Edwards of Mo., Egbert of N. Y., Ferris of N. Y., Jno. G. Floyd of N. Y., Fornance of Pa., T.F.Foster of Ga., Gamble of Ga., Gilmer of Va., Wm. 0. Goode of Va., Gordon of N. Y., Graham of N. C, Gustin of Pa., Habersham of Ga., Harris of Va., John Hastings of 0., Hays of Va.. Holmes of S. C, Hopkins of Va., Houck of N. Y., Houston of Ala., Hubbard of Va., Hunter of Va., Jack of Pa., C. Johnson of Tenn., J. W. Jones of Va., Keim of Pa., A. Ken nedy of Ind., King of Ga., Lewis of Ala., Littlefield of Me., Lowell of Me., A. McClellan of Tenn., Robt. McClelland of N. Y., McKay of N. C, McKeon of N. Y., Mallory of Va., Marchand of Pa., Alfred Marshall of Me., Jno. Thompson PUBLIC LANDS. 52S Mason of Md.. Mathews of 0., Medill of 0., Meriwether of Ga., Miller of Mo.. Newbard of Pa., Nisbet of Ga., Oliver of N. Y., ParmenterofMass.. Partridge of N. Y., Payne of Ala., Pickens of S. C, Plumer of Pa., Reding of N. II.. Kencber of N. C, Khett of S. C, RiggS of N. Y., Rogers of S. C, Roosevelt of N. Y., Sanford of N. Y., Saunders of N. C Shaw of N. II., ghepperd of N. C, Shields of Ala.. Snyder of Pa., Steenrod of Va., Sumter of S. C Sweney of 0., Turney of Tenn., Van Buren of N. Y., Ward of N. Y., Warren of Ga., Watterson of Tenn., Weller of 0., Westbrook of Pa., J. W. Williams of Md., Wise of Va., Wood of N. Y— 108. On the 2Cth of August, 1841, the bill passed the Senate by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas— Messrs. Archer of Va., Barrow of La., Bates of Mass., Bayard of Del., Berrien of Ga., Ghoate of Mass., Clay of Ky., Clayton of Del., Dixon of R. I., Evans of Me., Graham of N. C, Henderson of Miss., Huntington of Conn., Kerr of Md., Mangum of N. C, Merrick of Md., Miller of N. J., More- head of Ky., Phelps of Vt, Porter of Mich., Prentiss of Vt, Rives of Va., Simmons of R. I., Smith of Ind., Southard of N. J., Tallmadge of N. Y., White of Ind., Woodbridge of Mich.— 28. Nays.— Messrs. Allen of 0., Benton of Mo., Buchanan of Pa., Calhoun of S. C, Clay of Ala.. Cuthbert of Ga., Fulton Of Ark., King of Ala., Linn of Mo., McRoberts of 111., Mouton Of La., Nicholson of Tenn., Pierce of N. H., Preston of S. C, Sevier of Ark.. Smith of Conn., Sturgeon of l'a., Tappan of 0„ Walker of Miss.. Williams of Me., Woodbury of N. H., Wright of N. Y., Young of 111.— 23. Grants of Public Lands to States for Railroad Purposes. The first bill which ever passed Congress granting land to a sovereign state, to aid in the construction of railroads, was introduced by Mr. Douglas, in the Senate of the United States, on the 3d of January, 1850. It was referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and reported back by Mr. Shields, from that committee, on the 13th of February, 1850, with amendments. As reported, it was en- titled " A bill granting the right of way and making a donation of land to the state of Illi- nois, in aid of the construction of the Central Railroad." The bill having been amended, on motion of Mr. King of Ala., so as to give the same rights and privileges to the states of Alabama and Mississippi, to aid in extending the same to Mobile, Ala., its title was amend- ed in the Senate, in which shape it passed the House, so that, as it became a law, it was en- titled " An act granting the right of way and making a grant of land to the states of Illi- nois, Mississippi, and Alabama, in aid of the construction of a railroad from Chicago to Mobile." It made a grant of alternate sections for six sections in width, on each side of said road, and increased the price of the remaining sec- tions to not less than double the minimum price of the public lands when sold, and pro- vided for carrying the mails on the road for such price as Congress may by law direct. Number of acres contained in grant: — 2,595,053. The bill was approved September 20, 1850, and may be found in vol. 9, Statutes at Large, p. 466. It passed the Senate on the 2d of May, 1850, by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Atchison of Mo.. Badger of N. C, Bell of Tenn.. Benton of Mo., Borland of Ark.. Bright of Ind., Cass of Mich., Corwin of O., Davis of Miss., Dodge of Wis., Dodge of la., Douglas of 111., Downs of La., Foote of Miss., Houston Bf Tex., Jones of la., King of Ala., Mangum of N. C, Morton of Fla., Sebaslian of Ark., Seward of N. Y., Shields of 111.. Smith of Conn., Sturgeon of Pa., Underwood of Ky., ani Walker of Wis.— 26. Nats.— Messrs. Bradbury of Me., Butler of S. C, Chasb of O., Clarke of R. I., Dawson of Ga., Dayton of N. J., Hun- ter of Va., Miller of N. J , Norris of N. H., Phelps of Vt.. Pratt of Md., Turney of Tenn., Wales of Del., Yulee of Fla. —14. Recapitulation. — 18 Democrats and 8 Whigs in the affirmative; 6 Democrats, 1 Free Soiler, and 7 Whigs in the negative. It passed the House September 17, 1850, without amendment, by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Albertson of Ind., Allen of Mass., Alston of Ala., Amlerson of Tenn., Andrews of N. Y., Ashmun of Mass., Baker of 111., Bingham of Mich., Bissell of 111., Bokee of N. Y., Bowden of Ala., Bowie of Md., Bowlin of Mo., Briggs of N. Y., Brooks of N. Y., Brown of Miss., Brown of Ind.. Buel of Mich.. Burrows of N. Y.. Butler of Conn., Cabell of Fla.. Cal- vin of Pa., Casey of Pa., Chandler of Pa., Cleveland of Conn., Clingman of N. C, Cobb of Ala., Cole of Wis., Corwin of 0.. Doty of Wis., Duncan of Mass., Dunham of Ind., Durkee of Wis., Eliot of Mass., Featherston of Miss., Freedley of Pa., Gentry of Tenn., Gilbert of Cal., Gorman of Ind., Gott of N. Y., Gould of N. Y.. Green of Mo., Grinnell of Mass., Hall of Mo., Holloway of N. Y., Harlan of Ind., Harris of Ala., Harris of 111., Hay of N. J.. Haymond of Va., Hoagland of 0., Howard of Tex., Hubbard of Ala., Inge of Ala., Jackson of Ga., John- son of Ark.. Julian of Ind., Kaufman of Tex., King of N. J., J. A. King of N. Y., La Sere of La., Leffler of la., Mann of Mass., Matteson of N. Y., McClernand of 111., McLane of Md., McWillie of Miss., Mc/rehead of Ky., Morse of La., Orr of S. C, Otis of Me., Phelps of Mo., Phomix of N. Y., Pilman of Pa., Putnam of N. Y.. Richardson of 111., Risley of N. Y., Robinson of Ind., Rose of N. Y., Schermerhorn of N. Y., Schoolcraft of N. Y., Spaulding of N. Y., Spraoue of Mich., Stanley of N. C. Stanton of Tenn., Stanton of Ky., Stephens of Ga., Taybrr of 0., Thompson of Miss., Thurman of N. Y M Underhill of N. Y., Walden of N. Y., Waldo of Conn., Went- worth of 111., White of N. Y., Whittlesey of 0., Williams of Tenn., Wood of 0., Wright of Cal., Young of 111.— 101. Nats.— Messrs. Alexander of N. Y., Ashe of N.C., Averettof Va.. Beale of Va., Booth of Conn., Burt of S. C. Cable of 0., Caldwell of N. C, Campbell of 0., Carter of 0., Clarke of N. Y., Colcock of S. C, Dickey of Pa., Dimmock of Pa., Disney of 0., Dixon of R. I., Duer of N. Y., Edmondson of Va., Evans of Md.. Evaits of 0., Fowler of Mass., Fuller of Me., Gerry of Me., Gilmore of Pa., Hamilton of Md., Hampton of Pa., Har- alson of (ia., Harris of Tenn., Hibbard of N. H., Holladay of Va.. Howe of Pa.. Hunter of 0.. Jackson of N. Y.. Johnson of Teun., Jones of Tenn., Kerr of Md., King of R. I.. P. Kino of N. Y., Littlefield of Me.. Mason of Ky.. Marshall of Ky., McDowell of Va., McGaughey of Ind.. McKissock of N. Y., McLanahan of Pa.. McMullen of Va., McQueen of S. C. Mil- ler of 0., Millson of Va., Moore of Pa.. Morris of 0., Nelson of N. Y., Outlaw of N. C, Parker of Ind.. Peaslee of N. H., Potter of 0., Peed of Pa., Robins of Pa., Ross of Pa., Rum- sey of N. Y., Savage of Tenn., Sawtelle of Me., Schenck of 0., Seddon of Va.. Sheppard of N. C, Stephens of Pa.. Stetson of Me., Thomas of Tenn., Thompson of Pa.. Venable of N. C, Vinton of 0.. Wallace of S. C, Watkins of Tenn., Wildrick of N. J., Woodward of S. C— 75. Recapitulation. — 48 Democrats, 48 Whigs, and 5 Freesoilers in the affirmative ; 43 Demo- crats, 29 Whigs, and 3 Free Soilers in the ne- gative. Democrats in roman, Whigs in italics, Free- soilers in SMALL CAPITALS. During the 32d Congress, the following acts, of a similar character, passed : — " An act granting the right of way to the state of Missouri, and a portion of the public lands, to aid in the construction of certain railroads in said state." This bill aided the building of two roads, with a grant of alternate sections on each side of said roads, for six sections of land in width, &c. Number of acres contained in grant: — 1,818,436. It was originated in the Senate on the 2d 524 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. cby of December, 1851, by Mr. Atchison, De- mocrat, of Mo. ; and in the House on the 10th of the same month, by Mr. Hall, Democrat, from the same state. It passed the Senate without a division, on the 18th of March, 1852. It was passed in the House on the 28th of May, 1852, with an amendment, which was concurred in by the Senate on the 3d of June, 1852, and was approved by the President on the 10th of June, 1852. It was only in the House that the yeas and nays were had upon it. 48 Whigs, 51 Democrats, and 4 Free Soilers voted for the bill ; 17 Whigs and 59 Demo- crats against it. " An act granting the right of way and making a grant of land to the states of Ar- kansas and Missouri, to aid in the construc- tion of a railroad from a point on the Missis- sippi, opposite the mouth of the Ohio river, via Little Rock, to the Texas boundary line, near Fulton, in Arkansas, with branches to Fort Smith and the Mississippi river," (ap- proved February 9, 1853,) with a like grant to that contained in the previous bill. Number of acres in grant: — 1,456,287. This bill was originally introduced in the House, by Mr. Johnson of Ark., on the 7th of January, 1852. It passed that body on the 27th of August, 1852, and in the Senate, without a division, on the 5th of Febr iary, 1853, The yeas and nays were had upon it in the House. During the 33d Congress but one rail- road land bill was passed, and that was & bill to aid the territory of Minnesota in the construction of a railroad therein. The grant of land in this was identical with that con- tained in the other railroad land bills. This bill was passed in the House on the 20th of June, 1854 ; in the Seuate, without a division, on the 28th of June, 1854, and was approved by the President on the 29th of June, 1854. By an act passed August 4, 1854, it was re- pealed, on account of the word "or" having been stricken out of the bill, after it had passed the House, and was engrossed, and the word " and" placed in lieu thereof. The vote in the House, on the passage of the original bill, was by yeas and nays. 63 Democrats and 36 Whigs voted for it ; 51 Democrats, 19 Whigs, and 1 Free Soiler against it. Grants of Land by Thirty -Fourth Congress for Railroad Purposes. FIRST SESSIO.N. Seven Railroad Bills were passed during the first session of the Thirty-Fourth Congress. The following table shows their purport. They all originated in the House, were reported by the House Committee on Public Lauds, and made grants of alternate sections of land, six sections in width, on each side of the respective roads: States to which the No. of roads By whom reported. Date of passage Date of passage Pate of No. of acres grants were made. embraced. in the H ouse. in the Senate. approval of act. in each grant. 4 Mr. Bennett, of New York, May 8, 1856. May 9, 1856. May 15, 1856. 3,456,000 Florida and Alabama, 4 tt a « 14, « " 15, " " 17, " 1,814.400 Alabama 2 Mr. Cobb, of Alabama, " 21, a " 29, « June 3, " 1,632,918 Louisiana, . . . 3 Mr. Bennett, of New York, " 28, tt tt a a tt a a 1.602.560 Wisconsin, . . . 2 a . a " 21, a a tt a a tt tt 1,602.800 Michigan .... 3 Mr.Walbridge, of Michigan, " 27, tt tt a it a tt tt 3.(196,096 Mississippi, . . . 3 Mr. Bennett, of New York, Aug. 6, a Aug. 8, « Aug. 11, " 1,687,530 All of these bills passed the Senate without a division, except the Iowa and Mississippi railroad land bills. In the Senate of the United States of the 34th Congress, third session, a bill introduced by Mr. Toombs of Ga., entitled " a bill grant- ing lands to the territory of Minnesota, in alternate sections, to aid in the construction of certain railroads in said territory," was passed on the 14th of February, 1857, by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Allen, Bell of Tenn., Benjamin, Brown, Cass, Crittenden, Dodge, Douglas, Durkee, Fish, Filch, ebote. Foster, Geyer, Green, Iverson, James, Johnson, Jones, Mall, ry, JVm-ris, I'earce, Rusk. Sebastian, Seward, Stewart, Toombs, Trumbull, Wade, Weller, Wilson, Yulee.— 32. Nays. — Messrs. liiggs, Bigler, Brodhead, Clay, Kvans, Hun- ter, Mason, JPugh, Reed, Slidell — 10. 21 Democrats, 9 Republicans and 2 Fillmore Americans in the affirmative ; 10 Democrats in the negative. Democrats in roman, Republicans in italic, Fillmore Americans in small capitals. The bill was amended in the House so as to make a like grant to the state of Alabama to aid in the extension of the Savannah and Al- bany Raib-oad Company, from the line of Georgia to Mobile, with a branch from Eufala to Montgomery. The bill, as amended, passed the House on the 2d of March, 1857, by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Allen, Ball, Barbour, Barclay, Henry Bin- nett, Hendley S. Bennett, Benson, Billinghurst, Bishop, Bowie, Bradshaiv, Brenton, BROOm, BuffinUm, Burlingame, Lewis D. Campbell, Caruthers, Chaffee, Ezra Clark, Cbmins. Covrjde, Cragin, Timothy Davis, Dean, Denver, Dickson, Edie, Kvans, Henry M. Fuller, Grarger, Greenwood. Augustus Hall, Thomas L. Harris, Thomas R. Barton, Hughston, Kelley, Kelsey, Kennett, King, Knapp, Knight, Knowlton, Vf ■* Lake, Letter, Mace, Alexander K. Marshall, iamuel 8'. Marshall, MaCarty, Killian Miller, Millward, Nichols, Par- ker, Peck, Pdion, Pennington, Pettit, Pike, Pringle.. Quitman, Bobbins, Roberts, Rust, Sabvn, Sage, Sapp, Seward, Shorter, William R. Smith, T>'oringt£ doubtful power, and more than doubtful propriety, even within the limits of a tern tory, for the general government to undertake to administer the affairs of a railroad, a canal, or other similar construction, and therefore that its connexion with a work of this charac- ter should be incidental rather than primary. I will only add, at present, that, fully appre- ciating the magnitude of the subject, and solicitous that the Atlantic and Pacific shores of the republic may be bound together by in- separable ties of common interest, as well as of common fealty and attachment to the Union, I shall be disposed, so far as my own action is concerned, to follow the lights of the Constitution, as expounded and illustrated by those whose opinions and expositions constitute the standard of my political faith in regard to the powers of the federal government. It is, I trust,, not necessary to say, that no grandeur of enterprise, and no present urgent induce- ment promising popular favor, will lead me to disregard those lights, or to depart from that path, which experience has proved to be safe, and which is now radiant with the glow of prosperity and legitimate constitutional pro- gress. We can afford to wait, but we cannot afford to overlook the ark of our security. Raynor, Kenneth, of North Carolina. Extracts from Speech of, at Philadelphia, November 1, 1856. My .brother Americans, do you intend to let these mischief-makers put you and me together by the ears ? [Many voices : " no, no."] Then let us beat James Buchanan for the Presi- dency. [" We will — we will," and great ap- plause.] He is the representative of slavery agitation ; he is the representative of discord between sections ; he is the man whom North- ern and Southern agitators have agreed to present as their candidate. If he be elected now, and the difficulties in Kansas be healed, at the end of four years they will spring upon you another question of slavery agitation. It will be the taking of Cuba from Spain, or cut- ting off another slice from Mexico for the pur- pose of embroiling the North against the South ; and then, if I shall resist that agita- tion, I shall be called an Abolitionist, again. ***** My countrymen, God forbid that I should attempt to dictate to you or even advise you. I am not competent to do so. I know that divi- sions exist among you, while I feel also confi- dent that the same purpose animates all your hearts. Do not suppose for one moment that I am the representative of any clique or fac- tion. Unfortunately, I find that our friends here are in the same condition in which the Jews were, when besieged by the Roman general, Titus. Whilst the battering-rams of the Ro- mans were beating down their Walls, and the firebrand of the heathen was consuming their temple, the historian tells us that that great people were engaged in intestine commotions, some advocating the claims of one, and some RAYNOR, KENNETH. 5cJi of another, to the high-priesthood of that na- tion ; and instead of the Romans devouring them, they devoured each other. God forbid that my brother Americans should devour each other, at a time when every heart and every hand should be enlisted in the same cause, of overthrowing the common enemy of us all. [Long continued applause.] Who is that common enemy? [Voices, "The Democratic party."] Yes, that party have re- viled us, abused us, persecuted us, and all only because we are determined to adhere to the Constitution of our country. Give Bu- chanan a lease of power for four years, and we must toil through persecution, submit to degradation, or cause the streets of our cities to run blood. But we will submit to degra- dation, provided we can see the end of our troubles. We are willing to go through a pil- grimage, not only of four years, but of ten, or twenty, or forty years, provided we can have an assurance that at last we shall reach the top of Pisgah, and see the promised land which our children are to inherit. God has not given to us poor frail mortals the power, at all times, of controlling events. When we cannot control events, should we not, where nn sacrifice of honor is involved, pursue the policy of Lysander, and where the lion's skin is too short, eke it out with the fox's [applause] ■ — not where principle is involved — not where a surrender of our devotion to our country is at stake. No ; never, never ! I know nothing of your straight-out ticket ; I know nothing of your Union ticket ; I know nothing of Fremont. I do know something of Fillmore ; [great applause] but I would not give my Americanism, and the hopes which I cherish of seeing Americanism in- stalled as the policy of this nation, for all the Fillmores, or Fremonts, or Buchanans, that ever lived on the face of the earth. St. Paul says, " if it offends my brother, I will eat no meat ;" and if it offends my bro- thers here, I will not open my mouth. No- body can suspect me. [Voices : " certainly not."] Then I say, can't you combine the vote of this state, and beat Buchanan ? [This question was responded to in the affirmative, with the greatest enthusiasm. Repeated cheers were proposed for the straight ticket, but the responding voices were by no means numer- ous, ami were mingled with hisses. Such was the universal excitement, that for some min- utes the speaker was obliged to pause. He finally raised his voice above the subsiding storm, and said : — ] Oome, my friends, we are all brothers ; we are all seeking the same end. Our object is the same. We are all struggling to reach the same haven of safety. The only difference of opinion is as to the proper means by which to accomplish our common end. Will not Ame- ricans learn prudence from the past ? Mis- fortune should have taught us charity for each other. We have passed through the ordeal of persecution together ; we have been subjected to the same difficulties, and the same oppression ; we have been baptized (I may say) in the same stream of calumny. Then, in the name of God — in the name of our com- mon country — in the name of Americanism — in the name of American nationality — in the name of religious freedom — in the name of the Union, I beseech you learn charity for the difference of opinion which prevails among you. [Applause.] Let brethren forbear with brethren. Let us recollect that it is not by vituperation, by the censure of our brethren, that we can ever accomplish this great end of conquering a common enemy. My friends, how long are we to suffer ? How long will it be before we shall learn that it is only by a union of counsels, a concentration of energy, a combination of purpose, that we can destroy the common enemy of every conservative man. [Great applause.] I shall not attempt to advise you, for I am not competent to do it. You have information which I do not possess. You know all the under-currents of opinion which prevail here in your community, with which I am unac- quainted; but will yru allow an humble man to express his opinion to brethren whom he loves? May I do it ? I am a Fillmore man — nothing but a Fillmore man, and if I resided here I would vote no ticket which had not the name of Millard Fillmore at its head, and I would advise no Fillmore man to vote a ticket with Fremont's name on it ; but I would vote for that ticket which would make my voice tell at the polls. Now let us look at this thing practically. In reading history I have always admired the character of Oliver Cromwell. What was the great motive by which he was actuated in overthrowing the house of Stuart? It was unfailing devotion to principle. His motto was, " Put your trust in God, and keep your powder dry.'" I admire the devotion to principle in every man who says that he does not intend to vote any but the straight ticket, for it shows that Americanism has such a lodgment in his heart, that he cannot bear even seemingly to compromise it. That is " putting your trust in God ;" but, my friends, is it ■" keeping your powder dry ?" The enemy may steal into the camp while you are asleep, and may pour water upon your cartridges, so that when the day of battle shall come, you may shoot, but you will kill nobody. I want the vote of every American, on Tuesday next, to tell. Would to God that you could give the twenty-seven electoral votes of Pennsylvania to Fillmore. Then vote the straight ticket, if that will give him the twenty-seven votes. But suppose it .will not (and I am afraid it will not), then the question is, had you better give Buchanan the twenty-seven votes, or give Fillmore eight, ten, twelve, or twenty, as the case may be. I go for beating Buchanan. Gentlemen, you do not know what we Ameri- cans suffer at the South. I am abused and reviled for standing up in defence of you. When I hear the whole North denounced as a set of Abolitionists, whose purpose it is to in 532 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. terfere with the peculiar institutions of the South, I brand such charges as slanders on the Northern people. I tell them that the great mass of the Northern people are sound on this question ; that they are opposed to slavery, as T should be if I were a Northern man ; but that I do not believe that the great mass of the Northern people have any idea of interfer- ing with the constitutional rights of the people of the South. I know that such men as Garrison and Forney have. I know that Gar- rison believes the Constitution to be a " league with hell," and would therefore destroy it if he could ; and I know that Forney loves office so well, that even at the risk of snapping the Union, he will keep alive slavery agitation. But Garrison does not represent New England, and Forney does not represent you. As much as I have been reviled for standing by you, I am so anxious to have Buchanan beaten, that were I residing here, if I could not give Fillmore the whole twenty-seven votes, I would give him all I could, by giving him the number to which he might be entitled by the numerical proportion of the votes at the ballot-box. Yet, if there is a brother Ameri- can here who feels in his " heart of hearts," that by voting that Union ticket, he would compromise his Americanism, I say to such an one, " do not vote that ticket." At the same time, candor compels me to say, that J differ in opinion with him. If I believed that that ticket was a fusion, or that it called upon any Fillmore man to vote for Fremont, I would advise no one to vote it. I would not vote a ticket that had on it the name of Fremont ; but I would vote a ticket with Fillmore's name upon it, and which would give him (if not the twenty-seven electoral votes) seven, or ten, or twenty, just as the numerical proportion of the votes might decide. I appeal to every conservative, Union-loving man in this nation, who is disposed to give to the South all the constitutional privileges to which she is entitled, and who wishes to re- buke the Democratic party for the repeal of the Missouri compromise, and for keeping up the eternal agitation of slavery. I appeal to you as a southern man — as a slaveholder. I do not ask you to be pro-slavery men, to be the advocates of slavery, when I say to you that we, your brethren of the South, expect you to preserve our constitutional rights — and, God knows, we ask nothing more — against fanatics, either north or south. Will you do it? [Yes, yes!" and applause.] My friends, the election is fast approaching. There is but little time for deliberation left. Is there no way by which the votes of the anti-Buchanan party can be concentrated on the same ticket ? I would shed tears of blood — God knows I would — if I could be instru- mental in prevailing on all true Americans to combine. [Cheers.] I cannot tell you how to combine ; but is it yet too late ? If it is too late to do it throughout the state, cannot you in Philadelphia do it ? The Presidential elec- tion may depend upon the state of Pennsyl- vania, and the state of Pennsylvania may de- pend upon the city of Philadelphia. On the vote of the city of Philadelphia may depend not only our own rights, but the rights of our children and our children's children. I ap- peal to my brother Americans, for I have no right to appeal to anybody else ; I cannot ad- dress the Fremont party, for I have no affilia- tion with them ; I cannot address the Bu- chanan party, for my object is to destroy them if possible. [Applause.] To my Ame- rican brethren, then, I appeal, for God's sake, do not let the sun rise upon that wrath, which I see divides you. Your object is the same — to rescue your common country. Let me advise you who know nothing of your divisions — who belong neither to one clique or the other. I say with the deepest sincerity that I think all parties ought to have concentrated upon the Fillmore ticket. Mr. Fillmore is a northern man. Your southern brethren were willing to support him. He had guided the ship of state safely through the storm, and it was but reasonable to sup- pose that in time of difficulty he would again be found the same good pilot. But if we can- not get all others to unite on Mr. Fillmore, each of us must inquire, "What is my duty?" If the mountain will not come to Mahomet, shall not Mahomet go to the mountain ; and if he will not go to the mountain, in heaven's name, shall he not go halfway? [Applause.] I am fighting for the victory which we may obtain in this contest. And what an issue is now pending ! We read in the Iliad how, for ten long years, a great people of antiquity were engaged in the siege of Troy. What was the stake for which they contended ? It was nothing more than a beautiful woman, who had been ravished by a sprig of the royal line of Troy. What is the stake for which we con- tend ? It is constitutional liberty — the right of the American people to govern their own country — the right of every citizen to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. The great issue is, whether the American flag shall still wave in glory when we shall have gone to our graves, or whether it shall be trailed in dishonor — whether the " blackness of darkness" which would follow the dissolu- tion of this Union, shall cover the land. I do not tell you how to combine : but I urge you to resort to that mode (if there is such a mode possible), by which you can get together — by which your votes can be made effectual at the polls — by which Millard Fill- more can go before the House of Representa- tives with the strong moral power which a large electoral vote will give him. [Great ap- plause.] That is the way in which we must view the question, as practical men. Yet so different are the conditions of our nature, so different the sentiments which actuate us, that I will not be guilty of such presumption, as to tell any man what particular course he should take. You know my opinions ; if they ar« worth anything, receive them into your hearts, RAYNOR, KENNETH.— RELIGIOUS TEST. 53S simply as the sentiments of a brother Ameri- can ; if they are worth nothing, let them pass as the idle wind. In conclusion, I will only say that whether we be defeated or whether we be victorious, the only reward I ask for in the labor in which I am engaged is, that you may recollect me as one who had at heart only the welfare of his country, and who endeavored to promote it by appealing to the associations of the past, and all the hopes of the future. The following is an extract from the speech of Mr. Rayner on Religious Toleration in the North Carolina Convention in 1835: — "I do not conceive that we have anything to do with the tenets of any particular creed. We have not to decide between the merits of contending sects. "We have not to inquire whether the Pope of Rome is the legal custo- dian of the Keys of Christ's Kingdom, or whether (according to the opinion of some), he is the many-headed monster mentioned in the Apocalypse. "Bat it is said, if the Catholic is excluded from office, that will not deprive him of the right of worshipping God according to the dictates of his own conscience. Sir, the right of worshipping God free from all personal pains and penalties, is a right which can now be enjoyed in any country in Christendom. An exclusion from the honors, the profits, and the emoluments of the state, is the highest persecution which public opinion will tolerate in any Christian country in this enlightened age. So that if you sanction the principle recognised in the 32d Article, you use the rod of persecution with as unsparing a hand as it is used in Spain, or the states of the Church. And if you exclude one sect, why not another and another, and finally all, except one ? " Retain that Article, and I assert it, the Catholic and Jew will be placed under the ban of proscription, no matter how great may be his merit ; although he may love his country with a patriotism as pure as the first love of woman ; although he may pour out his blood like water in her defence; yet, for daring to ' worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience,' you cut him off from all hope of political preferment and from all stimulus to ambition. Like the Israelites in Egypt, he will be oppressed by the land in which he lives, the soil on which he treads, and like them, he will have left no other resource but to turn back upon the graves of his fathers, and take up his march to a more tolerant clime. Sir, the exclusion from office for opinion's sake, in this enlightened age, proceeds from the same spirit of bigotry and superstition which has preyed upon mankind from the building of Babel to the present time." Mr. Rayner concludes thus : — " Sir, is this convention ready to incorpo- rate into our fundamental law the doctrine, that 'honesty, capability, and faithfulness to the Constitution,' is not a sufficient qualifica- tion for office, but that he who obtains it must abjure a certain particular faith? Sir, who ci instituted us judges of the hearts and con- sciences of men? What right have we to impugn the motives of our fellow men ? It is asserting one of the attributes of the Deity himself, for it is the Lord alone that pondcreth the heart. Sir, you may carry on this system of persecution, but there is one point beyond which you cannot go. You may subject the body to privation and torture, but you can- not fetter the mind — fetters cannot bind hV- • tyrants cannot enchain it — dungeons cannot confine it — it will rise superior to the powers of fate, and aspire to Him who gave it." Religious Freedom. Virginia Act of, penned by Jefferson. Xo man shall be compelled to frequent 01 support any religious worship, place, or min- istry whatsoever ; nor shall any man be en- forced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, or otherwise suffer, on account "of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess, and by argu- ment to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise affect, diminish, or enlarge their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever; or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination ; or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this common- wealth, to levy on themselves or others any tax for the erection or repair of any house for public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry ; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private con- tract as he shall please. Religious Test. Debate in the Convention on that article in the Constitution in regard to. Mr. Pinknev moved that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Mr. Sherman thought it unnecessary, the prevailing liberality being a sufficient security against all such tests. Rev. Mr. Backus of Mass. I beg leave to offer a lew thoughts upon the Constitution proposed to us; and I shall begin with the exclusion of any religious test. Many appear to be much concerned about it ; but nothing is more evident, both in reason and the IMy Scriptures, than that religion is ever a matter between God and individuals; and, that, there- fore, no man or set of men can impose any religious test without invading the essential prerogatives of our Lord Jesus Christ. Min- isters first assumed this power under the Christian name, and then Constantine ap- proved of the practice when he adopted the profession of Christianity as an engine of state 534 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. policy. And let the history of all nations be searched, from that day to this, and it will appear that the imposing of religions tests hath been the greatest engine of tyranny in the world. Oliver Wolcott of Conn. For myself I should be content either with or without that clause in the Constitution which excludes test laws. Knowledge and liberty are so prevalent in this country, that I do not believe that tbe United States would ever be disposed to esta blish one religious sect and lay all others under legal disabilities. But as we know not what may take place hereafter, and any such test would be destructive of the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it superfluous to have added a clause which secures us from the possibility of such oppression. Mr. Madison of Va. I confess to you, sir, that were uniformity of religion to be intro- duced by this system, it would, in my opinion, be ineligible ; but I have no reason to conclude that uniformity of government will produce that of religion. This subject is, for the honor of America, left perfectly free and unshackled. The government has no jurisdiction over it — the least reflection will convince us there is no danger on this ground. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For, where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest. Mr. Iredell of N. C. used this comprehen- sive and elegant language: "Every person in the least conversant in the history of mankind, knows what dreadful mischiefs have been committed by religious persecution. Under the color of religious tests, the utmost cruelties have been exercised. Those in power have generally considered all wisdom centred in themselves, that they alone had the right to dictate to the rest of mankind, and that all opposition to their tenets was profane and impious. The consequence of this intolerant spirit has been that each church has in turn set itself up against every other, and persecu- tions and wars of the most implacable and bloody nature have taken place in every part of the world. America has set an example to mankind to think more rationally — that a man may be of religious sentiments differing from our own, without being a bad member of society. The principles of toleration, to the honcr of this age, are doing away those errors and prejudices which have so long prevailed even in the most intolerant countries. In Roman Catholic lands, principles of modera- tion are adopted, which would have been spurned a century or two ago. It will be fatal, indeed, to find, at the time when examples of toleration are set even by arbitral govern- ments, that this country, so impressed with the highest sense of liberty, should adopt principles on this subject that were narrow, despotic, and illiberal." Republican Platform. Adopted at Philadelphia, June 18, 1856. This Convention of Delegates assembled in pursuance of a call addressed to the people of the United States, without regard to past political differences or divisions, who are op- posed to : The repeal of the Missouri Com- promise ; to the policy of the present admin- istration : To the extension of slavery into free territory ; In favor of the admission of Kansas as a free state ; Of restoring the action of the federal government to the principles of Washington and Jefferson ; and for the purpose of presenting candidates for the offices of President and Vice President — do resolve : — Resolved, That the maintenance of the prin- ciples promulgated in the Declaration of Inde- pendence, and embodied in the Federal Con- stitution, are essential to the preservation of onr republican interests, and that the rights of the states must and shall be preserved. Resolved, That, with our republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth that all men are endowed with the inalienable right of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our federal government were to secure [grant] these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction ; that, as our repub- lican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it be- comes our duty to maintain this provision of their Constitution, against all attempts to vio- late it for the purpose of establishing slavery in the territories of the United States, by posi- tive legislation prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, of any individual, or association of individuals, to give legal exist- ence to slavery in any territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained. Resolved, That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign power over the territories of the United States for their go- vernment, and that in the exercise of this power it is both the right and the duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism — polygamy and sla- very. Resolved, That while the Constitution of the United States was ordained and established by the people, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tran- quillity, provide for the common defence, and secure the blessings of liberty, and contains ample provisions for the protection of the life, liberty, and property of every citizen, the dearest constitutional rights of the people of Kansas have been fraudulently and violently taken from them — their territory has been invaded by an armed force — spurious and pretended legislative, judicial, and executive REPUBLICAN PLATFORM.— REPUBLICAN ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON. 525 officers have been set over them, by whose usurped authority, sustained by the mititary power of the government, tyrannical and un- constitutional laws have been enacted and enforced — the rights of the people to keep and bear arms have been infringed — test oaths of an extraordinary and entangling nature have been imposed as a condition of exercising the right of suffrage and holding office — the right of an accused person to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury has been denied — the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures has been violated — they have been deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law — that the freedom of speech and of the press has been abridged — the right to choose their representatives has been made of no effect — murders, robberies, and arsons have been instigated and encouraged, and the of- fenders have been allowed to go unpunished — that all these things have been done with the knowledge, sanction, and procurement of the present administration, and that for this high crime against the Constitution, the Union, and humanity, we arraign the administration, the President, his advisers, agents, supporters, apologists, and accessories, either before or after the facts, before the country, and before the world ; and that it is our fixed purpose to bring the actnal perpetrators of these atrocious outrages and their accomplices to a sure and condign punishment hereafter. Resolved, That Kansas should be immedi- ately admitted as a state of the Union, with her present free constitution, as at once the most effectual way of securing to her citizens the enjoyment of the rights and privileges to which they are entitled, and of ending the civil strife now raging in her territory. Resolved, That the highwayman's plea, that " might makes right," embodied in the Ostend circular, was in every respect unworthy of American diplomacy, and would bring shame and dishonor upon any government or people that gave it their sanction. Resolved, That a railroad to the Pacific Ocean, by the most central and practical route, is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country, and that the federal govern- ment ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction ; and as an auxiliary thereto, the immediate construction of an emi- grant route on the line of the railroad. Resolved, That appropriations by Congress for the improvement of rivers and harbors, of a national character, required for the accom- modation and security of our existing com- merce, are authorized by the Constitution, and justified by the obligation of government to protect the lives and properties of its citizens. Resolved, That we invite the affiliation and co-operation of the men of all parties, however different from us in other respects, in support of the principles herein declared ; and believ- ing that the spirit of our institutions, as well as the Constitution of our country, guaranties | liberty of conscience and equality of rights among citizens, we oppose all legislation im- pairing their security. Republican Association of Washington. Address of the — to the Republicans op the United States. Washington, Nov. 27, 1856. The Presidential contest is over, and at last we have some materials to enable us to form a judgment of the results. Seldom have two parties emerged from a conflict with less of joy in the victors, more of hope in the vanquished. The pro-slavery party has elected its Presidential candidate, only, however, by the votes of a minority, and that of such a character as to stamp the vic- tory as the offspring of sectionalism and tem- porary causes. The Republicans, wherever able to present- clearly to the public the real issue of the canvass — slavery restriction or slavery extension — have carried the people with them by unprecedented majorities ; al- most breaking up in some states the organiza- tion of their adversaries. A sudden gather- ing together of the people, alarmed at the inroads of the slave power, rather than a well organized party, with but a few months to attend to the complicated details of party war- fare ; obstructed by a secret Order, which had pre-occupied the field, and obtained a strong hold of the national and religious prejudices of the masses ; opposed to an old party, com- mencing the canvass with the united support of a powerful section, hardened by long party drill, accustomed to victory, wielding the whole power of the federal administration — a party which only four years ago carried all but four of the states, and a majority of the popular vote — still, under all these adverse circumstances, they have triumphed in eleven, if not twelve of the free states, pre-eminent for enterprise and general intelligence, and containing one-half of the whole population of the country ; given to their Presidential candidate nearly three times as many electo- ral votes as were cast by the Whig party in 1852 ; and this day control the governments of fourteen of the most powerful states of the Union. Well may our adversaries tremble in the hour of their victory. <; The Democratic and Black Republican parties," they say, " are nearly balanced in regard to power. The former was victorious in the recent struggle, but success was hardly won, with the aid of important accidental advantages. The latter has abated nothing of its zeal, and has suffer- ed no pause in its preparations for another battle." With such numerical force, such zeal, intel- ligence, and harmony in counsel ; with so many great states, and more than a million voters rallied to their standard by the efforts of a few months, why may not the Republicans confidently expect a victory in the text con- test? &36 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. The necessity for their organization still exists in all its force. Mr. Buchanan has always proved true to the demands of his party. He fully accepted the Cincinnati plat- form, and pledged himself to its policy^-a policy of filibustering abroad, propagandism at home. Prominent and controlling among his supporters are men committed, by word and deed, to that policy ; and what is there in his character, his antecedents, the nature of his northern support, to authorize the ex- pectation that he will disregard their will? Nothing will be so likely to restrain him and counteract their extreme measures, as a vigor- ous and growing Republican organization, as nothing would be more necessary to save the cause of freedom and the Union, should he, as we have every reason to believe, continue the pro-slavery policy of the present incum- bent. Let us beware of folding our arms, and waiting to see what he will do. We know the ambition, the necessities, the schemes of the slave power. Its policy of extension and ag- grandizement and universal empire, is the law of its being, not an accident — is settled not fluctuating. Covert or open, moderate or ex- treme, according to circumstances, it never changes in spirit or aim. With Mr. Buchanan, the elect of a party controlled by this policy, administering the government, the safety of the country and of free institutions must rest in the organization of the Republican party. What, then, is the duty before us ? Organ- ization, vigilance, action ; action on the ros- trum, through the press, at the ballot-box ; in state, county, city, and town elections ; every- where, at all times ; in every election, making Republicanism, or loyalty to the policy and principles it advocates, the sole political test. No primary or municipal election should be suffered to go by default. The party that would succeed nationally must triumph in states — triumph in the state elections, must be prepared by municipal success. Next to the remaining power in the states already under their control, let the Republi- cans devote themselves to the work of dissemi- nating their principles, and initiating the true course of political action in the states which have decided the election against them. This time we have failed, for reasons nearly all of which may be removed by proper effort. Many thousand honest,~but not well-informed voters, Avho supported Mr. Buchanan under the delusive impression that he would favor the cause of free Kansas will soon learn their mistake, and be anxious to correct it. The timid policy of the Republicans in New Jer- sey, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, in postponing their independent action, and temporizing with a party got up for purposes not harmon- izing with their own, and the conduct of Mr. Fillmore's friends in either \oting for Mr. Buchanan, or dividing the opposition by a separate ticket, can hardly be repeated again. The true course of the Republicans is to or- ganize promptly, boldly, and honestly upon their own principles, so clearly set forth in the Philadelphia platform, and, avoiding «oa- litions with other parties, appeal directly to the masses of all parties to ignore all organi- zations and issues which would divert the public mind from the one danger that now threatens the honor and interests of the coun- try, and the stability of the Union — slavery propagandism allied with disunionism. Let us not forget that it is not the want of generous sentiment, but of sufficient informa- tion, that prevents the American people from being united in action against the aggressive policy of the slave power. Were these simple questions submitted to-day to the people of the United States : — Are you in favor of the ex- tension of slavery ? Are you in favor of such extension by the aid or connivance of the fed- eral government? And could they be per- mitted to record their votes in response, with- out embarrassment, without constraint of any kind, nineteen-twentieths of the people of the free states, and perhaps more than half of the people of the slave states, would return a de- cided negative to both. Let us have faith in the people. Let us believe, that at heart they are hostile to the ex- tension of slavery, desirous that the territories of the Union be consecrated to free labor and free institutions ; and that they require only enlightenment as to the most effectual means of securing this end, to convert their cherished sentiment into a fixed principle of action. The times are pregnant with warning. That a disunion party exists in the South, no longer admits of a doubt. It accepts the elec- tion of Mr. Buchanan as affording time and means to consolidate its strength and mature its plans, which comprehend not only the en- slavement of Kansas, and the recognition of slavery in all territory of the United States, but the conversion of the lower half of Cali- fornia into a slave state, the organization of a new slavery territory in the Gadsden purchase, the future annexation of Nicaragua and sub- jugation of Central America, and the acquisi- tion of Cuba; and, as the free states are not expected to submit to all this, ultimate dis- memberment of the Union, and the formation of a great slaveholding confederacy, with foreign alliances with Brazil and Russia. It may assume at first a moderate tone, to pre- vent the sudden alienation of its Northern allies ; it may delay the development of its plot, as it did under the Pierce administration ; but the repeal of the Missouri compromise came at last, and so will come upon the coun- try inevitably the final acts of the dark con- spiracy. When that hour shall come, then will the honest Democrats of the free states be driven into our ranks, and the men of the slave states who prefer the republic of Washington, Adams and Jefferson — a republic of law, order and liberty — to an oligarchy of slaveholders and slavery propagandists, governed by Wise, Atchison, Soule and Walker, founded in fraud and violence, and seeking aggrandizement by the spoliation of nations, will bid God speed to the labors of the Republican party to pre- REPUBLICAN ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON.— RICHARDSON, WM. A. 537 serve liberty and the Union, one and insepar- able, perpetual and all powerful. Washington, D. C, Nov. 27, 1856. Richardson, Wm. A. Answer of to certain Interrogatories in House of Representatives, January 12, 1856. Mr. Bingham. Before the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Richardson], or any other of the candidates for speaker, shall proceed to answer the interrogatories of the gentleman from Ten- nessee [Mr. Zollicoffer], I desire to put some questions to the honorable gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Richardson], and to which I hope to receive explicit answers from that gentle- man, as also from the other candidates now before the House. In presenting these inter- rogatories, I desire to raise no captious objec- tions to the sentiments of the honorable gentleman from Illinois, but to ascertain dis- tinctly and clearly what sense that gentleman attaches to the terms used in his platform, to wit: "the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska act?" also, the sense he attaches to those other words, "squatter sovereignty," upon which the changes have been rung for the last two years from one end of the land to the other ; and especially the effect he gives to the term "nationality," which has been used so often, and with such emphasis, in this hall, by that gentleman and his party? I, too, have some reverence for nationality, but it is the nationality which springs from that unity of government which constitutes us one people ; and that I may know precisely the honorable gentleman's views of nationality, I beg leave to present to him the following interrogatories : — I. Do you hold that the Constitution of the United States extends to, and is of full force within, the several territories thereof? II. Do you hold that the people of any of said territories have the right to make any law within said territories, whereby any per- son therein shall be deprived of "life or liberty," except as punishment for crime on due conviction ? III. Do you hold that the people of the territory of Kansas have the right, under the Constitution, to prohibit slavery within said territory at all times, both before and after their organization into a state? IV. Do you hold that the people of said territory, under the Constitution, have the power and the right to legalize slavery within said territory by legislative enactment; and the further power and right thereby to pro- tect and maintain slavery therein, by making -t a penal offence for any person within said territory to speak or write against such sys- tem, or to aid or assist any man held as a slave within said territory to escape therefrom, with the intent to secure the personal liberty of such slave? V. Do you hold that, under the Constitu- tution, a person held to service or labor within said territory, escaping therefrom into any state of this Union, can be reclaimed under the fugitive slave law, or is such person within the extradition clause of the second section of article four of the Constitution ? VI. Under the Constitution of the United States, can the people of any of its territories rightfully or legally establish any but a re- publican form of government therein ? and do you hold that to be a republican government which converts the majority of its subjects into chattels, and subjects them to the absolute despotism of the minority? These, sir, are the questions which I put to the honorable gentleman, and to each of which I hope to receive from that gentleman direct answers. I will not further detain the House. Mr. Barksdale. The interrogatories, Mr. Clerk, which I propose to put to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Banks,] I intend for all the gentlemen who are candidates for the speakership ; and, in order that the House and the gentlemen to whom they are propounded may understand them, I will now read them : Are you now a member of the American or Know Nothing party ? Are you in favor of abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, the United States forts, dock-yards, &c ? Do you believe in the equality of the white and black races in the United States ; and do you wish to promote that equality by legisla- tion ? Are you in favor of the entire exclusion of adopted citizens and Roman Catholics from office? Do you favor the same modification — and this question I intend particularly for the gen- tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Banks,] — of the tariff now which you did at the last session of Congress ? Mr. Bingham. I insist that, before any more interrogatories are put, those which I have propounded be answered. Mr. Richardson. I have received a copy of the inquiries propounded by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham]. I have looked over these interrogatories, and it seems to me that I have answered them substantially, with the exception of the first and fifth. I refer that gentleman, therefore, to the remarks sub- mitted by me this morning, for my answer to his questions, with the exception of those I have indicated. The first inquiry is : — "Do you hold that the Constitution of the United States extends to, and is of full force within the several territories thereof?" In reply to this interrogatory I have to say that I do recognise the Constitution of the United States as extending over the territories, so far as it is applicable to their condition. That is my answer to the first. The fifth is in the following language : — " Do you hold that, under the Constitution, a person held to service or labor within said territory, escaping therefrom into any state in this Union, can be reclaimed under the fugitive slave law; or is such person within the extradition clause of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution?" 538 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. In reply to this I have to say that, by the express terms of the bill organizing the terri- tories of Kansas and Nebraska, and other ter- ritories organized subsequent to the passage of the fugitive slave law, that law goes into operation in those territories. Now, sir, as to the other interrogatories fropounded by the gentleman from Mississippi Mr. Barksdale], I have to say that I belong to no Know Nothing or American organiza- tion. I belong to no secret political organi- sation. I am opposed to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. I am opposed to interference with it in the dock-yards, or any place else, by the Congress of the United States. I believe that the Almighty made the negro inferior to the white man. I do not believe you can place them upon an equality, unless you bring down the white man to his level ; and I am opposed to that. In reply to the facetious inquiries of my friend from Missouri [Mr. Kennett], I have to say I am sometimes afraid that, in that future state in which I believe, he, myself, and some of our associates here, will not be free. [Laughter.] Mr. Kennett. I am very glad, Mr. Clerk, that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rich- ardson] is getting a little anxious about his condition, as well as that of other members of the House. I think he has great cause. [Laughter.] Mr. Richardson. I am very anxious, not only in reference to myself, but in relation to my friend from Missouri. But, sir, I am in- formed that I omitted one of the questions propounded by the gentleman from Mississippi Mr. Barksdale], in relation to Catholics and adopted citizens. Sir, I do not know, nor care, what a man's religious opinions may be. I would as soon support a Catholic for office as a man profess- ing any other religion, provided he was quali- fied, and his political sentiments corresponded with my own. I think, sir, in reference to this government of ours, that our only safety, or at least, that our greatest safety, upon this subject of religion, is in carrying out the policy never to carry our religion into politics, and never carry our politics to church. They are distinct and separate — unalterably so. A Catholic is as much entitled to protection in this country as those of any other religion. I have no prejudice against the Catholics, nor have I against foreigners. I voted, the last time I voted, in my own state, for an adopted citizen ; and I expect to vote for them in future as often as they are presented, provided they are qualified. Mr. Bingham. The honorable gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Richardson] has stated to the House that he has answered all of my questions except the first and fifth. I beg leave to ask that gentleman whether, in his remarks, he has given any reply to my second, third, fourth, and sixth interrogatories ; and will the gentleman respond to those ques- tions? Mr. Richardson. In reply to the gentle- man from Ohio, I have to say that I substan- tially responded to his interrogatory this morning. Mr. Bingham. In what way has the gen- tleman answered the second, third, fourth, and sixth questions which I had the honor to sub- mit to him ? Mr. Richardson. I said, in my remarks this morning, that, in my opinion, the people of a territory have the right either to establish or prohibit African slavery. I think that is an answer to the gentleman's question. Mr. Bingham. Does the gentleman mean to be understood as saying that the people of the territory of Kansas can, by territorial en- actment, establish or prohibit African slavery therein ? Mr. Richardson. I do not wish to single out a particular instance. Mr. Clerk, gentlemen have chosen, by written interrogatories, to inquire into the political opinions of gentlemen who have been voted for upon this floor in relation to questions past, present, and future. I know not, and care not, whether the object is discussion here or discussion somewhere else. I hold them to the issues presented to me, and I shall endeavor to answer their ques- tions as fully, freely, and frankly as may be possible. I now send to the Clerk's desk the questions which have been propounded to me, and I ask that the first of them may be read. The Clerk read the first question, as fol- lows : — - Question propounded Vy Mr. Zollicoffer to Mr. Richardson. " Am I right in supposing that the gentleman from Illi- nois [Mr. Richardson] regards the Kansas-Nebraska bill as promotive of the formation of free states in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska?" Mr. Richardson. In reply to the first question of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Zollicoffer], I have to say I voted for the Dills organizing the territories of Nebraska and Kansas because I thought them just to all, and I defended that vote before my con- stituents upon that ground. I intended then, and I intend now, that the people who go there, or who have gone there, shall decide the question of slavery for themselves, and, so far as I could, admit them as states, with or without slavery, as the people should decide. In common with northern and southern gen-« tlemen, I have said that, in my opinion, sla- very would never go there ; but I have never, here or elsewhere, urged that as a reason why I voted for that bill. I voted for the bill be- cause it was just, right, and proper, and wanted nothing more to defend myself. I repeat here an argument I hf.ve made over and over again before my constituents, ' and it is this: if a majority of the people of Kansas or Nebraska are in favor of slavery, they will have it ; if a majority are op- posed to it, then they will not have it. Thij RICHARDSON, WILLIAM A. 539 13 the practical result of every theory advoca- ' ted by the friends of the Nebraska and Kansas | bill. I gave iny sanction to this principle in | supporting the territorial bills of 1850, and have uniformly supported the same principles since, whenever presented for my action, and shall contine to do so in all future cases that may arise. It is a principle lying at the foundation of all popular governments, that the people of each separate or distinct community shall decide for themselves the nature and character of the institutions under which they shall live, and by this principle I am prepared to live and die. I therefore voted for the Ne- braska and Kansas bill neither as a pro-slavery nor anti-slavery measure, but as a measure of equal right and justice to the people of all sections of our common country. Will the Clerk now read the next ques- tion? The Clerk read the second question, as fol- lows : — " Am T right in supposing that he advocates the constitu- tionality ofthe Wilmot proviso? that in 1850, he opposed its application to the territories acquired from Mexico only upon the ground that it was unnecessary, inasmuch as the Mexican local laws iu those territories already abolished slavery, which ought to be sufficient for all free-soil men? and that he committed himself to the position, that if terri- torial bills (silent upon the subject of slavery, and leaving the Mexican laws to operate) were defeated, he would vote for bills with the Wilmot proviso in them?" Mr. Richardson. The next question re- quires a more extended reply. In the year 1803 we acquired Louisiana; it was slave ter- ritory. In 1820 we divided, by line of 36° 30', that territory ; north of the line was to be free. In 1845 we annexed Texas; that was slave territory ; we divided that by extending the line of 36° 30' through that— north, to be free. In 1848 we acquired territory from Mexico. That was free. I voted repeatedly to extend the same line west to the Pacific Ocean. I voted for that line with a few rep- resentatives from the North, and the whole body of Southern representatives. When I gave those votes, I did not believe then, nor do I believe now, that I violated the Constitu- tion of the United States. If you have power, under the Constitution, to exclude slavery from half of a territory, I think you have power to exclude from all, though such an exercise would be unjust and wrong. I have never, therefore, voted to exercise that power, except upon the principle of compromise. In this connexion I desire to read from a speech of mine, delivered in this hall April 3, 1850, and make a word or two of comment upon it : — "There is, I regret to say. a willingness \ipon the part of the Democrats of the north to see this proviso passed, that General Taylor may be compelled to show to the world, and 'the rest of mankind.' who was cheated in the last presi- dential election — whether it was his friends north or south. They know that a fraud was practised upon the one or the other. They know that in the south, General Taylor was represented as all that any one in favor of slavery extension L could desire — that he was bound to southern institutions by two hundred bonds. At the north, it was said that he was for confining slavery to its present limits. One or the other was cheated. But I submit to my northern friends, if the peace and harmony of twenty millions of people, and the perpetuity of our free institutions, is not of more im- portance than the exposure of this bad faith upon the part of an adniininistration that, if let alone, will fall by its own weight ? The public voice everywhere indicates its certaiu and inevitable overthrow. -In times past our policy sooner or later has prevailed, and we should stand firm, however dark the hour, encour- aged by former success. We should not be driven from o'.r positions because our opponents have to come to them for safety. I might ask them if they are to be driven fr< :n their firm and stern opposition to a United States bank, because those who once thought that certaiu ruin would lay waste the land unless such an institution was incorpo- rated, have changed their opinions, and stand with us in opposition? Are they willing to be driven in opposition to the independent treasury, because those who once opposed now support it? Are you to be driven from all the past, now triumphantly vindicated, because opposition has ceased ? We should stand firm in the support of right, truth, the Constitution of our country, no matter who shall come to their support, or desert: stand by them to the last, and if they fall let us perish with them. We should never survive the existence of this government. '•There is one thing that I wish, in this connexion. Mr. Chairman, to say to the gentlemen from the south, and the northern Whigs: if the bill for territorial governments, silent upon the subject of slavery, shall be defeated, then I am for bills with the Wilmot proviso, in order to give govern- ments to the people in the territories ; and I speak for four of my colleagues, assured that they will feel constrained to pursue a like course.- And if General Taylor shall approve the proviso, then it will have passed ; and it is for them to determine what shall or shall not be done, and let the re- sponsibility rest with them." I take this occasion to say, that the senti- ment last quoted, uttered in a moment of excitement, I, upon reflection, repudiate as unjust and improper. I thank the gentleman that he has afforded me the opportunity to give this public expression of my disapproval of that statement. I uniformly voted against placing the AVilmot proviso in any territorial bill. I voted against it, because I believed it to be unjust to the people of a portion of this Union. The Clerk then read the third interrogatory, as follows : — " Am I right in supposing that his theory is, that the Con- stitution of the United States does not carry slavery to, and protect it in, the territories of the United States? That in the territory acquired from Mexico and France (including Kansas aud Nebraska), the Missouri restriction was neces- sary to make the territory free, because slavery existed there under France at the time of the acquisition; but that the Kansas and Nebraska bill, which repeals that restric- tion, but neither legislates slavery into those territories nor excludes it therefrom, in his opinion, leaves those territo- ries without either local or constitutional law protecting slavery; aud that therefore the Kansas and Nebraska bill promotes the formation of slave states iu Kansas and Ne- braska?" Mr. Richardson. The Constitution does not, in my opinion, carry the institutions of any of the states into the territories ; but it affords the same protection there to the insti- tutions of one state as of another. The citizen of Virginia is as much entitled, in the common territory, to the protection of his property, under the Constitution, as the citizen of Illi- nois ; but both are dependent upon the legis- lation of the territorial government for laws to protect their property, of whatever kind it may be. Thus, it will be seen, that though there may be upon this point a difference the- oretically — involving questions for judicial decision — yet there is none, practically, among the friends of non-intervention by Congress, as the practical result is to place the decision of the questions in the hands of those who are most deeply interested in its solution, namely, the people of the territory, who have made it their home, and whose interests are the most deeply involved in the character of the insti- D40 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tutions under which they are to live. If this great principle of non-intervention and self- government is wrong, then, indeed, the Ameri- can Revolution was fought in vain, and it is time we cease to venerate the memory of the patriotic dead, who purchased with their for- tunes and blood the free institutions of the several separate, independent, and coequal states, forming the Union under which we have so prosperously and happily grown to be 60 great. Rivers and Harbors. Ox the 13th of July, 1854, House Bill No. 392, '• making appropriations for the repair, preservation, and completion of certain public works heretofore commenced under the autho- rity of law," being in other words a River and Harbor Bill, was brought to a vote, and passed the House by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Bull, Bennett, Benson, Benton, Bugg. Camp- bell, Carpenter, Caruthers, Chamberlain, Chandler, Church- well. Clark, Corwin, Cox, Crocker, dimming. Gutting, Tho- mas Davis. Dawson. Dick, Disney. Dunbar, Eastman, Eddy, Edgerton, Edmands, Thomas 1>. Eliot, Ellison, English, Ewvng, Farley. Kenton. Flagler, Florence. Gjddings, Green, Greenwood, Aaron Harlan. Harrison, Haven, Henn, Hiester, Hill, Howe, Hughes, Johnson. Kerr, Knox, Latham, Lind- h u, Lindsley, Mace, Macy, Matteson, Middleswarth, John G. Miller. Morgan, Nichols, Noble, Norton, Mordecai Oliver, Parker, Pennington, Preston, Pringle, Ready, David Ritchie, Kogi i Russt 11, Sabin, Sage, Sapp, Seward. Seymour. Shan- non. Shower. Gerkit Smith. Samuel A. Smith. Sotters, Fred- erick 1*. Stanton. Hestor L. Stevens. John L. TayUr, Thurs- ton. Trout. Upliam. Vansant, Wade, WaCLey, Elilm B. Wash- burne. Israel Washburne, Wells, John Wentworth, Tappan Wentworth, Wheeler. Yates, ZoUicoffer.—96. Nays. — Messrs. Abercrombie, Aiken, James C. Allen, Wil- lis Allen, Barksdale, Barry. Belcher, Bocock, Boyce, Breck- enridge. Bridges, Caskie, Chrisman, Clingman, Cobb, Col- quitt. Craige, John G. Davis, Dowdell, Edmundson. John M. Klli »tt, Goode, Grow, Sampson W. Harris, Wiley P. Harris, Hastings, Hibbard, Hillyer, Houston, Daniel T. Jones, J. Glaney Jones, Roland Jones. Keitt, Kidwell, Kittredge, Kurtz, Lamb, LetcUer, Lilly. Mc.Nair, McQueen, Maurice, Maxwell. May, Mayall, Millson, Morrison. Murray, Olds, Andrew Oliver. Orr. Packer. Bishop, Perkins. John Perkins, Phelps, Phillips, 1'owell. Pratt. Puryear, Reeve. Kowe. Kuffin. Skelton, William Smith, Wiliiam K. Smith. George W. Smyth Richard II. Stanton. Stratton, Straub, John J. Tay- lor, Vail, Walsh, Westbrook. Witte, Daniel B.Wright, Ileud- ri ,k B. Wright.— 76. The bill was amended in the Senate, and passed that body on the 1st of August, 1854, by yeas and nays as follows: — Yeas.— Messrs. Allen, Bell, Benjamin, Cass, Chase, Cooper, Dodge of Wis., Dodge of ta., Fessendm, Pish, Foot, Geyer, GlLLIsTTrt. James. Johnson, Jones of la., Jones of Tent)., Pearce, Pettit, Pratt, Rockwell. Rusk. Sebastian, Seward, Slide.ll. Stuart. S0M>'£R, Thompson of Ky., Thompson of N. J.. Wade, Walker.— 31. Nats. — Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Bright, Brown, Clay, Dawson, Douglas. Evans. Fitzpatrick, Houston, Hunter. Mallory, Mason, Morton, Norris, Toombs. Williams— 17. The House disagreed to the amendments of the Senate. A committee of conference was appointed by each House who reconciled the disagreeing votes, and the bill was passed. The President vetoed the bill. On the question, taken December G, 1854, Shall the bill pass notwithstanding the veto of the President? it was lost, two-thirds, the number required by the Constitution, not voting therefor. The ayes and noes were as follows: — YjBAS.— Messrs. Appleton. Bill. Banks, Bennett, Bliss, Bris- tsnv. Campbell, Carpenter, Caruthers, Chandler, Chase, Clark, Icoioui, Cox, Crocker, Cullom, Dawson, Dick. Dickinson, Dunhar. Eastman, Eddy. Edgerton, Edmands, Thomas D Eliot. Ellison, English. Etheridge. Everhart, Farley, Fenton, Flagler, Florence, Goodrich, Goodwin, Green, Greenwood, Grey, Aaron Harlan. Harrison, Haven, Henn. Hicster, Hill, Howe. Hughes, Hunt, Johnson, Knox. Lindley, Lindsley, McCulbich, Mace, Macy, Matteson, Mayall. Meacham, MiddUsV. worth, Morgan. Noble. Mordecai Oliver, Parker, Peck. Peck- ham. Pennington, Preston, Pringle. Ready, Riddle, David Richie. Russell. Sabin. Sage. Sapp, Seymour. Shower, Sim- mons, Frederick P. Stanton, Hestor L. Stephens, Andrew Stuart, David Stuart, John L. Taylor, Nathaniel G. Taylor, Tetter, Thurston. Tracy, Trout, Wide, Walley, Elihu B. Wash- burnt, Israel Washburne. John Wentworth, Tappan Went- worth. Wheeler, ZoUicqffer. — 95. Nays. — Messrs. James C. Allen. Willis Allen, David J. Bailey, Thomas H. Bayly. Barksdale. Barry. Belcher. Bocock, Boyce, Breckenridge. Bridges. Caskie, Chastain, Chrisman, Clingman, Cobb, Colquitt. Craige, Curtis, John G. Davis, De- Witt. Disney, Dowdell, Edmundson, Faulkner. Fuller, Goode, Grow, Hamilton, Sampson W. Harris. Wiley P. Harris. Hast- ings, Hendricks. Hibbard, Hillyer. Houston. Ingersoll. Dan- iel T. Jones, George W. Jones, J. Glaney Jones, Kittredge, Kurtz. Lamb. Latham. Letcher, Lewis,Mcdonald, McDongall, McMullin, McQueen. Maxwell. Smith Miller, Millson, Mur- ray. Olds, Orr, Bishop Perkins. John Perkins, Phelps. Phil- lips, Powell, Pratt. Reeve, Rowe. Burnt;, Shannon, Shaw, Singleton, Skelton. William Smith, William It. Smith, George W. Smyth, Richard II. Stanton. Stratton. Straub. John J. Taylor, Walbridge, Walsh, Warren, Heudrick B. Wright —80. Democrats in roman ; Whigs in italics; Free Soilers in small capitals. The President, in the following message, bearing date Dec. 30, 1854, treated the sub- ject more fully than he was enabled to do in his veto message : — To the Senate and House of Representatives : In returning to the House of Representa- tives, in which it originated, a bill entitled " An act making appropriations for the repair, preservation, and completion of certain public works, heretofore commenced under authority of law," it became necessary for me, owing to the late day at which the bill was passed, to state my objections to it very briefly, announc- ing, at the same time, a purpose to resume the subject for more deliberate discussion, at the present session of Congress ; for, while by no means insensible of the arduousuess of the task thus undertaken by me, I conceived that the two Houses were entitled to an exposition of the considerations which had induced dis- sent, on my part, from their conclusions in this instance. The great constitutional question, of the power of the general government in relation to internal improvements, has been the subject of earnest difference of opinion, at every pe- riod of the history of the United States. Annual and special messages of successive Presidents have been occupied with it, some- times in remarks on the general topic, and fre- quently in objection to particular bills. The conflicting sentiments of eminent statesmen, expressed in Congress, or in conventions called expressly to devise, if possible, some plan cal- culated to relieve the subject of the embarrass- ments with which it is environed, while they have directed public attention strongly to the magnitude of the interests involved, have yet left unsettled the limits, not merely of expedi- ency, but of constitutional power, in rela to works of this class by the general govern- ment. AVhat is intended by the phrase " internal RIVERS AND HARBORS. 54J improvements ?" What does it embrace, and what exclude ? No such language is found in the Constitution. Not only is it not an ex- pression of ascertainable constitutional power, but it has no sufficient exactness of meaning to be of any value as the basis of a safe con- clusion, either of constitutional law or of prac- tical statesmanship. President John Quincy Adams, in claiming, on one occasion, after his retirement from office, the authorship of the idea of introdu- cing into the administration of the affairs of the general government " a permanent and regular system" of internal improvements, speaks of it as a system by which " the whole Union would have been checkered over with railroads and canals," affording " high wages and constant employment to hundreds of thou- sands of laborers ;" and he places it in express contrast with the construction of such works by the legislation of the states and by private enterprise. It is quite obvious, that if there be any con- stitutional power which authorizes the con- struction of " railroads and canals" by Con- gress, the same power must comprehend turn- pikes and ordinary carriage roads ; nay, it must extend to the construction of bridges, to the draining of marshes, to the erection of levees, to the construction of canals of irriga- tion — in a word, to all the possible means of the material improvement of" the earth, by de- veloping its natural resources, anywhere and everywhere, even within the proper jurisdic- tion of the several states. But if there be any constitutional power, thus comprehensive in its nature, must not the same power em- brace within its scope other kinds of improve- ment of equal utility in themselves, and equally important to the welfare of the whole country ? President Jefferson, while intima- ting the expediency of so amending the Con- stitution as to comprise objects of physical progress and well-being, does not fail to per- ceive that "other objects of public improve- ment," including " public education," by name, belong to the same class of powers. In fact, not only public instruction, but hospitals, establishments of science and art, libraries, and indeed everything appertaining to the in- ternal welfare of the country, are just as much objects of internal improvement, or, in' other words, of internal utility, as canals and rail- ways. The admission of the power in either of its senses implies its existence in the other ; and since, if it exists at all, it involves dan- gerous augmentation of the political functions and of the patronage of the federal govern- ment, we ought to see clearly by what clause or clauses of the Constitution it is conferred. I have had occasion more than once to ex- press, and deem it proper now to repeat, that it is, in my judgment, to be taken for granted, as a fundamental proposition not requiring elucidation, that the federal government is the oreature of the individual states, and of the people of the states severally ; that the sov- ereign power was in them alone ; that all the powers of the federal government are deriva- tive ones, the enumeration and limitations of which are contained in the instrument which organized it ; and by express terms, " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people." Starting from this foundation of our consti- tutional faith, and proceeding to inquire in what part of the Constitution the power of making appropriations for internal improve- ments is found, it is necessary to reject all idea of there being any grant of power in the preamble. When that instrument says : " We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," — it only declares the in- ducements and the anticipated results of the things ordained and established by it. To assume that anything more can be designed by the language of the preamble, would be to convert all the body of the Constitution, with its carefully weighed enumerations and limi- tations, into mere surplusage. The same may be said of the phrase in the grant of the power to Congress, " to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States ;" or, to construe the words more exactly, they are not significant of grant or concession, but of restriction of the specific grants, having the effect of saying that, in laying and collecting taxes for each of the precise objects of power granted to the general government, Congress must exercise any such definite and undoubted power in strict subordination to the purpose of the common defence and general welfare of all the states. There being no specific grant in the Consti- tution of a power to sanction appropriations for internal improvements, and no general provision broad enough to cover any such in- definite object, it becomes necessary to look for particular powers, to which one or another of the things included in the phrase " internal improvements," may be referred. In the discussions of this question by the advocates of the organization of a " general system of internal improvements" under the auspices of the federal government, reliance is had, for the justification of the measure, on several of the powers expressly granted to Congress : such as to establish post-offices and post-roads ; to declare war ; to provide and maintain a navy ; to raise and support armies ; to regulate commerce ; and to dispose of the territory and other public property of the United States. As to the last of these sources of power, that of disposing of the territory and other public property of the United States, it may be conceded, that it authorizes Congress, in the management of the public property, to 542 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. make improvements essential to the success- ful execution of the trust ; but this must be the primary object of any such improvement, and it would be an abuse of the trust to sacri- fice the interest of the property to incidental purposes. As to the othei assumed sources of a general power over internal improvements, they being specific powers, of which this is supposed to be the incident, if the framers of the Consti- tution, wise and thoughtful men as they were, intended to confer on Congress the power over a subject so wide as the whole field of internal improvements, it is remarkable that they did not use language clearly to express it ; or, in other words, that they did not give it as a dis- tinct and substantive power, instead of making it the implied incident of some other on->. For such is the magnitude of the supposed inci- dental power and its capacity of expansion, that any system established under it would exceed each or the others, in the amount of ex- penditure and number of the persons em- ployed, which would thus be thrown upon the general government. This position may be illustrated by taking, as a single example, one of the many things comprehended clearly in the idea of " a general system of internal improvements," namely, roads. Let it be supposed that the power to construct roads over the whole Union, accord- ing to the suggestion of President J. Q. Adams, in 1807, whilst a member of the Senate of the United States, had been conceded. Congress would have begun, in pursuance of the state of knowledge at the time, by constructing turnpikes. Then, as knowledge advanced, it would have constructed canals ; and at the present time, it would have been embarked in an almost limitless scheme of railroads. Now, there are in the United States, the results of state or private enterprise, upwards of 17,000 miles of railroads, and 5000 miles of canals, in all 22,000 miles, the total cost of which may be estimated at little short of six hundred millions of dollars : — and if the same works had been constructed by the federal government, supposing the thing to have been practicable, the cost would have probably been not less than nine hundred millions of dollars. The number of persons employed in superin- tending, managing, and keeping up these canals and railroads, may be stated at one one hundred and twenty-six thousand, or thereabouts; to which are to be added seventy thousand or eighty thousand employed on the railroads in construction, making a total of at least two hundred thousand persons, repre- senting in families nearly a million of souls, employed on or maintained by this one class of public works in the United States. In view of all this, it is not easy to estimate the disastrous consequences which must have resulted from such extended local improve- ments being undertaken by the general gov- ernment. State legislation upon this subject would have been suspended, and private en- terprise paralyzed, while applications for ap- propriations would have perverted the legis- lation of Congress, exhausted the national treasury, and left the people burdened with a heavy public debt, beyond the capacity of generations to discharge. Is it conceivable that the framers of the Constitution intended that authority, drawing after it such immense consequences, should be inferred by implication as the incident of ■* enumerated powers ? I cannot think this ; and the impossibility of supposing it would be still more glaring, if similar calculations were carried out in regard to the numerous objects of material, moral, and political usefulness, of which the idea of internal improvement admits. It may be safely inferred, that if the framers of the Constitution had intended to confer the power to make appropriations for the objects indicated, it would have been enumerated among the grants expressly made to Congress. AVhen, therefore, any one of the powers actually enumerated is adduced or re- ferred to, as the ground of an assumption to warrant the incidental or implied power of " internal improvement," that hypothesis must be rejected, or at least can be no further ad- mitted than as the particular act of internal improvement may happen to be necessary to the exercise of the granted power. Thus, when the object of a given road, the clearing of a particular channel, or the construction of a particular harbor of refuge, is manifestly required by the exigencies of the naval or military service of the country, then it seems to me undeniable that it may be constitutionally comprehended in the powers to declare war, to provide and maintain a navy, and to raise and support armies. At the same time, it would be a misuse of these powers, and a vio- lation of the Constitution, to undertake to build upon them a great system of internal im- provements. And similar reasoning applies to the assumption of any such power as involved in that to establish postroads and to regulate commerce. If the particular improvement, whether by land or sea, be necessary to the execution of the enumerated powers, then, but not otherwise, it falls within the jurisdic- tion of Congress. To this extent only can the power be claimed as the incident of any ex- press grant to the federal government. But there is one clause of the Constitution in which it has been suggested that express authority to construct works of internal im- provement has been conferred on CongresSj namely, that which empowers it " to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the scat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all pla< eS purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in'which the same shall bo, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock- yards, and oilier needful bvildings." But any such supposition will be seen to be ground- less, when this provision is carefully examined, RIVERS AND HARBORS. 543 and compared with other parts of the Consti- tution. It is undoubtedly true that " like authority" refers back to "exclusive legislation in all cases whatever," as applied to the District of Columbia ; and there is, in the district, no di- vision of powers as between the general and the state governments. In those places which the United States has purchased or retains within any of the states — sites for dock-yards or forts, for example- legal process of the given state is still permit- ted to run for some purposes, and therefore the jurisdiction of the United States is not ab- solutely perfect. But let us assume, for the argument's sake, that the jurisdiction of the United States in a tract of land ceded to it for the purpose of a dock-yard or fort, by Virginia or Maryland, is as complete as in that ceded by them for the seat of government, and then proceed to analyze this clause of the Constitu- tion. It provides that Congress shall have certain legislative authority over all places purchased by the United States for certain purposes. It implies that Congress has otherwise the power to purchase. But where does Congress get the power to purchase ? Manifestly it must be from some other clause of the Constitution, for it is not conferred by this one. Now, as it is a fundamental principle that the Constitu- tion is one of limited powers, the authority to purchase must be conferred in one of the enu- merations of legislative power. So that the power to purchase is itself not an unlimited one, but is limited by the objects in regard to which legislative authority is directly con- ferred. The other expressions of the clause in ques- tion confirm this conclusion, since the juris- diction is given as to places purchased for certain enumerated objects or purposes. Of these, the first great division, forts, magazines, arsenals, and dock-yards, are obviously refer- able to recognised heads of specific constitu- tional power. There remains only the phrase " and other needful buildings." Wherefore needful? Needful for any possible purpose within the whole range of the business of so- ciety and of government? Clearly not; but only such "buildings" as are "needful" to the United States in the exercise of any of the powers conferred on Congress. Thus the United States need, in the exer- cise of admitted powers, not only forts, maga- zines, arsenals, and dock-yards, but also court- houses, prisons, custom-houses, and post-offices, within the respective states. Places for the erection of such buildings the general govern- ment may constitutionally purchase, and, having purchased them, the jurisdiction over them belongs to the United States. So, if the general government has the power to build a light-house or a beacon, it may purchase a place for that object; and having purchased it, then this clause of the Constitution gives jurisdiction over it. Still the power to pur- chase for the purpose of erecting a light-house or beacon must depend on the existence of the power to erect ; and if that power exists, it must be sought after in some other clause of the Constitution. From whatever point of view, therefore, the subject is regarded, whether as a question of express or implied power, the conclusion is the same, that Congress has no constitutional authority to carry on a system of internal im- provements ; and in this conviction the system has been steadily opposed by the soundest expositors of the functions of the government. It is not to be supposed that in no conceiv- able case shall there be doubt as to whether a given object be, or not, a necessary incident of the military, naval, or any other power. As man is imperfect, so are his methods of utter- ing his thoughts. Human language, save in expressions for the exact sciences, must always fail to preclude all possibility of controversy. Hence it is that, in one branch of the subject — the question of the power of Congress to make appropriations in aid of navigation — there is less of positive conviction than in re- gard to the general subject ; and it, therefore, seems proper, in this respect, to revert to the history of the practice of the government. Among the very earliest acts of the first session of Congress, was that for the establish- ment and support of light- houses, approved by President Washington on the 7th of August, 1789, which contains the following provi- sions : — " That all expenses which shall accrue, from and after. the fifteenth day of August, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine, in the necessary support, maintenance, and re- pairs of all light-houses, beacons, buoys, and public piers, erected, placed, or sunk before the passing of this act, at the entrance of or within any bay, inlet, harbor, or port of the United States,' for rendering the navigation thereof easy and safe, shall be defrayed out of the treasury of the United States : Provided, nevertheless, That none of the said expenses shall continue to be so defrayed after the ex- piration of one year from the day aforesaid, unless such light-houses, beacons, buoys, and public piers shall, in the mean time, be ceded to and vested in the United States, by the state or states, respectively, in which the same may be, together with the lands and tenements thereunto belonging, and together with the jurisdiction of the same." Acts containing appropriations for this class of public works were passed in 1791, 1792, 1793, and so on, from year to year, down to the present time ; and the tenor of these acts, when examined with reference to other parts of the subject, is worthy of special considera- tion. It is a remarkable fact that, for a period of more than thirty years after the adoption of the Constitution, all appropriations of this class were confined, with scarcely an appa- rent exception, to the construction of light- houses, beacons, buoys, and public piers, and the stakeage of channels ; — to render naviga- 544 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tion '• wafe and easy," it is true, but only by indicating to the navigator obstacles in his way, not by removing t^ose obstacles, nor in any other respect changing artificially the pre-existing natural condition of the earth and sea. It is obvious, however, that works of art for the removal of natural impediments to navigation, or to prevent their formation, or for supplying harbors where these do not exist, are also means of rendering navigation safe and easy ; and may, in supposable cases, be the most efficient, as well as the most eco- nomical, of such means. Nevertheless, it is not until the year 1824 that, in an act to im- Erove the navigation of the rivers Ohio and lississippi, and in another act making appro- priations for deepening the channel leading into the harbor of Presque Isle, on Lake Erie, and for repairing Plymouth beach, in Massa- chusetts Bay, we have any example of an ap- propriation for the improvement of harbors, in the nature of those provided for in the bill returned by me to the House of Representa- tives. It appears not probable that the abstinence of Congress in this respect is attributable altogether to considerations of economy, or to any failure to perceive that the removal of an obstacle to navigation might be not less use- ful than the indication of it for avoidance ; and it may be well assumed that the course of legislation, so long pursued, was induced, in whole or in part, by solicitous considera- tion in regard to the constitutional power over such matters vested in Congress. One other peculiarity in this course of legis- lation is not less remarkable. It is, that when the general government first took charge of light-houses and beacons, it required the works themselves, and the lands on which they were situated, to be ceded to the United States. And although for a time this precau- tion was neglected in the case of new works, in the sequel it was provided by general laws that no light-house should be constructed on any site previous to the jurisdiction over the 6ame being ceded to the United States. Constitutional authority for the construction and support of many of the public works of this nature, it is certain, may be found in the power of Congress to maintain a navy and provide for the general defence ; but their number, and, in many instances, their location, preclude the idea of their being fully justified as necessary and proper incidents of that power. And they do not seem susceptible of being referred to any other of the specific powers vested in Congress by the Constitution, unless it be that to raise revenue, in so far as this relates to navigation. The practice under all my predecessors in office, the express ad- missions of some of them, and absence of de- nial by any, sufficiently manifest their belief that the power to erect light-houses, beacons, and piers, is possessed by the general govern- ment. In the acts of Congress, as we have already seen, the inducement and object of the appropriations are expressly declared: those appropriations being for " light-houses, b&v- ; cons, buoys, and public piers" erected or placed " within any bay, inlet, harbor, or port of the United States for rendering the naviga- tion thereof easy and safe." If it be contended that this review of the history of appropriations of this class leads to the inference, that, beyond the purposes of national defence and maintenance of a navv, there is authority in the Constitution to con- struct certain works in aid of navigation, it is at the same time to be remembered that the conclusions thus deduced from cotemporaneous construction and long-continued acquiescence are themselves directly suggestive of limita- tions of constitutionality, as well asexpediency, regarding the nature and the description of those aids to navigation which Congress may provide as incident to the revenue power. For, at this point controversy begins, not so much as to the principle as to its applica- tion. In accordance with long-established legisla- tive usage, Congress may construct light- houses and beacons, and provide, as it does, other means to prevent shipwrecks on the coasts of the United States. But the general government cannot go beyond this, and make improvements of rivers and harbors of the nature, and to the degree, of all the provisions of the bill of the last session of Congress. To justify such extended power, it has been urged that, if it be constitutional to appropri- ate money for the purpose of pointing out, by the construction of light-houses or beacons, where an obstacle to navigation exists, it is equally so to remove such obstacle, or to avoid it by the creation of an artificial channel ; that if the object be lawful, then the means adopted solely w T ith reference to the end must be law- ful, and that therefore it is not material, con- stitutionally speaking, whether a given ob- struction to navigation be indicated for avoidance, or be actually avoided by excava- ting a new channel ; that if it be a legitimate object of expenditure to preserve a ship from wreck, by means of a beacon, or of revenue cutters, it must be not less so to provide places of safety by the improvement of har- bors, or, where none exist, by their artificial construction ; and thence the argument natu- rally passes to the propriety of improving rivers for the benefit of internal navigation : because all these objects are of more or less importance to the commercial, as well as the naval, interests of the United States. The answer to all this is, that the question of opening speedy and easy communication to and through all parts of the country is sub- stantially the same, whether done by land or water ; that the uses of roads and canals, in facilitating commercial intercourse, and unit- ing by community of interests the most remote quarters of the country by land communica- tion, are the same in their nature as the uses of navigable waters ; and that, therefore, thfl question of the facilities and aids to be pro- vided to navigation, by whatsoever means, i« RIVERS AND HARBORS. W5 but a subdivision of the great question of the constitutionality and expediency of internal improvements by the general government. In confirmation of this. i+ is to be remarked, that one of the most important acts of appropria- tion of this class, that of the year 1833, under the administration of President Jackson, by including together and providing for, in one bill, as well river and harbor works, as road works, impliedly recognises the fact that they are alike branches of the same great subject of internal improvements. As the population, territory, and wealth of the country increased, and settlements ex- tended into remote regions, the necessity for additional means of communication impressed itself upon all minds with a force which had not been experienced at the date of the forma- tion of the Constitution, and more and more embarrassed those who were most anxious to abstain, scrupulously, from any exercise of doubtful power. Hence the recognition, in the messages of Presidents Jefferson, Madi- son, and Monroe, of the eminent desirable- ness of such works, with admission that some of them could lawfully and should be con- ducted by the general government, but with obvious uncertainty of opinion as to the line between such as are constitutional and such as are not ; such as ought to receive appro- priations from Congress, and such as ought to be consigned to private enterprise, or the legislation of the several states. This uncertainty has not been removed by the practical working of our institutions in later times ; for although the acquisition of additional territory, and the application of steam to the propulsion of vessels, have greatly magnified the importance of internal commerce, this fact has, at the same time, complicated the question of the power of the general government over the present subject. In fine, a careful review of the opinions of all my predecessors, and of the legislative his- tory of the country, does not indicate any fixed rule by which to decide what, of the infinite variety of possible river and harbor improve- ments, are within the scope of the power delegated by the Constitution : and the ques- tion still remains unsettled. President Jack- son conceded the constitutionality, under suitable circumstances, of the improvement of rivers and harbors through the agency of Congress ; and President Polk admitted the propriety of the establishment and sup- port, by appropriations from the treasury, of light-houses, beacons, buoys, and other im- provements, within the bays, inlets, and har- bors of the ocean and lake coasts immediately connected with foreign commerce. But, if the distinction thus made rests upon the differences between foreign and domestic commerce, it cannot be restricted thereby to the bays, inlets, and harbors of the oceans and lakes, because foreign commerce has already penetrated thousands of miles into the interior of the continent by means of our great rivers, and will continue so to extend itself with the progress of settlement, until it reaches the limit of navigability. At the time of the adoption of the Constitu- tion, the vast valley of the Mississippi, now teeming with population, and supplying almost boundless resources, was literally an unex- plored wilderness. Our advancement has out- stripped even the most sanguine anticipations of the fathers of the republic ; and it illus- trates the fact, that no rule is admissible which undertakes to discriminate, so far as regards river and harbor improvements, be- tween the Atlantic or Pacific coasts, and the great lakes and rivers of the interior regions of North America. Indeed, it is quite errone- ous to suppose that any such discrimination has ever existed in the practice of the govern- ment. To the contrary of which, is the signifi- cant fact before stated, that when, after ab- staining from all such appropriations for more than thirty years, Congress entered upon the policy of improving the navigation of rivers and harbors, it commenced with the river? Mississippi and Ohio. The Congress of the Union, adopting, in this respect, one of the ideas of that of the Confede- ration, has taken heed to declare, from time to time, as occasion required, either in acts for disposing of the public lands in the territories, or in acts for admitting new states, that all navigable rivers within the same " shall be deemed to be and remain public highways." Out of this condition of things arose a ques- tion which, at successive periods of our public annals, has occupied the attention of the best minds in the Union. This question is, what waters are public navigable waters so as not to be of state character and jurisdiction, but of federal jurisdiction and character, in the intent of the Constitution and of Congress? A proximate, but imperfect, answer to this important question is furnished by the acts of Congress and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, defining the con- stitutional limits of the maritime jurisdiction of the general government. That jurisdiction is entirely independent of the revenue power. It is not derived from that, nor is it measured thereby. In that act of Congress which, in the first year of the government, organized our judicial system, and which, whether we look to the subject, the comprehensive wisdom with which it was treated, or the deference with which its provisions have come to be regarded, is only second to the Constitution itself, — there is a section in which the statesmen who framed the Constitution have placed on record their construction of it in this matter. It enacts that the District Courts of the United States " shall have exclusive cognisance of all civil cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under the law of impost, navigation, or trade of the United States, when the seizures are made on waters which arc navi gable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burden, within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas." In this cotem- 546 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. poraneous exposition of the Constitution, there is no trace of suggestion, that nationality of jurisdiction is limited to the sea, or even to tidewaters. The law is marked by a saga- cious apprehension of the fact that the great lakes and the Mississippi were navigable wa- ters of the United States even then, before the acquisition of Louisiana had made wholly our own the territorial greatness of the west. It repudiates, unequivocally, the rule of the com- mon law, according to which the question of whether a water is public navigable water or not, depends on whether it is salt or not, and therefore, in a river, confines that quality to tidewater : a rule resulting from the geogra- phical condition of England, and applicable to an island with small and narrow streams, the only navigable portion of which, for ships, is in immediate contact with the ocean, but wholly inapplicable to the great inland fresh- water seas of America, and its mighty rivers, with secondary branches exceeding in magni- tude the largest rivers of Great Britain. At a later period, it is true, that, in disre- gard of the more comprehensive definition of navigability afforded by that act of Congress, it was for a time held by many, that the rule established for England was to be received in the United States ; the effect of which was to exclude from the jurisdiction of the general government, not only the waters of the Mis- sissippi, but also those of the great lakes. To this construction it was with truth objected, that, in so far as concerns the lakes, they are in fact seas, although of fresh water ; that they are the natural marine communications be- tween a series of populous states, and between them and the possessions of a foreign nation ; that they are actually navigated by ships of commerce of the largest capacity ; that they had once been, and might again be, the scene of foreign war ; and that therefore it was doing violence to all reason to undertake, by means of an arbitrary doctrine of technical foreign law, to exclude such waters from the jurisdiction of the general government. In regard to the river Mississippi, it was objected that, to draw a line across that river at the point of ebb and flood of tide, and say that the part below was public navigable water, and the part above not, while in the latter the water was at least equally deep and navigable, and its commerce as rich as in the former, with numerous ports of foreign entry and delivery, was to sanction a distinction artificial and unjust, because re- gardless of the real fact of navigability. We may conceive that some such consider- ations led to the enactment, in the year 1845, of an act, in addition to that of 1789, declar- ing that " the District Courts of the United Slates shall have, possess, and exercise the same jurisdiction in matters of contract and tort, arising in, upon, or concerning steam- boats, and other vessels of twenty tons burden and upwards, enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade, and at the time employed in business of commerce and navigation between oorts and places in different states and terri- tories upon the lakes, and navigable waters connecting said lakes, as is now possessed and exercised by the said courts in cases of the like steamboats and other vessels employed in navigation and commerce upon the high seas or tidewaters, within the admiralty and jurisdiction of the United States. It is observable that the act of 1789 appliea the jurisdiction of the United States to all " waters which are navigable from the sea" for vessels of ten tons burden ; and that of 1845 extends the jurisdiction to enrolled vessels of twenty tons burden, on the lakes, and na- vigable waters connecting said lakes, though not waters navigable from the sea, provided such vessels be employed between places in different states and territories. Thus it appears that these provisions of law, in effect, prescribe conditions by which to de- termine whether any waters are public navi- gable waters, subject to the authority of the federal government. The conditions include all waters, whether salt or fresh, and whether of sea, lake, or river, provided they be capable of navigation by vessels of a certain tonnage, and for commerce, either between the United States and foreign countries, or between any two or more of the states or territories of the Union. This excludes water wholly within any particular state, and not used as the means of commercial communication with any other state, and subject to be improved or ob- structed, at will, by the state within which it may happen to be. The constitutionality of these provisions of statute has been called in question. Their constitutionality has been maintained, how- ever, by repeated decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and they are, therefore, the law of the land by the concur- rent act of the legislative, the executive, and the judicial departments of the government. Regarded as affording a criterion of what is navigable water, and as such subject to the maritime jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and of Congress, these acts are objectionable in this, that the rule of navigability is an arbitrary one ; that Congress may repeal the present rule, and adopt a new one ; and that thus a legislative definition will be able to re- strict or enlarge the limits of constitutional power. Yet this variableness of standard seems inherent in the nature of things. At any rate, neither the first Congress, 'composed of the statesmen of the era when the Consti- tution was adopted, nor any subsequent Con- gress, has afforded us the means of attaining greater precision of construction as to this part of the Constitution. This reflection may serve to relieve from undeserved reproach an idea of one of the greatest men of the republic, President Jack- son. He, seeking amid all the difficulties of the subject for some practical rule of action in regard to appropriations for the improvement of rivers and harbors, prescribed for his own official conduct the rule of confining such ap- propriations to " places below the ports of RIVERS AND HARBORS. 547 entry or delivery established by law." He saw clearly, as the authors of the above-men- tioned acts of 1789 and 1845 did, that there is no inflexible natural line of discrimination between what is national and what local, by means of which to determine absolutely and unerringly at what point on a river the juris- diction of the United States shall end. He perceived, and of course admitted, that the Constitution, while conferring on the general government some power of action to render navigation safe and easy, had of necessity left to Congress much of discretion in this matter. He confided in the patriotism of Congress to exercise that discretion wisely, not permitting himself to suppose it possible that a port of entry or delivery would ever be established by law for the express and only purpose of evad- ing the Constitution. It remains, therefore, to consider the ques- tion of the measure of discretion in the exer- cise by Congress of the power to provide for the improvement of rivers and harbors, and also that of the legitimate responsibility of the executive in the same relation. In matters of legislation of the most un- questionable constitutionality, it is always material to consider what amount of publio money shall be appropriated for any particular object. The same consideration applies with augmented force to a class of appropriations which are in their nature peculiarly prone to run to excess, and which, being made in the exercise of incidental powers, have intrinsic tendency to overstep the bounds of constitu- tionality. If an appropriation for improving the navi- gability of a river, or deepening or protecting a harbor, have reference to military or naval purposes, then its rightfulness, whether in amount or in the objects to which it is ap- plied, depends, manifestly, on the military or naval exigency ; and the subject-matter affords its own measure of legislative discretion. But if the appropriation for such an object have no distinct- relation to the military or naval wants of the country, and is wholly, or even mainly, intended to promote the revenue from commerce, then the very vagueness of the pro- posed purpose of the expenditure constitutes a perpetual admonition of reserve and caution. Through disregard of this, it is undeniable that, in many cases, appropriations of this nature have been made unwisely, without ac- complishing beneficial results commensurate with the cost, and sometimes for evil, rather than good, independently of their dubious re- lation to the Constitution. Among the radical changes of the course of legislation in these matters, which, in my judgment, the public interest demands, one is a return to the primitive idea of Congress, which required in this class of public works, as in all others, a conveyance of the soil, and a cession of the jurisdiction to the United States. I think this condition ought never to have been waived in the case of any harbor improvement of a permanent nature, as where piers, jettees, sea-walls, and other like works are to be constructed and maintained. It would powerfully tend to counteract endeavors to obtain appropriations of a local character, and chiefly calculated to promote individual interests. The want of such a provision is the occasion of abuses in regard to existing works, exposing them to private encroach- ment without sufficient means of redress by law. Indeed the absence, in such cases, of a cession of jurisdiction, has constituted one of the constitutional objections to appropriations of this class. It is not easy to perceive any sufficient reason for requiring it in the case of arsenals or forts, which does not equally apply to all other public works ; if to be con- structed and maintained by Congress in the exercise of a constitutional power of appro- priation, they should be brought within the jurisdiction of the United States. There is another measure of precaution, in regard to such appropriations, which seems to me to be worthy of the consideration of Con- gress. It is, to make appropriation for every work in a separate bill, so that each one shall stand on its own independent merits ; and if it pass, shall do so under circumstances of legislative scrutiny, entitling it to be regarded as of general interest, and a proper subject of charge on the treasury of the Union. During that period of time in which the country had not come to look to Congress for appropriations of this nature, several of the states, whose productions or geographical po- sition invited foreign commerce, had entered upon plans for the improvement of their har- bors by themselves, and through means of support drawn directly from that commerce, in virtue of an express constitutional power, needing for its exercise only the permission of Congress. Harbor improvements thus con- structed and maintained, the expenditures upon them being defrayed by the very facili- ties they afford, are a voluntary charge on those only who see fit to avail themselves of such facilities, and can be justly complained of by none. On the other hand, so long as these improvements are carried on by appro- priations from the treasury, the benefits will continue to inure to those alone who enjoy the facilities afforded, while the expenditure will be a burden upon the whole country, and the discrimination adouble injury to places equally requiring improvement, but not equally favor- ed by appropriations. These considerations, added tc the embar- rassments of the whole question, amply suffice to suggest the policy of confining appropria- tions by the general government to works ne- cessary to the execution of its undoubted powers, and of leaving all others to indivi- dual enterprise, or to the separate states, to be provided for out of their own resources, or by recurrence to the provision of the Consti- tution, which authorizes the states to lay du- ties of tonnage with the consent of Congress . Franklin Pierce. Washington, Dec. 30, 1854. 548 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Road Bill. General Jackson's Veto of the Maysville Road Bill. Objections of the President of the United States on returning to the House of Represen- tatives the enrolled bill entitled "An act authorizing a subscription of stock in the Maysville, Washington, Paris, and Lexington Turnpike Road Company." The act which I am called upon to consider, has been passed with a knowledge of my views on this question, and these are express- ed in the message referred to. In that docu- ment the following suggestion will be found: — " After the extinction of the public debt, it is not probable that any adjustment of the tariff, upon principles satisfactory to the peo- ple of the Union, will, until a remote period, if ever, leave the government without a con- siderable surplus in the treasury, beyond what may be required for its current service. As then the period approaches when the ap- plication of the revenue to the payment of debt will cease, the disposition of the surplus will present a subject for the serious delibera- tion of Congress ; and it may be fortunate for the country that it is yet to be decided. Con- sidered in connexion with the difficulties which have heretofore attended appropria- tions for purposes of internal improvement, and with those which this experience tells us will certainly arise, whenever power over such subjects may be exercised by the general government ; it is hoped that it may lead to the adoption of some plan which will recon- cile the diversified interests of the states, and strengthen the bonds which unite them. Every member of the Union, in peace and in war, will be benefited by the improvement of inland navigation and the construction of highways in the several states. Let us then endeavor to attain this benefit in a mode which will be satisfactory to all. That hitherto " adopted has been deprecated as an infraction of the Constitution by many of our fellow citizens ; while by others it has been viewed as inexpedient. All feel that it has been employed at the expense of harmony in the legislative councils ;" and adverting to the constitutional power of Congress to make what I consider a proper disposition of the surplus revenue, I subjoin the following re- marks : " To avoid these evils, it appears to me that the most safe, just, and federal dispo- sition which could be made of the surplus revenue, would be its apportionment among the several states according to their ratio of representation ; and should this measure not be found warranted by the Constitution, that it would be expedient to propose to the states an amendment authorizing it." The constitutional power of the federal government to construct or promote works of internal improvement, presents itself in two points of view : the first, as bearing upon the sovereignty of the states within whose limits their execution is contemplated, if jurisdiction of the territory which they may occupy, be claimed as necessary to their preservation and use : the second, as asserting the simple right to appropriate money from the national trea- sury in aid of such works when undertaken by state authority, surrendering the claim of jurisdiction. In the first view, the question of power is an open one, and can be decided without the embarrassment attending the other, arising from the practice of the govern- ment. Although frequently and strenuously at- tempted, the power, to this extent, has never been exercised by the government in a single instance. It does not, in my opinion, possess it, and no bill, therefore, which admits it, can receive my official sanction. But, in the other view of the power, the question is differently situated. The ground taken at an early period of the government, was, " that whenever money has been raised by the general authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises, whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it ; if not, no such application can be made." The document in which this prin- ciple was first advanced is of deservedly high authority, and should be held in grateful re- membrance for its immediate agency in rescu ing the country from much existing abuse, and for its conservative effect upon some of the most valuable principles of the Constitu- tion. The symmetry and purity of the go- vernment would, doubtless, have been better preserved, if this restriction of the power of appropriation could have been maintained without weakening its ability to fulfil the general objects of its institution : an effect so likely to attend its admission, notwithstand- ing its apparent fitness, that every subsequent administration of the government, embracing a period of thirty out of the forty-two years of its existence, has adopted a more enlarged construction of the power. * * * In the administration of Mr. Jefferson^ wc have two examples of the exercise of the right of appropriation, which, in the consideration that led to their adoption and in their effects upon the public mind, have had a greater agency in marking the character of the power, than any subsequent events. I allude to the payment of fifteen millions of dollars for the purchase of Louisiana, and to the original ap- priation for the construction of the Cumber- land Road ; the latter act deriving much weight from the acquiescence and approba- tion of three of the most powerful of the ori- ginal members of the confederacy, expressed through their respective legislatures. Although the circumstances of the latter case may be such as to deprive so much of it as relates to the actual construction of the road, of the force of an obligatory exposition of the Con- stitution, it must, nevertheless, be admitted that, so far as the mere appropriation of ROAD BILJ* 549 money is concerned, they present the princi- ple in its most imposing aspect. No less than twenty-three different laws have been passed through all the forms of the Constitution, ap- propriating upwards of two millions of dollars out of the national treasury in support of that improvement, -with the approbation of every President of the United States, including my predecessor, since its commencement. * * * Independently of the sanction given to ap- propriations for the Cumberland and other roads and objects, under this power, the ad- ministration of Mr. Madison was characterized by an act which furnishes the strongest evi- dence of his opinion of its extent. A bill was passed through both houses of Congress, and presented for his approval, " setting apart and pledging certain funds for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navig%tion of watercourses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several states ; and to render more easy, and less expensive, the means and provisions for the common defence." Kegarding the bill as asserting a power in the federal govern- ment to construct roads and canals within the limits of the states in which they were made, he objected to its passage, on the ground of its unconstitutionality, declaring that the assent of tbe respective states, in the mode provided by the bill, could not confer the power in question ; that the only cases in which the consent and cession of particular states can extend the power of Congress, are those specified and provided for in the Consti- tution ; and superadding to these avowals, his opinion, that " a restriction of the power ' to provide for the common defence and general welfare,' to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money, would still leave within the legislative power of Congress, all the great and most important measures of go- vernment, money being the ordinary and ne- cessary means of carrying them into execu- tion." I have not been able to consider these declarations in any other point of view, than as a concession that the right of appropriation is not limited by the power to carry into effect the measure for which the money is asked, as was formerly contended. The views of Mr. Monroe upon this subject, were not left to inference. During his ad- ministration a bill was passed through both Houses of Congress, conferring the jurisdic- tion and prescribing the mode by which the federal government should exercise it in the case of the Cumberland Road. He returned it with objections to its passage, and in assign- ing them, took occasion to say, that in the early stages of the government, he had in- clined to the construction that it had no right to expend money, except in the performance of acts authorized by the other specific grants of power, according to a strict construction of them ; but that, on further reflection and ob- servation, his mind had undergone a change ; that his opinion then was, " that Congress have unlimited power to raise money, and that, in its appropriation, they have a discre- tionary power, restricted only by the duty to appropriate it to purposes of common defence, and of general, not local, national, nor state benefit ;" and this was avowed to be the go. verning principle through the residue of his administration. The views of the last admi- nistration are of such recent date as to render a particular reference to them unnecessary. It is well known that the appropriating power, to the utmost extent which had been claimed for it, in relation to internal improvements, was fully recognised and exercised by it. This brief reference to known facts, will be sufficient to show the difficulty, if not imprac- ticability, of bringing back the operations of the government to the construction of the Constitution set up in 1798, assuming that to be its true reading, in relation to the power under consideration : thus giving an admoni- tory proof of the force of implication, and the necessity of guarding the Constitution with sleepless vigilance, against the authority of precedents which have not the sanction of its most plainly defined powers. For, although it is the duty of all to look to that sacred in- strument, instead of the statute book, to re- pudiate at all times, encroachments upon its spirit, which are too apt to be effected by the conjecture of peculiar and facilitating circum- stances ; it is not less true, that the public good and the nature of our political insti- tutions require, that individual differences should yield to a well settled acquiescence of the people and confederated authorities, in particular constructions of the Constitution on doubtful points. Not to concede this much to the spirit of our institutions, would impair their stability, and defeat the objects of the Constitution itself. The bill before me does not call for a more definite opinion upon the particular circum- stances which will warrant appropriations of money by Congress, to aid works of internal improvement, for although the extension of the power to apply money beyond that of carrying into effect the object for which it is appropriated, has, as we have seen, been long claimed and exercised by the federal govern- ment, yet such grants have always been pro- fessedly under the control of the general prin- ciple, that the works which might be thus aided, should be " of a general, not local — na- tional, not state" character. A disregard of this distinction would of necessity lead to the subversion of the federal system. That even this is an unsafe one, arbitrary in its nature, and liable, consequently, to great abuses, is too obvious to require the confirmation of ex- perience. It is, however, sufficiently definite and imperative to my mind, to forbid my ap- probation of any bill having the character of the one under consideration. I have given its provisions all the reflection demanded by a just regard for the interests of those of our fellow-citizens who have desired its passage, and by the respect which is due to a co-ordi- nate branch of the government, but I am not 550, THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. able to view it in any other light than as a measure of purely lucal character ; or if it can be considered national, that no further distinction between the appropriate duties of the general and state government, need be attempted ; for there can be no local interest that may not with equal propriety be denomi- nated national. It has no connexion with any established system of improvements ; is exclusively within the limits of a state, start- ing at a point on the Ohio river, and running- out sixty miles to an interior town ; and even as far as the state is interested, conferring partial instead of general advantages. * * * In the other view of the subject, and the only remaining one which it is my intention to present at this time, is involved the expe- diency of embarking in a system of internal improvement, without a previous amendment of the Constitution, explaining and defining the precise powers of the federal government over it : assuming the right to appropriate money, to aid in the construction of national works, to be warranted by the cotemporane- ous and continued exposition of the Constitu- tion, its insufficiency for the successful prose- cution of them, must be admitted by all candid minds. If we look to usage to define the extent of the right, that will be found so variant, and embracing so much that has been overruled, as to involve the whole sub- ject in great uncertainty, and to render the execution of our respective duties in relation to it, replete with difficulty and embarrass- ment. It is in regard to such works, and the acquisition of additional territory, that the practice obtained its first footing. In most, if not all other disputed questions of appro- priation, the construction of the Constitution may be regarded as unsettled, if the right to apply money, in the enumerated cases, is placed on the ground of usage. * * * If it be the desire of the people that the agency of the federal government should be confined to the appropriation of money, in aid of such undertakings, in virtue of the state authorities, then the occasion, the manner, and the extent of the appropriations, should be made the subject of constitutional regula- tion. This is the more necessary, in order that they may be equitable among the several states ; promote harmony between different Bections of the Union and their representa- tives ; preserve other parts of the Constitution from being undermined by the exercise of doubtful powers, or the too great extension of those which are not so, and protect the whole subject against the deleterious influ- ence of combinations to carry, by concert, measures which, considered by themselves, might meet but little countenance. That a constitutional adjustment of this power, upon equitable principles, is, in the highest degree, desirable, can scarcely be doubted; nor can it fail to be promoted by every sincere friend to the success of our poli- tical institutions. In no government are ap- peals to the source of power, in cases of real doubt, more suitable than in ours. No good motive can be assigned for the exercise of power by the constituted authorities, while those, for whose benefit it is to be exercised, have not conferred it, and may not be willing to confer it. It would seem to me that an honest application of the conceded powers of the general government to the advancement of the common weal, present a sufficient scope to satisfy a reasonable ambition. The diffi- culty and supposed impracticability of obtain- ing an amendment of the Constitution in this respect, is, I firmly believe, in a great degree, unfounded. * * In presenting these opinions I have spoken with the freedom and candor which I thought the occasion for their expression called for, and now respectfully return the bill which has been wider consideration for your further de- liberation and judgment. May 27, 1830. Andrew Jackson. Scott, Winfield. On Native Americanism. Washington, November 10, 1841. Dear Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge your letter of the 8th inst., written, as you are pleased to add, in behalf of several hundred Native American Republicans of Philadelphia. Not confidentially, but not for publication, I have already replied to a letter from David M. Stone, Esq., of your city, on the same subject. I will write to you in like manner, and in haste. This is the month when the pressure of official business is heaviest with me — leaving scarcely time for sleep or exercise. I must not, how- ever, wholly neglect your communication. Should any considerable number of my fellow-countrymen assign me, or desire to give me, a prominent position before the public, I shall take time to methodize my views on the great questions you have proposed. Those views have their origin in the stormy elections of the spring of 1835, and were confirmed in the week that the Harrison electors were chosen in New York. On both occasions I was in that city, and heard' in the streets, "Down with the natives." It was heard in almost every group of foreigners, as the signal for rallying and outrage. Fired with indignation, two friends sat down with me in my parlor at the Astor House (November, 1840), to draw up an ad- dress, designed to rally an American party. The day after the election I set out for the South, and have never known precisely why our appeal was not published. Probably the election of General Harrison rendered the publication at that time unnecessary in the opinion of my two friends. I now hesitate between extending the pe- riod of residence before naturalization, and a total repeal of all acts of Congress on the sub- ject — my mind inclines to the latter. Concurring fully in the principles of the Philadelphia movement, I should prefer as- suming the name of American Republican, as SCOTT. WINFIELD. 55 in New York, or Democratic Americans, as 1 should respectfully suggest. Brought up in the principles of the Revolution — of Jefferson, Madison, &c. — under whom in youth I com- menced "life, I have always been called, I have ever professed myself, a Republican, or Whig, which with me was the same thing. Demo- cratic Americans would include all good na- tive citizens devoted to our country and insti- tutions ; would not drive from us naturalized citizens who by long residence have become identified with us in feeling and interest. I am happy to see by the Philadelphia National American, that religion is to be ex- cluded as a party element. Staunch Protest- ant as I am, both by birth and conviction, I shall never consent to a party or state reli- gion. Religion is too sacred to be mingled with either. It should always be kept be- tween each individual and his God, except in the way of reason and gentle persuasion — as in family churches and other occasions of voluntary attendance (after years of discre- tion), or reciprocal consent. Wishing success to the great work which you and other patriots have happily set on foot, I remain, with high respect, your fellow- citizen, Winfield Scott. To George Washington Reed, Esq., and others, Philadelphia. Washington, May 29, 1848. Dear Sir : In reply to your kind letter of the 8th instant, I take pleasure in saying that, grateful for the too partial estimate you place on my public services, you do me no more than justice in assuming that I entertain "kind and liberal views towards our natu- ralized citizens." Certainly, it would be im- possible for me to recommend or support any measure intended to exclude them from a just and full participation in all civil and political rights now secured to them by our republican laws and institutions. It is true that in a season of unusual excitement, some years ago, when both parties complained of fraudulent practices in the naturalization of foreigners, and when there seemed to be danger that native and adopted citizens would be per- manently arrayed against each other in hostile factions, I was inclined to concur in the opinion, then avowed by many leading states- men, that some modification of the naturaliza- tion laws might be necessary in order to pre- vent abuses, allay strife, and restore harmony between the different classes of our people. But later experience and reflection have en- tirely removed this impression, and dissipated my apprehensions. In my recent campaign in Mexico a very large proportion of the men under my com- mand were your countrymen (Irish), Germans, &c, I witnessed with admiration their zeal, fidelity, and valor in maintaining our flag in the face of every danger. Vying with each Other, and our native-born soldiers in the same tanks, in patriotism, constancy, and heroic daring, I was happy to call them brothers in the field, as I shall always be to salute them as countrymen at home. I remain, dear sir, with great esteem, yours truly, Winfield Scott. AVm. E. Robinson, Esq. Letter of Acceptance of. Washington, June 24, 1852. Sir : I have had the honor to receive from your hands the official notice of my _" unanimous nomination as the Whig candidate for the office of President of the United States," to- gether with " a copy of the resolutions passed by the convention, expressing their opinions upon some of the most prominent questions of national policy." This great distinction, conferred by a numer- ous, intelligent, and patriotic body, represent- ing millions of my countrymen, sinks deep into my heart; and remembering that very eminent names which were before the con- vention in amicable competition with my own, I am made to feel oppressively the weight of responsibility belonging to my new position. Not having written a word to procure this distinction, I lost not a moment, after it had been conferred, in addressing a letter to one of your members to signify what would be, at the proper time, the substance of my reply to the convention ; and I now have the honor to repeat, in a more formal manner, as the occa- sion justly demands, that I accept the nomina- tion, with the resolutions annexed. The political principles and measures laid down in those resolutions are so broad that but little is left for me to add. I therefore barely suggest, in this place, that should I, by the partiality of my countrymen, be elevated to the chief magistracy of the Union, I shall be ready, in my connexion with Congress, to recommend or to approve of measures in regard to the management of the public domain so as to secure an early settlement of the same favorable to actual settlers, but consistent nevertheless with a due regard to the equal rights of the whole American people in that vast national inheritance; and alsoto recom- mend or approve of a single alteration in our naturalization laws, suggested by my military experience, viz. : giving to all foreigners the right of citizenship who shall faithfully serve in time of war one year on board of our public ships, or in our land forces, regular or volun- teer, on their receiving an honorable discharge from the service. In regard to the general policy of the ad- ministration, if elected, I should of course look among those who may approve that policy for the agents to carry it into execution ; and I should seek to cultivate harmony and frater- nal sentiments throughout the Whig party, without attempting to reduce its members by proscription to exact conformity to my own views. But I should, at the same time, be rigorous in regard to qualifications for office — retaining and appointing no one either defi- cient in capacity or integrity, or in devotion to liberty, to the Constitution an I the Union. Convinced that harmony and good-will be- 552 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tween the different quarters of our broad country is essential to the present and future interests of the republic, and with a devotion to those interests that can know no South and no North, I should neither countenance nor tolerate any sedition, disorder, faction, or resistance to the law or the Union, on any pretext, in any part of the land ; and I should carry into the civil administration this one principle of military codnuct — obedience to the legislative and judicial departments of govern- ment, each in its constitutional sphere — sav- ing only, in respect to the legislature, the pos- sible resort to the veto power — always to be most cautiously exercised, and under the strictest restraints and necessities. Finally, for my strict adherence to the prin- ciples of the Whig party as expressed in the resolutions of the convention, and herein sug- gested, with a sincere and earnest purpose to advance the greatness and happiness of the republic, and thus to cherish and encourage the cause of constitutional liberty throughout the world — avoiding every act and thought that might involve our country in an unjust or unnecessary war, or impair the faith of trea- ties, and discountenancing all political agita- tion injurious to the interests of society and dangerous to the Union — I can offer no other pledge or guarantee than the known incidents of a long public life, now undergoing the severest examination. Feeling myself highly fortunate in my as- sociate on the ticket, and with a lively sense of my obligations to the convention and to your personal courtesies, I have the honor to remain, sir, with great esteem, your most obedient servant, Winfield Scott. To the Hon. J. G. Chapman, President of the Whig National Convention. Search, Right of. Views of Daniel Webster thereon. Department of State, 1 Washington, March 28, 1843. J * * * * I proceed to draw your atten- tion to the thing itself, and to consider what these acts are which the British government insists its cruisers have the right to perform, and to what consequences they naturally and necessarily tend. An eminent member of the House of Commons thus states the British claim, and his statement is acquiesced in and adopted by the first Minister of the Crown : "The claim of this country is for the right of our cruisers to ascertain whether a mer- chant vessel is justly entitled to the protec- tion of the flag which she may happen to have hoisted, such vessel being in circumstances which rendered her liable to the suspicion, first, that she was not entitled to the protec- tion of the flag ; and, secondly, if not entitled to it, she was, either under the law of nations or the provisions of treaties, subject to the su- pervision and control of our cruisers."* * Mr. Wood, now Sir Charles Wood, Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now, the question is, by loliat means is this ascertainment to be effected ? As we understand the general and settled rules of public law in respect to ships of war sailing under the authority of their govern- ment " to arrest pirates and other public of- fenders," there is no reason why they may not approach any vessels descried at sea for the purpose of ascertaining their real charac- ters. Such a right of approach seems indis- pensable for the fair and discreet exercise of their authority ; and the use of it cannot be justly deemed indicative of any design to in- sult or injure those they approach or to im- pede them in their lawful commerce. On the other hand, it is as clear that no ship is, under such circumstances, bound to lie by, or wait the approach of any other ship. She is at full liberty to pursue her voyage in her own way, and to use all necessary precautions to avoid any suspected sinister enterprise or hostile at- tack. Her right to the free use of the ocean is as perfect as that of any other ship. An entire equality is presumed to exist. She has a right to consult her own safety, but at the same time she must take care not to violate the rights of others. She may use any pre- cautions dictated by the prudence or fears of her officers, either as to delay, or the progress or course of her voyage ; but she is not at li- berty to inflict injuries upon other innocent parties simply because of conjectural dangers. But if the vessel thus approached attempts to avoid the vessel approaching, or does not comply with her commander's order to send him her papers for his inspection, nor consent to be visited or detained, what is next to be done ? Is force to be used ? And if force be used, may that force be lawfully repelled ? — These questions lead at once to the elemental principle — the essence of the British claim. Suppose the merchant vessel to be in truth an American vessel engaged in lawful commerce, and that she does not choose to be detained. Suppose she resists the visit. What is the conse- quence ? In all cases in which the belligerent right of visit exists, resistance to the exercise of that right is regarded as just cause of con- demnation, both of vessel and cargo. Is that penalty, or what other penalty, to be incurred by resistance to visit in time of peace? Or suppose that force be met by force, gun re~ turned for gun, and the commander of the cruiser, or some of his seamen, be killed ; what description of offence will have been commits ted ? It would be said in behalf of the com- mander of the cruiser, that he mistook the vessel for a vessel of England, Brazil, or Por- tugal ; but does this mistake of his take away from the American vessel the right of self-de- fence ? The writers of authority declare it to be a principle of natural law, that the privi- lege of self-defence exists against an assailant who mistakes the object of his attack for an- other, whom he had the right to assail. Lord Aberdeen cannot fail to see, therefore, what serious consequences might ensue if it were to be admitted that this claim to visit, in SEARCH, RIGHT OF. 553 time of peace, however limited or defined, should be permitted to exist as a strict matter of right; for if it exist as a right, it must be fol- lowed by corresponding duties and obligations, and the failure to fulfil those duties would naturally draw penal consequences after it, till, ere long, it would become, in truth, little less, or little other than the belligerent right of search. If visit or visitation be not accompanied by search, it will be, in most cases, nearly idle. — A sight of papers may be demanded, and pa- pers may be produced. But it is known that slave-traders carry false papers, and different sets of papers. A search for other papers, then, must be made when suspicion justifies it, or else the whole proceeding would be nu- gatory. In suspicious cases, the language and general appearance of the crew are among the means of ascertaining the national char- acter of the vessel. The cargo on board, also, often indicates the country from which she comes. Her log-book, showing the previous course and events of her voyage, her internal fitness and equipment, are all evidence for her, or against her, on her allegation of char- acter. These matters, it is obvious, can only be ascertained by rigorous search. It may be asked, if a vessel may not be .called on to show her papers, why does she carry papers ? No doubt she may be called on to show her papers ; but the question is, where, when, and by whom? Not in time of peace, on the high seas, where her rights are equal to the rights of any other vessel, and where none has a right to molest her. The use of her papers is, in time of war, to prove her neutrality when visited by belligerent cruisers ; and in both peace and war, to show her national character and the lawfulness of her voyage, in those ports of other countries to which she may proceed for purposes of trade. It appears to the government of the United States that the view of this whole subject which is the most naturally taken, is, also, the most legal, and most in analogy with other cases. British cruisers have a right to detain British merchantmen for certain pur- poses ; and they have a right acquired by treaty, to detain merchant vessels of several other nations for the same purposes. But they have no right at all to detain an Ameri- can merchant vessel. This Lord Aberdeen admits in the fullest manner. Any detention of an American vessel by a British cruiser is therefore a wiong — a trespass; although it may be done under the belief that she was a British vessel, or that she belonged to a na- tion which had conceded the right of such de- tention to the British cruisers, and the tres- pass therefore an involuntary trespass. If a ship-of-war, in thick weather, or in the dark- ness of the night, fire upon and sink a neutral vessel under the belief that she is an enemy s vessel, this is a trespass — a mere wrong ; and cannot be said to be an act done under any right, accompanied by responsibility for dam- ages. So if a civil officer on land have pro- cess against one individual, and through mis- take arrest another, this arrest is wholly tor- tious ; no one would think of saying that it was done under any lawful exercise of autho- rity, subject only to responsibility, or that it was anything but a mere trespass, though an unintentional trespass. The municipal law does not undertake to lay down beforehand any rule for the government of such cases ; and as little, in the opinion of the govern- ment of the United States, does the public law of the world lay down beforehand any rule for the government of cases of involun- tary trespasses, detentions, and injuries at sea ; except that in both classes of cases law and reason make a distinction between inju- ries committed through mistake and injuries committed by design ; the former being enti- tled to fair and. just compensation — the latter demanding exemplary damages, and some- times personal punishment. The govern- ment of the United States has frequently made known its opinion, which it now re- peats, that the practice of detaining American vessels, though subject to just compensation, if such detention afterward turn out to have been without good cause, however guarded by instructions, or however cautiously exer- cised, necessarily leads to serious inconveni- ence and injury. The amount of loss cannot be always well ascertained. Compensation, if it be adequate in the amount, may still necessarily be long delayed ; and the pen- dency of such claims always proves trouble- some to the governments of both countries. These detentions> too, frequently irritate indi- viduals, cause warm blood, and produce no- thing but ill effects on the amicable relations existing between the countries. We wish, therefore, to put an end to them, and to avoid all occasions for their recurrence. On the whole, the government of the United States, while it has not conceded a mutual right of visit or search, as has been done by the parties to the quintuple treaty of Decern ber, 1841, does not admit that, by the law and practice of nations, there is any such thing as a right of visit, distinguished by well known rides and definitions from the right of search. It does not admit that the visit of American merchant vessels by British cruisers is found- ed on any right, notwithstanding the cruisers may suppose such vessels to be British, Bra- zilian, or Portuguese. We cannot but see that the detention and examination of Ameri- can vessels by British cruisers has already led to consequences — and fear that, if conti- nued, it would still lead to further conse- quences — highly injurious to the lawful com- merce of the United States. At the same time, the government of the United States fully admits that its flag can give no immunity to pirates, nor to any other than to regularly documented American ves- sels. It was upon this view of the whole case, and with a firm conviction of the truth 554 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of these sentiments, that it cheerfully assumed the duties contained in the Treaty of Wash- ington ; in the hope that thereby causes of difficulty and of difference might be altoge- ther removed, and that the two powers might be enabled to act concurrently, cordially, and effectually for the suppression of a traffic which both regard as a reproach upon the ci- vilization of the age, and at war with every principle of humanity and every Christian sentiment. The government of the United States has no interest, nor is it under the influence of any opinions, which should lead it to desire any derogation of the authority and rights of maritime powers. But in the convictions which it entertains and in the measures which it has adopted, it has been governed solely by a sincere desire to support those principles and those practices which it believes to be conformable to public law, and favorable to the peace and harmony of nations. Both Houses of Congress, with a remarka- ble degree of unanimity, have made express provisions for carrying into effect the eighth article of the treaty. An American squadron will immediately proceed to the coast of Afri- ca. Instructions for its commander are in the course of preparation, and copies will be fur- nished to the British government ; and the President confidently believes that the cordial concurrence of the two governments, in the mode agreed on, will be more effectual than any efforts yet made for the suppression of the slave trade. You will read this dispatch to Lord Aber- deen, and, if he desire it, give him a copy. I am, sir, &c, &c, Daniel Webster. Edward Everett, Esq., &c. Secession, Right of. The convention of South Carolina, called by the legislature of that state, which convened at Columbia, the capital, on the 26th of April, 1852, adopted the following ordinance on the 30th of April :— An Ordinance to declare the Right of this State to secede from the Federal Union. We the people of the state of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That South Carolina, in the exercise of her sove- reign will, as an independent state, acceded to the Federal Union, known as the United States of America ; and that in the exercise of the same sovereign will, it is her right, Without let, hindrance, or molestation from any power whatsoever, to secede from the said Federal Union ; and that for the sufficiency of the causes which may impel her to such separation, she is responsible alone, under God, to the tribunal of public opinion among the nations of the earth. Upon the motion to adopt the report, the yeas and nays were called for, ordered, and taken as follows :— Yeas — His Excellency John H. Means. President ; Messrs. AliUi.h, Allison, Alston. Appleby. Arthur, Atkinson, Barn- well, J. Bellinger, K. Bellinger, Jr.. K. St. I\ Bellinger, Bethea, Bobo, Bonham, Bookter, Bonkniglit. BradwelL, Brown, Buchanan, Burt, Butler, Cantey. Caughman, Cheves, Coit, Cook, Craig, Cuningham. Dantzler, Davant, David, • DeSaussure, Doby, Duliose, B. F. Dunkin, DuPre, Elfe, Kllerbe, Elliott, English, J. J. Evans, W. Evans. Farrow, Finley, Frampton, Frost, Furman, Gadberry, Uladden, S. E. Graham, Gregg, Gramling, Grimball, llaigler, Manna, Harllee, Harrison, Hayue, Haynsworth, Henderson, Hig- gins, Hope. Huger, Huguenin, I'On, Irby, Jamison, John- son, A. C. Jones, James Jones, H. Jones, King, Kirk, Land- rum, Lang, Law. Lehre, Livingston, Mackay, Magrath, E. Martin, J. Martin, J. C. Martin, Mason, K. A. Maxwell, J. Maxwell, Memminger, Mobley, Moon, McAliley, Macbeth, McBride, Mellwain, Nance, O'Bryan, Patterson, Peay,Perrin, Pickens, Poole, Porcher, Pressly, Read. Rhett, Rice, Rich- ardson, Rivers. Rosborough. Russel,Ruth, Scaife, Schnierle, Scott, Seabrook, Sims, Spain, Sumter, Sy amies, Trapier, Vaught, Wallace, Walker. D. L. Wardlaw, F. H. Wardlaw, Waring, Whalev, B. II. W T ilson, Hugh Wilson. Jr., Whyte, Whitner. J. Williams, J. D. Williams, J. II. Williams, Win- smith, Wright, Young. — 136. Nays. — Messrs. Adams. Brockman, Center, Charles, P. E. Duncan, Fripp, Gourdin, W. Graham, Hamilton, Latta, J. V. Martin, McBee, McCalla, McCrady, Owens, Palmer, Perry, Toomer, Trotti.— 19. Mr. Calhoun's views relative to Seces- sion. " That a state, as a party to the constitutional compact, has the right to secede — acting in the same capacity in which it ratified the Con- stitution — cannot, with any show of reason, be denied by any one who regards the Constitu- tion as a compact — if a power should be inserted by the amending power, which would radically change the character of the Constitution, or the nature of the system ; or if the former should fail to fulfil the ends for which it was established. This results, necessarily, from the nature of a compact — where the parties to it are sovereign ; and, of course, have no higher authority to which to appeal. That the effect of secession would be to place her in the rela- tion of a foreign state to the others, is equally clear. Nor is it less so, that it would make her (not her citizens individually) responsi- ble to them in that character. All this re- sults, necessarily, from the nature of a com- pact between sovereign parties." The late Judge Gaston of N. C. thus treats of the subject : — Threats of resistance, secession, separation, have become common as household words, in the wicked and silly violence of public de- claimers. The public ear is familiarized and the public mind will soon be accustomed to the detestable suggestions of disunion. Cal- culations and conjectures — what may the East do without the South, and what may the South do without the East? — sneers, menaces, re- proaches, and recriminations, all tend to the same fatal end. What can the East do with- out the South ! What can the South do with- out the East ! They may do much ; they may exhibit to the curiosity of political antagonists, and the pity and wonder of the world, the "disjecta membra," the sundered bleeding limbs of a once gigantic body, instinct with life and strength, and vigor. They can fur- nish to the philosophic historian another mel- ancholy and striking instance of political axiom, that all republican confederacies have an inherent and unavoidable tendency to dis- SLADE, WILLIAM.— SLAVERY. 555 solution. They will present fields and occa- sions for border wars, for leagues and counter leagues, for the intrigues of petty statesmen, the struggles of military chiefs, for confisca- tion, insurrections, and deeds of darkest hue. They will gladden the hearts of those who have proclaimed that men are not fit to govern themselves, and shed a disastrous eclipse on the hopes of rational freedom throughout the world. Solon in his code proposed no pun- ishment for parricide, treating it as an im- possible crime Such, with us, ought to be the crime of political parricide — the dismem- berment of our " fatherland." Slade, William, of Vermont. Resolution of. In the House of Representatives, on the 3d day of January, 1843, Mr. Slade moved the following preamble and resolutions : — " Whereas, by a law of the United States, framed on the 15th May, 1827, the foreign slave trade is declared to be piracy, and is made punishable by death ; and whereas there is, and has long been, carried on in the Dis- trict of Columbia, within sight of the halls of the two houses of Congress, and the residence of the Chief Executive Magistrate of the nation, a trade in men, involving all the prin- ciples of outrage on human rights which char- acterize the foreign slave trade, and which have drawn upon it the maledictions of the civilized world, and stigmatized those engaged in it as the enemies of the race ; and whereas the trade thus existing in this District is aggravated in enormity by reason of its being carried on in the heart of a nation whose in- stitutions are based upon the principle that all men are created equal, and whose laws have in effect proclaimed its great and super- lative iniquity ; aggravated, moreover, by its outrage on the sensibilities of a Christian com- munity, by sundering the ties of christian brotherhood, and by the anguish of its re- morseless violation of all the domestic rela- tions, rendered the more deep aud enduring by the hallowing influence of the Christian religion upon those relations and by the in- crease of strength which it gives to the do- mestic affections; and whereas this trade in human beings is carried on under the au- thority of laws enacted by the Congress of the United States, thereby involving the people of all the states in its guilt and disgrace — a guilt and disgrace enhanced by the consider- ation that those laws are a virtual usurpation of power, the Constitution of the United States having conferred upon Congress no right to establish the relation of slavery, or to sanction and protect the slave trade, in any portion of this Confederacy : therefore, Resolved, That all laws in any way author- izing or sanctioning the slave trade in the Dis- trict ought to be repealed and the trade pro- hibited, and that the Committee for the District of Columbia be instructed to report a bill ac- cordingly. Upon the motion to suspend the rule to re- ceive the resolution the vote was as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Adams of Mass., Sherlock, J. Andrews of 0., Ayerigg of N. J., Babcock of N. Y.. Baker of Mass., Bar- nard of X Y.. Birdseye of N. V., Blair of N. Y., Boardman of Coun., Borden of Mass., Briggs of Mass., Bronson of Me., Jeremiah Brown of Pa.. Bumell of Mass., Calhoun of Mass.. Childs of N. Y., Chittenden of N. Y., John C. Clark of N. V , Stauley N. Clarke of N. Y„ James Cooper of Pa., Cowen of 0., Cranston of K. I.. Cravens of Ind., Richard D. Davis of N. V.. Everett of Vt. Ferris of N. Y., Fessendeu of Me., Fillmore of N. Y., John G. Floyd of N. Y., Gates of N. Y., Giddings of 0., Patrick G. Goode of O.. Granger of N. Y.. Ilalsted of N . J ., Henry of Pa.. Hudson of Mass., Hunt of N. Y.. Joseph R. Ingersoll of Pa.. James of Pa.. Linn of N". Y.. McKennan o( Pa., McKeon of N. Y.. Mathiot of 0., Mattocks of Vt.. Max- well of N. J., Maynard of N. Y., Morgan of N. Y.. Morris of 0., Morrow of 0., Oliver of N. Y., Osborne of Conn., Par- meoterof Mass., Patridgeof N.Y., Pendleton of 0.. Ramsey of Pa., Ueuj. Randall of Me.. Randolph of N. J., Ridgway of 0.. Roosevelt of N. Y.. Win. Russell of 6., James M. Russell of Pa., Saltonstall of Mass., Sanford of N. Y.. Slade of Vt.. Truman Smith of Conn., Stokely of 0., Stratton of N. J., Tillinghast of R. I., Toland of Pa., Tomlinsou of N. Y., Trumbull of Conn., Joseph L. White of Iud., Wiuthrop of Mass. — 73. Nats.— Messrs. Landaff W. Andrews of Ky., Arnold o* Tenn., Arrington of N. C, Beeson of Pa.. Bidlack of Pa., Black of Geo., Bowne of N. Y., Boyd of Ky., Brewster of N. Y., Aaron V. Brown of Tenn., Milton Brown of Tenn., Chas. Brown of Pa., Burke of N. H., Green W. Caldwell of N. C, Patrick C. Caldwell of S. C, W. B. Campbell of Tenn., Thomas J. Campbell of Tenn.. Caruthers of Tenn., Cary of Ya.. Casey of 111., Chapman of Ala., Clifford of Me., Clinton of N. Y.. Cole*- of Ya., Mark A. Cooper of Geo., Cross of Ark., Daniel of N. C, Garrett Davis of Ky., Dawson of La., Dean of Ohio.. Deberry of N. C, Eastman of N. H., John C. Ed- wards of Mo., Chas. A.Floyd of N. Y., Foruance of Pa- Gentry of Tenn., Gerry of Pa.. Goggin of Ya.. Gordon of N. Y.. Green of Ky., Gwin of Miss.. Harris of Ya.. Hays of Va., Hopkins of Ya., Houck of N. Y., Houston of Ala., Hu- bard of Va.. Hunter of Va., Chas. J. Ingersoll of Pa., Irwm of Pa., Jack of Pa., Wm.Cost Johnson of Md.. Cave Johnson of Tenn., Isaac D. Jones of Md., Keim of Pa., King of Geo., Lewis of Ala., Littlefield of Me., Lowell of Me.. Abraham McClellan of Tenn.. McKay of N. C, Marchand of Pa., Al- fred Marshall of Me.. Thos. F. Marshall of Ky.. Mathews of 0., Medill of 0.. Meriwether of Geo.. Miller of Mo., Moore of La., Newhard of Pa.. Owsley of Ky.. Payne of Ala., Pickens of S. C, Plumer of Pa., Powell of Va.. Raynerof N.C.. Red- in" of N. H., Keneher of N. C, Reynolds of 111.. Khett of S.C , Riggs of N. Y., Rodney of Del., Rogers of S. C, Saun- ders of N. C, Shaw of N. H.. Shields of Ala.. Sprigg of Ky., Stanly of N. 0., Steenrod of Ya.. Alex. II. H Stuart, of Va., John T. Stuart of 111.. Summers of Va., Sweney of 0., Tali- aferro of Va., John B. Thompson of Ky.. Richard W. Thomp- son of Ind., Jacob Thompson of Mi, In the House of Representatives. On the 31st of December, 1849, Mr. Root }f Ohio offered a resolution instructing the Committee on Territories to bring in terri- torial bills for that part of the Mexican terri- tory ceded to the United States by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, lying eastward of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and prohibiting slavery therein. Mr. Stephens of Geo. moved to lay the resolution on the table, and it was decided in the negative by a vote of yeas 83, nays 101. The affirmative vote was a Southern one with the addition of Messrs. Bissell of 111., Brooks, Clark, and Duer of N. Y., Gilmore and Mann of Pa., McClernand of 111., Miller of 0., Richardson and Y r oung of 111. The negative vote was purely a Northern vote. On the 4th of February, 1850, the resolution came up again. Mr. Haralson of Geo. moved to lay it on the table, and it was carried by a vote of yeas 105, nays 75. The resolution was laid on the table by the Southern vote aided by that of Messrs. Albertson of Ind., Bissell of 111., Brown of Ind., Briggs and Brooks of N.T., Butler of Pa., Clark of X. Y., Dim- mick of Pa., Dixon of R. I., Dunham of Ind., Fuller of Me., Gilmore of Pa., Gorman of Ind.. Harris of 111., James G. King of N. J., John A. King of N. Y., Leffler of la., Mann of Pa., McClernand of 111., McKissock of N. Y., McLauahan of Pa., Miller of 0„ Nelson of N. Y., Pitman of Pa., Robbins of Pa- Ross of Pa., Taylor of Ohio, Underbill of N. Y., Young of ni. On the 4th of February, 1850, Mr. Giddings offered the following resolution: — Resolved, That we "hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with the inalienable rights of life and liberty, and that governments are instituted to maintain these rights. Resolved, That in constituting government in any territory of the United States, it is the duty of Congress to secure to all the people thereof, of whatever complexion, the enjoy- ment of the rights aforesaid. Mr. Inge of Ala. moved to lay the resolu- tions on the table, which was carried by a vote of yeas 104, nays 92. The affirmative vote was a Southern vote, with the addition of — Messrs. Albertson of Ind., Bissell of 111., Briggs of N. Y., Brown of Ind.. Buel of Mich., Butler of Pa„ Dunham of Ind.. Fitch of Ind.. Fuller of Me., Gorman of Ind., Harris of 111., Leffler of la., Mann of Pa., McClernand of 111., Mc- Lauahan of Pa.. Miller of O., Richardson of 111., Robbins of Pa., Ross of Pa., Taylor of O., Young of 111. On the 18th of February, 1850, Mr. Doty of Wisconsin offered a resolution instructing the Committee on Territories to bring in a bill for the admission of California, with her boundaries and limits as set forth in her con- stitution. Mr. Inge moved to lay the resolution on the table, which was decided in the negative — yeas 70, nays 121. The vote was nearly a sectional one, Messrs. Miller of O., and Robbins of Fa., being the only Northern men who voted in the affirma- tive, and Messrs. Houston of Del., and Mason of Ky., the only Southern men who voted in the negative. The South resorted to a parliamentary r> volution to defeat a direct vote being reached thereon. • The yeas and nays were called twenty-eight times on various motions for that purpose, which consumed the time of the House until midnight, when Mr. McLane of Md. raised the point, that 12 o'clock having arrived, the civil calendar day, Monday, had expired, and that therefore Mr. Doty's resolution ceased to be the regular business before the House. The Chair decided that " the Monday set apart by the rules for the reception of resolu- tions in the order of states and territories had expired at 12 o'clock, midnight, and that the resolution on that account passed from before the consideration of the House at 12 o'clock." The House then, at 12 minutes past mid- night, adjourned after the most arduous par- liamentary struggle that marked the history of the 31st Congress. On the 27th of May, 1850, Mr. CroweU moved to suspend the rules to enable him to introduce a bill to abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbia. On the motion to suspend, the yeas were 99, nays 64. This was a sectional vote. But one North- ern man — Mr. John K. Miller of Ohio, voted in the negative. No Southern man voted in the affirmative. Two-thirds not voting in favor thereof, the rules were not suspended. On the 5th of September, 1850, the question was taken upon an amendment offered by Mr. Toombs to the New Mexico territorial bill, which was then pending in the shape of an amendment proposed to the Texan boundarv bill. Mr. Toombs's amendment was as follows : — " And that the Constitution of the United States, and such statutes thereof as may not be locally inapplicable, and the common law, as it existed in the British colonies of America until the 4th day of July, 1776, shall be the exclusive laws of said territory upon the sub- ject of African slavery until altered by the proper authority." The vote was yeas 65, nays 132. The whole North, with the addition of Messrs. Gentry of Tenn., Hall of Mo., Ham- mond of Md., Houston of Del., Johnson and Jones of Tenn., and McMullen of Ya., voting no. The balance of the South voting aye. On the 24th of September, 1850, Mr. Pres- ton King of N. Y. asked leave to introduce an act abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. The House refused to suspend the rules by a vote of yeas 52, nays, 109. The affirmative vote was as follows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Alexander of N. Y., Andrews of N. Y. Bingham of Mich., Booth of Conn., Burrows of X. Y., Cabl« 558 THE TOLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of 0.. Calvin find Chandler of Pa.. Clarke of N. Y.. Cleveland of Conn., Cole of Wis.. Corwin of O., Doty of Wis., Duncan of Mass., Durkee of Wis., Fitch of Ind.. Fowler of Mass., Freedley, Goodenow of Me.. Gott of N. Y.. Gould. Grinnell of Mass., llalloway of N. Y.. Harlan of Ind., Hebard of Vt., Henrv of Vt., Howe of Pa.. Hunter of 0., King of N. J., J. A. King of N. Y.. P. King of N. Y., Mann of Mass., Matte- son of -V V.. Meacham of Vt.. Moore and Ogle of Pa., Otis of Me., Peck of Vt., Reed, Reynolds of N. Y., Risley, Rockwell of Mass., Root of 0.. Rurasey. Sackett of N. V., Schoolcraft of N. Y., Silvester and Spauliling of N. Y., Sprapie of Mich., Stevens of Pa.. Vandyke of N. J., Vintou of 0., Waldo ot Conn., White of N.Y. Opinions of Public Men upon Slavery. The following extracts from the speeches, &c, of the several gentlemen whose names are appended to them, show their opinions on the Bubject of slavery. The first is that of the Hon. Mr. Benjamin, senator from Louisiana. Mr. President, the whole subject of slavery, so far as it is involved in the issue now before the country, is narrowed down at last to a con- troversy on the solitary point, whether it be competent for the Congress of the United States, directly or indirectly, to exclude sla- very from the territories of the Union. The Supreme Court of the United States have given a negative answer to this proposition, and it shall be my first effort to support that nega- tion by argument, independently of the author- ity of the decision. It seems to me that the radical, fundamental error which underlies the argument in affirma- tion of this power, is the assumption that sla- very is the creature of the statute law of the several states where it is established ; that it has no existence outside of the limits of those states ; that slaves are not property beyond those limits ; and that property in slaves is neither recognised nor protected by the Con- stitution of the United States, nor by interna- tional law. I controvert all these propositions, and shall proceed at once to my argument. Mr. President, the thirteen colonies which, on the 4th of July, 1776, asserted their inde- Eendence, were British colonies, governed, by British laws. Our ancestors, in their emigra- tion to this country, brought with them the common law of England as their birthright. They adopted its principles for their govern- ment so far as it was not incompatible with the peculiarities of their situation in a rude and unsettled country. Great Britain then having the sovereignty over the colonies, pos- sessed undoubted power to regulate their insti- tutions, to control their commerce, and to give laws to their intercourse, both with the mother country and the other nations of the earth. If I can show, as I hope to be able to establish to the satisfaction of the Senate, that the nation thus exercising sovereign power over these thirteen colonies did establish slavery in them, did maintain and protect the institution, did originate and carry on the slave trade, did sup- port and foster that trade, that it forbade the colonies permission either to emancipate or ex- port their slaves, that it prohibited them from inaugurating any legislation in diminution or discouragement of the institution — nay, sir, more, if at the date of our revolution I can show that African slavery existed in England as it did on this continent, if I can show that slaves were sold upon the slave mart, in the Exchange and other public places of resort in the city of London as they were on this conti- nent, then I shall not hazard too much in the ' assertion that slavery was the common law of the thirteen states of the confederacy, at the time they burst the bonds that united them to the mother country. The first permanent colonial settlement made on this continent by the English was made under a charter granted in 1G06, in the fourth year of James I., to Sir Thomas Gates and his associates. I leave out of view, as a matter of course, the few abortive attempts that were made towards the close of the six- teenth century by Sir Gilbert Humphreys in the north, and by Sir Walter Raleigh in the state which is represented by my friend from Vir- ginia. Those attempts were all abortive. It is familiar to us all how disastrously they ter- minated. I say the first permanent settlement made under the authority of the British Crown on this continent, was under the char- ter of 1606. That charter was subsequently superseded upon quo warranto, issued at the instance of the British Crown, and in 1620 another charter took its place, granted to the Duke of Lenox and his associates, who were incorporated under the name of the Plymouth Company. To that company the coast was granted from the fortieth to the forty-eighth degree of north latitude. This charter was followed by successive grants to different no- blemen and companies, until the entire coast was disposed of. In 1664, to the Duke of York was granted all the territory as far south as Delaware Bay ; and in 1663 and 1666, to Lord Clarendon and his associates the entire coast of the continent, from the twenty-ninth degree of north latitude to that celebrated line of 36° 30' north, since so famous in the history of our intestine disputes. Thus was conveyed the whole coast comprised within our present limits. Prior to this very first settlement, the slave trade had been inaugurated and established in Great Britain. The first notice which his- tory gives us of it is the grant of a charter by Queen Elizabeth, to a company formed for the purpose of supplying slaves to the Spanish- American colonies. The Virgin Queen her- self was a shareholder Subsequently, in 1662, under Charles II., a monopoly was cre- ated in favor of a company authorized to ex- port to the colonies three thousand slaves per annum; and so valuable was this privilege considered, so great was the influence required for the purpose of obtaining a share in it, that it was placed under the auspices of the Queen Dowager and the Duke of York. The King himself issued his proclamation, inviting his subjects to establish themselves on this side of the Atlantic ; and as an encouragement tc SLAVERY. &59 the migration, tendered a grant of one hun- dred acres of land for each four slaves that they would employ in the cultivation of it. The merchants of London found their trade to the slave coast very much cramped by this royal monopoly, granted to royal favorites ; and they continued to stun the ear of the Commons with loud complaints that they were excluded from the advantages of so prosperous a traffic ; and in 1695 the Commons of Eng- land, in Committee of the Whole, resolved, " That for the better supply of the planta- tions, all the subjects of Great Britain should have liberty to trade in Africa for negroes, with such limits as should be prescribed by Parliament." In the 9th and 10th William III., an act was passed partially relaxing this monopoly, the preamble to which states that — " The trade was highly beneficial and advantageous to the kingdom, and to the plantations and colonies thereunto belonging." This partial relaxation was unsatisfactory. Petitions continued to pour in. In 1708 the Commons again resolved — "That the trade was important, and ought to be free and open to all the Queen's subjects trading from Great Britain." And in 1711 they again resolved that " this trade ought to be free in a regulated compa- ny ; the plantations ought to be supplied with negroes at reasonable rates; a considerable stock was necessary for carrying on the trade to the best advantage, and that an export of £100,000 at least, in merchandise, should be annually made from Great Britain to Africa." Finally, in the year 1749, these repeated reso- lutions of the Commons, and petitions of the merchants of London, accomplished the de- sired result. They gained their object by the passage of the act of 23d George II., throwing open the trade, and declaring " the slave trade to be very advantageous to Great Brit- ain, and necessary for supplying the planta- tions and colonies thereunto belonging with a sufficient number of negroes at reasonable' rates." This legislation, Mr. President, as I have said before, emanating from the mother coun- try, fixed the institution upon the colonies. They could not resist it. All their right was limited to petition, to remonstrance, and to at- tempts at legislation at home to diminish the evil. Every such attempt was sternly re- pressed by the British Crown. In 17G0, South Carolina passed an act pro- hibiting the further importation of African .-laves. The act was rejected by the crown ; the governor was reprimanded ; and a circular was sent to all the governors of all the colo- nies, warning them against presuming to v countenance such legislation. In 1705, a similar bill was twice read in the assembly of Jamaica. The news reached Great Britain before its final passage. In- structions were sent out to the royal governor; he called the House of Assembly before him, communicated his instructions, and forbade any further progress of the bill. In 1774, in spite of this discountenancing action of the mother government, two bills passed the legislative assembly of Jamaica, and the Earl of Dartmouth, then Secretary of State, wrote to Sir Basil Keith, the governor of the colony, that " these measures had cre- ated alarm to the merchants of Great Britain engaged in that branch of commerce ;" and forbidding him, " on pain of removal from his government, to assent to such laws." Finally, in 1775 — mark the date — 1775 — after the revolutionary struggle had com- menced, whilst the Continental Congress was in session, after armies had been levied, after Crown Point and Ticonderoga had been taken possession of by the insurgent colonists, and after the first blood shed in the revolution had reddened the spring sod upon the green at Lexington, this same Earl of Dartmouth, in answer to a remonstrance from the agent of the colonies, replied : " We cannot allow the colonies to check or discourage in any degree a traffic so beneficial to the nation." I say, then, that down to the very moment when our independence was won, slavery, es- tablished by the statute law of England, had become the common law of the old thirteen colonies. But, sir, my task does not end here. 1 desire to show you that by her jurisprudence, that by the decisions of her judges, and the answers of her lawyers to questions from the Crown and from public bodies, this same institution was declared to be recognised by the common law of England ; and slaves were declared to be, in their language, merchandise, chattels, just as much private property as any other merchan- dise or any other chattel. A short time prior to the year 1713, a con- tract had been formed between Spain and a certain company, called the Pioyal Guinea Com- pany, that had been established in France. This contract was technically called in those days an assiento. By the treaty of Utrecht of the 11th of April, 1713, Great Britain, through her diplomatists, obtained a transfer of that contract. She yielded considerations for it. The obtaining of that contract was greeted in England with shouts of joy. It was considered a triumph of diplomacy. It was fid- lowed, in the month of May, 1713, by a new contract in form, by which the British govern- ment undertook, for the term of thirty years then next to come, to transport, annually, 4800 slaves to the Spanish American colonies, at a fixed price. Almost immediately after this new contract, a question arose in the Eng- lish council as to the true legal character of the slaves thus to be exported to the Spanish American colonies ; and, according to the forms of the British constitution, the question was submitted by the Crown in council to the twelve judges of England. I have their answer here ; it is in these words : 560 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK " In pursuance'of his Majesty's order in council, hereunto annexed, we do humbly certify our opinion to be that negroes are merchandise.'' Signed by Lord Chief Justice Holt, Judge Pollexfen, and eight other judges of England. Mr. Mason. What is the date of that? Mr. Benjamin. It was immediately after the treaty of Utrecht, in 1713. Very soon after- wards the nascent spirit of fanaticism began to obtain a foothold in England ; and although large numbers of negro slaves were owned in Great Britain, and, as I said before, were daily sold on the public Exchange in London, (see 2 Haggard's Rep., p. 105,) questions arose as to the right of the owners to retain property in their slaves ; and the merchants of London, alarmed, submitted the question to Sir Philip Yorke, who afterwards became Lord Hard- wicke, and to Lord Talbot, who were then the solicitor and attorney-general of the kingdom. The question was propounded to them, " what are the rights of a British owner of a slave in England ?" and this is the answer of those two legal functionaries. They certified that " a slave coming from the West Indies to England, with or without his master, doth not become free; and his master's property in him is not thereby determined nor varied, and the master may legally compel him to return to the plantations." And, in 1749, the same question again came up before Sir Philip Yorke, then Lord Chan- cellor of England, under the title of 'Lord Ilard- wicke, and, by a decree in chancery in the case before him, he affirmed the doctrine which he had uttered when he was Attorney-General of Great Britain. Things thus stood in England until the year 1771, when the spirit of fanaticism, to which I have adverted, acquiring strength, finally ope- rated upon Lord Mansfield, who, by a judg- ment rendered in the case known as the cele- brated Sommersett case, subverted the com- mon law of England by judicial legislation, as I shall prove in an instant. I say it not on my own authority ; I would not be so presumptu- ous. The Senator from Maine [Mr. Fessen- den] need not smile at my statement ; I will give him higher authority than anything I can dare assert. I say, that in 1771 Lord Mans- field subverted the common law of England in the Sommersett case, and decided, not that a slave carried to England from the West Indies by his master thereby became free, but that, by the law of England, if the slave resisted the master, there was no remedy by which the master could exercise his control ; that the colonial legislation which afforded the master means of controlling his property had no au- thority in England, and that England by her laws had provided no substitute for that author- ity. That was what Lord Mansfield decided. I say this was judicial legislation. I say it sub- verted the entire previous jurisprudence of Great Britain. I have just adverted to the authorities for that position. Lord Mansfield Celt it. The case was argued before him over and over again, and he begged the parties to compromise. They said they would not " Why," said he, " I have known six of these cases already, and in five out of the six there was a compromise ; you had better compro- mise this matter." But the parties said no, they would stand on the law ; and then, after holding the case up three terms, Lord Mans- field mustered up courage to say what I have just asserted to be his decision : that there was no law in England affording the master control over his slave ; and that therefore the master's putting him on board of a vessel in irons, being unsupported by authority derived from English law, and the colonial law not being in force in England, he would discharge the slave from custody on habeas corpus, and leave the master to his remedy as best he could find one. Mr. Fessenden. Decided so unwillingly. Mr. Benjamin. The gentleman is right — ■ very unwillingly. He was driven to the deci- sion by the paramount power of that fanati- cism which is now perverting the principles and obscuring the judgment of the people of the north, and of whose effects, I must say, there is no more striking example to be found than is exhibited by its influence on the clear and logical intellect of my friend from Maine. Mr. President, I make these charges in rela- tion to that judgment, because in them I am supported by au intellect greater than Mans- field's — by a judge of resplendent genius and consummate learning — one who, in all ques- tions of international law, on all subjects not dependent upon the peculiar municipal com- mon law of England, has won for himself the proudest name in the annals of her jurispru- dence — the gentleman knows well that I refer to Lord Stowell. As late as 1827, twenty years after Great Britain had abolished the slave trade, six years before she was brought to the point of confiscating the property of her colonies which she had forced them to buy, a case was brought before that celebrated j udge — a case known to all lawyers by the name of the slave Grace. It was pretended in the argu- ment that the slave Grace was free, because she had been carried to England ; and it was said, under the authority of Lord Mansfield's deci sion in the Sommersett case, that, having once breathed English air, she was free — that the atmosphere of that favored kingdom was too pure to be breathed by a slave. Lord Stowell, in answering that legal argument, said that, after painful and laborious research into his- torical records, he did not find anything touch- ing the peculiar fitness of the English atmo- sphere for respiration during the ten centuries that slaves had lived in England. I desire to call the attention of the Senate to some passages in that celebrated decision, in answer to another proposition which the Senators who are opposing this bill assume in nearly all their arguments, and that is that slavery is the creature of positive legislation, and cannot be established by customary law or usage. That point was raised in this case, and Lord Stowell thus disposed of it ; SLAVERY. 561 ■ Having adverted to most of the objections tbat arise to the revival of slavery in the colonies, I have first to observe that it returns upon the slave by the same title by which it grew up originally. It never was in Antigua the creature of law, but of that custom which operates with the force of law; and when it is cried out tbat malus usus abolendus est, it is first to be proved that, even in the consideration of Englmd, the use of slavery is considered as a malus usus in the colonies. Is that a malus usus which the court of the king's privy council and the courts of chancery are every day carrying into full effect in all considerations of pro- perty—in the one by appeal, and in the other by original causes — and all this enjoined and confirmed by statutes? Still less is it to be considered as a malus usus in the colonies themselves, where it has been incorporated into full life and establishment — where it is the system of the state and of every individual in it; and fifty years have passed without any authorized condemnation of it in England as a malus usus in the colonies." This, sir, was fifty years after Lord Mans- field's speech in the Sommersett case. "The fact is, that in England, where villenage of both sorts went into total decay, we had communication with no other country; and, therefore, it is triumphantly declared, as I have before observed, ' once a freeman ever a freeman,' there being no other country with which we had immediate connection, which at the time of suppressing that system we had any occasion to trouble ourselves about. But slavery was a very favored introduction into the colonies; it was deemed a great source of the mercantile interest of the country; and was, on that account, largely considered by the mother country as a great source of its wealth and strength. Treaties were made on that account, and the colonies compelled to submit to those treaties by the autho- rity of this country. This system continued entire. Instead of being condemned as malus usus, it was regarded as a most eminent source of its riches and power. It was at a late period of the last century that it was condemned in England as an institution not fit to exist here, for reasons peculiar to our own condition ; but it has been continued in our colonies, favored and supported by our own courts, which have libe- rally imparted to it their protection and encouragement. To such a system, whilst it is supported, I rather feel it to be too strong to apply the maxim, malus tisus abolendus est. The time may come when this institution may fall in the colonies, as other institutions have done in other flourishing countries ; but I am of opinion it can only be effected at the joint expense of both countries, for it is in a peculiar manner the crime of this country ; and I rather feel it to be an objection to this species of emancipation, that it is intended to be a very cheap measure here by throwing the whole expense upon the country." — 2 Haggard's Reports, 126 et seq. After that decision had been rendered, Lord Stowell, who was at that time in correspond- ence with Judge Story, sent him a copy of it, and wrote to him upon the subject of his judg- ment. No man will doubt the anti-slavery feelings and proclivities of Judge Story. He was asked to take the decision into considera- tion and give his opinion about it. Here are extracts from his answer : * I have read, with great attention, your judgment in the slave case. Upon the fullest consideration which I have been able to give the subject, I entirely concur in your views. If I had been called upon to pronounce a judgment in a like case, I should have certainly arrived at the same result." That was the opinion of Judge Story in 1827 ; but, sir, whilst contending, as I here ■ contend, as a proposition based in history, maintained by legislation, supported by judi- cial authority of the greatest weight, that slavery, as an institution, was protected by the common law of these colonies at the date of the Declaration of Independence, I go further, though not necessary to my argument, and de- clare that it was the common law of the whole continent of North and South America alike. Why, Mr. President, the European continen- tal powers, which joined and co-operated with Greht Britain in the discovery and establish- 36 ment of colonies on this continent, all follow- ed the same views of policy. France, Spain, Portugal, and England occupied the whole con- tinent, north and south. The legislation of all of them was the same. Louis XIII., by royal edict, established slavery in all his colonies in America. Everybody knows that it was through the interference of Las Casas that the Spanish Crown inaugurated the slave trade with a view of substituting the servile labor of the African for that of the Indians, who had been reduced to slavery by their Spanish conquerors. As regards Portugal, she inau- gurated the trade ; she originally supplied all the colonies ; and the empire of Brazil to-day, with its servile labor, is the legitimate fruit of the colonial policy of the Portuguese gov- ernment in the sixteenth century. She began her trade in 1508, and some authors say even before the colonization of America in the fif- teenth century. I say that slavery was thus the common re- cognised institution of the New World. I do nob thereby mean to admit for a moment that it was not the common law of the old world when this nation was formed. Have we all forgot- ten that white slavery existed in England until a comparatively very recent period ? It did not finally disappear until the reign of James II. What was that system of villenage, of which all the old law-writers speak ? They were all slaves. These villeins were divided into two classes — villeins-regardant and villeins in gross — both slaves. The only difference be- tween them was, that the villeins-regardant were attached to the soil ; they could not be sold away from the glebe ; they followed the conveyance of the estate into the hand of the new lord ; but the villeins in gross were mere chattels, sold from hand to hand, just as ne- groes are sold at the present hour. If any gen- tleman is curious to see something on this sub- ject, he will find a concise account of it in the first volume of the celebrated treatise of Mr. Spence, on the equity jurisdiction of the courts of chancery. That volume contains a very concise and admirable history of the English law. He will find there some statements in relation to the law of villenage in England. But, sir, a true picture, a fair picture, of the state of the villeins of England, is nowhere better given than in the celebrated argument of Hargrave, the great lawyer who was the coun- sel for the slave in the Sommersett case. One passage will give us his description of what the villein was under the common law of Eng- land: "The condition of a villein had most of the incidents which I have before described in giving the idea of slavery in general. His service was uncertain and indeterminate, such as his lord thought fit to require ; or, as some of our ancient writers express it, he knew not in the evening what he was to do in the morning; he was bound to do whatever he was commanded. He was liable to beating, imprison- ment, and every other chastisement his lord might pre- scribe, except killing and maiming. He was incapable of acquiring property for his own benefit, the rule being 'quie- quid acquiritur servo, acquiritur domino.' He was himself the subject of property ; as such, saleable and transmissible. If he was a villeia-regurdant, be passed with the manor or 562 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. land to which he was annexed, hut might be severed at the pleasure of his lord. If he was a villein in gross, he was a hereditament or » chattel real, according to his lord's in- terest; being descendible to the heir where the lord was absolute owner, and transmissible to the executor where the lord had only a term of years in him. Lastly, the slavery extended to the issue, if both parents were villeins, or if the father was a villein ; our law deriving the condition of the child from that of the father, contrary to the Roman law, in which the rule was 'partus sequitur ventrem.' The origin of villenage is principally to be derived from the wars between our British, Saxon, Danish, and Norman ancestors, whilst they were contending for the possession of this country. Judge Fitzherbert, in his reading on the fourth of Edward I., stat. 1, entitled ' extenta manerii' supposes villenage to have commenced at the Conquest, by the dis- tribution then made of the forfeited lands, and of the van- quished inhabitants resident upon them. But there were many bondmen in England before the Conquest, as appears by the Anglo-Saxon laws regulating them; and therefore it would be nearer the truth to attribute the origin of villeins as well to the preceding wars and revolutions in this country as to the effects of the Conquest."— 20 Howdl's State Trials, pp. 36-7. I say, then, sir, that white slavery was pro- tected by the common law of England down to James II. ; and if any man is peculiarly curious to learn the process by which it gradu- ally disappeared, and has any taste for anti- quarian lore, if he will look to the appendix to the twentieth volume of Howell's State Trials, he will find a commission issued by Queen Elizabeth to Cecil Lord Burleigh, and Sir William Mildmay, giving them authority to go into her counties of Gloucester, Cornwall, Devon, and Somerset, and there to manumit her slaves, by getting from them a reasonable price for their liberty. That is the way slavery was abolished in England. It was abolished by the gradual emancipation of the slaves, resulting from the sale by the lord, to the slave himself, of his right over him. I will read a passage of this commission : " Elizabeth, by the grace of God, Ac. To our right trustie and well-beloved counsellor, sir W. Cecill of the Garter Knighte, lord Burghley and Highe Treasorer of England, and to our trustie and right well-beloved counsellor, sir Walter Mildmay, Knight, chauncellor, and under treasorer of our exchequer, greetinge. " Whereas, divers and sundrie of our poore faithfull and loyal subjectes, being borne bonde in blode and regardaunt to divers and sundrie our manors and possessions within our realm of England, have made humble suyte into us to be manumysed, enfraunchised, and made free with theire children and sequells, by reason whereof they, theire children and sequells, may become more apte and fitte members for the service of us and of our commonwealthe. " We therefore, having tender consideration of their said Bute, and well considering the same to be acceptable to Almightie God" Now, we all suppose she is going to give them their freedom. Not at all. She is willing to sell them to themselves at a fair price ; and so she goes on : "And we do cnmmytt and give unto you full power and authoritie by these presents, to accepte, admitte and reci-ive to be manumysed, enfraunchised, and made free, sucbe and so many of our bondmen and bondwomen in blood, with all and every theire children and sequells, theire goodes, landes. teneinentes, and hereditaments, as are now apperteynynge or regardaunt" to all or any of our manors, landes, tene- mentes. possessions, or hereditaments within the said several counties of Cornwall. Devon. Somersett, and Gloucester, as to you by your discretions shall seme mete and convenient, compound inye with t! inn for snebe reasonable fines or sommes ofmune.y to be token "ml received to our use for the manumys- sion and enfraunchisement, and for the possessions, and enjoying of all and singular theire landes, tenementes, here- ditaments, goodes and chattells whatsoever, as you and they can agree for the same after your wisdomes and diwretions," Here, then, was slavery in its widest and broadest acceptation, in Great Britain, in the time of Elizabeth, and it never finally disap- peared from the kingdom until the reign of James II. How was it in France ? In France they had a system of white slaves of the same kind. There they called them gens de main morte — mortmain people, because they belonged to the estates ; and they, in 1779, were enfranchised by royal edict, commencing in these words : " We have been greatly affected by the consideration that a large number of ofc» 9 :bjects, still attached as slaves to the glebe, are regarded as forming part of it as it were; that deprived of the liberty of their persons, and of the rights of property, they themselves are considered as the property of their lords; that they have not the consolation of be- queathing their goods, and that, except in a few cases rigo- rously circumscribed, they cannot even transmit to their own children the fruits of their own labor." Thus fell the last remnant of white slavery in France in 1779, after our independence. As regards Spain, let any one who is in the habit of reading the literature of that country for the eighteenth century tell me if he remem- bers a solitary tale or romance of her authors in which some Moorish or negro slave is not introduced as the familiar inmate of the house- hold. The remainder of the European conti- nent is still governed with beneficent sway by the civil law ; and all know that that law pro- tects, in every aspect, the relation between master and slave. Thus, Mr. President, I say, that even if we admit for the moment that by the common law of the nations which colonized this conti- nent, the institution of slavery at the time of our independence, was dying away by manu- missions, either gratuitous or for a price grant- ed by those who held the people as slaves ; yet so far as the continent of America was concerned, North and South, there did not breathe a being who did not know that a ne- gro, under the common law of the continent, was merchandise, was property, was a slave ; and that he could only extricate himself from that status, stamped upon him by the common law of the country, by positive proof of manu- mission. No man was bound to show title to his negro &lave. The negro was bound to show manumission under which he had ac- quired his freedom, by the common law of every colony. Why, sir, can any man doubt, is there a gentleman here, even the Senator from Maine, who doubts that if, after the Revo- lution, the different states of this Union hai not passed laws upon the subject to abolish slavery, to subvert this common law of the continent, every one of these states would be slave slates yet ? How came they free states ? Did not they have this institution of slavery imprinted upon them by the power of the mother country ? How did they get rid of it ? All, all must admit that they had to pass positive acts of legis- lation to accomplish this purpose. Without that legislation they would still be slave states. What, then, becomes of the pretext that slav- ery only exists in those states where it wa* SLAVERY. 56£ established by positive legislation, that it has no inherent vitality out of those states, and that slaves are not considered as property by the Constitution of the United States ? When the delegates of the several colonies, which had thus asserted their independence of the British Crown, met in convention, the decision of Lord Mansfield in the Sommersett case was recent — known to all. At the same time, a number of the northern colonies had taken incipient steps for the emancipation of their slaves. Here permit me to say, sir, that, with a prudent regard to what the Senator from Maine [Mr. Hamlin] yesterday called the " sensitive pocket-nerve," they all made these provisions prospective. Slavery was to be abolished after a certain future time— just enough time to give their citizens convenient opportunity for selling the slaves to southern planters, putting the money in their pockets, and then sending to us here, on this floor, rep- resentatives who flaunt in robes of sanctimo- nious holiness ; who make parade of a cheap philanthropy, exercised at our expense ; and who say to all men, " Look ye now, how holy, how pure we are ; you are polluted by the touch of slavery ; we are free from it." I say that was the position of the delegates when they met in convention, and it was ne- cessary to make provision in relation to slaves. In the northern states slavery was about to be abolished. If Lord Mansfield's decision in the Sommersett case was to be followed as the rule, it was obvious that southern slaves were exposed to being plundered, robbed, car- ried away from their masters. On the other hand, by a compromise between the north and the south, slaves had entered into the repre- sentative basis of the country. AVhat was to be done ? Two clauses were put in the Consti- tution, one to guaranty to the south its pro- perty — it provided for the return to the south- ern owner of the slave that was recognised as his property ; another clause for the north, to prevent a disturbance of the representative basis by importation of slaves. The north said to the south, " you shall not increase your laboring population by importation after twenty years, because we of the north have an interest in that question ; we have agreed they shall be counted in the representative basis, and we want protection as well as you." That is all the Constitution says on this sub- ject. It guaranties to the south the sanctity of its peculiar property ; it protects the north against any abnormal augmentation of the number of slaves in the south which might give them an undue preponderance in the rep- resentation of the different states of the Union. Now, sir, because the Supreme Court of the United States says — what is patent to every man who reads the Constitution of the United States — that it does guaranty property in slaves, it has been attacked with vituperation here, on this floor, by Senators on all sides. • Some have abstained from any indecent, insulting remarks in relation to the court. Some have confined themselves to calm and legitimate argument. To them I am about to reply. To the others I shall have something to say a little later. What says the Senator from Maine? [Mr. Fessenden.j He says : " Had the result of that election been otherwise, and had not the (Democratic) party triumphed on the dogma which they had thus introduced, we should never have heard of a doctrine so utterly at variance with all truth; eo utterly destitute of all legal logic; so founded on error, and unsup- ported by anything like argument, as is the opinion of the Supreme Court." He says, further : " I should like, if I had time, to attempt to demonstrate the fallacy of that opinion. I have examined the view of the Supreme Court of the United States on the question of the power of the Constitution to carry slavery into free ter- ritory belonging to the United States, and I tell you that 1 believe any tolerably respectable lawyer in the United States can show, beyond all question, to any fair and unpre- judiced mind, that the decision has nothing to stand upon except assumption, and bad logic from the assumptions made. The main proposition on which that decision is founded, the corner-stone of it, without which it is nothing, without which it fails entirely to satisfy the mind of any man, is this: that the Constitution of the United States recognises property in slaves, and protects it as such. I deny it. It neither recognises slaves as property, nor does it protect slaves as property." The Senator here, you see, says that the whole decision is based on that assumption, which he pronounces false. He says that the Constitution does not recognise slaves as pro- perty, nor protect them as property, and his reasoning, a little further on, is somewhat curious. He says: " On what do they found the assertion that the Constitu- tion recognises slaves as property ? On the provision of the Constitution by which Congress is prohibited from passing a law to prevent the African slave trade for twenty years ; and therefore they say the Constitution recognises slaves as pro- perty." I should think that was a pretty fair recog- nition of it. On this point the gentleman de- clares : " Will not anybody see that this constitutional provision, if it works one way, must work the other? If by allowing the slave trade for twenty years, we recognise slaves as property, when we say that at the end of twenty years we will cease to allow it, or may cease to do so, is not that denying them to be property after that period elapses V That is the argument. Nothing but my re- spect for the logical intellect of the Senator from Maine could make me treat this argu- ment as serious, and nothing but having heard it myself would make me believe that he ever uttered it. What, sir! The Constitution of our country says to the south, " you shall count as the basis of your representation five slaves as being three white men ; you shall ba protected in the natural increase of your slaves ; nay, more, as a matter of compromise you may increase their number if you choose, for twenty years, by importation ; when these twenty years are out, you shall stop." The Supreme Court of the United States says, " well : is not this a recognition of slavery, of property in slaves?" "Oh, no," says the gentleman, " the rule must work both ways ; there is a converse to the proposition." Now, 564 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. sir, to an ordinary, uninstructed intellect, it would seem that the converse of the proposi- tion was simply that at the end of twenty years you should not any longer increase your numbers by importation ; but the gentleman says the converse of the proposition is that at the end of the twenty years, after you have, under the guarantee of the Constitution, been aiding by importation to the previous number of your slaves, then all those you had before, an 1 all those that, under that Constitution, you have imported, cease to be recognised as pro- perty by the Constitution, and on this proposi- tion he assails the Supreme Court of the United States — a proposition which he says will occur to anybody ! Mr. Fessenden. Will the Senator allow me ? Mr. Benjamin. I should be very glad to enter into this question with the Senator now, but I fear it is so late that I shall not be able to get through to-day. Mr. Fessenden. I suppose it is of no conse- quence. Mr. Benjamin. What says the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Collamer,] who also went into this examination somewhat extensively ? I read from his printed speech : "I do not say that slaves are never property. I do not say that they are, or are not. Within the limits of a state ■which declares them to be property, they are property, because they are within the jurisdiction of that government which makes the declaration ; but I should wish to speak of it in the light of a member of the United States Senate, and in the language of the United States Constitution. If this be property in the states, what is the nature and extent of it? I insist that the Supreme Court have often decided, and everybody has understood, that slavery is a local insti- tution, existing by force of state law; and of course that law can give it no possible character beyond the limits of that state. I shall, no doubt, find the idea better expressed in the opinion of Judge Nelson, in this same Dred Scott decision. I prefer to read his language. He declares: " ' Every state or nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction within her owr territory; and her laws affect and bind all property and persons residing within it. It may regulate the manner and circumstances under which property is held, and the condition, capacity, and state of all persons therein ; and also the remedy and the modes of admi- nistering justice. And it is equally true that no state or nation can affect or bind property out of its territory, or persons not residing within it. No state, therefore, can enact laws to operate beyond its own dominions ; and, if it attempts to do so, may be lawfully refused obedience. Such laws can have no authority extra-territorially. This is the necessary result of the independence of distinct and sepa- rate sovereignties.' '' Here is the law ; and under it exists the law of slavery in the different states. Ey virtue of this very principle it cannot extend one inch beyond its own territorial limits. A state cannot regulate the relation of master and slave, of owner and property, the manner and title of descent, or anything else, one inch beyond its territory. Then you cannot, by virtue of the law of slavery, if it makes slaves property in a state, if you please, move that property out of the state. It ends whenever you pass from that state. You may pass into another state that has a like law ; and if you do, you hold it by virtue of that law; but the moment you pass beyond the limits of the slaveholding states, all title to the property called property in slaves there ends. Under Buch a law slaves cannot be carried as property into the ter- ritories, or anywhere else beyond the states authorising it. Ii is not property anywhere else. If the Constitution of the United States gives any other and further character than this to slave property, let us acknowledge it fairly, and end all strife about it. If it does not, I ask, in all candor, that men on the other side shall say so, and let this point be set- tled. What is the point we are to inquire into? It is this: does the Constitution of the United States make slaves pro- perty beyond the jurisdiction of the states authorizing slavery ? If it only acknowledges them as property within that jurisdiction, it has not extended the property one inch beyond the state line; but if, as the Supreme Court seems to say, it does recognise and protect them as property further than state limits, and more than the state laws do, then, indeed, it becomes like other property. The Supremo Court rest this claim upon this clause of the Constitution : ' No per- son held to service or labor in one state under the laws thereof, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or laDor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.' Now the question is, does that guaranty it? Does that make it the same as other property ? The very fact that this clause makes provision on the subject of persons bound to service, shows that the framers of the Constitution did not regard it as other property. It was a thing that needed some provision; other property did not. The insertion of such a provision shows that it was not regarded as other property. If a man's horse stray from Delaware into Pennsylvania, he can go and get it. Is there any provision in the Constitution for it? No. How came this to be there, if a slave is property ? If it is the same as other property why have any provision about it?" It will undoubtedly have struck any person, in hearing this passage read from the speech of the Senator from Vermont, whom I regret not to see in his seat to-day, that the whole argument, ingeniously as it is put, rests upon this fallacy — if I may say so with due respect to him — that a man cannot have title in pro- perty wherever the law does not give him a remedy or process for the assertion of his title ; or, in other words, his whole argument rests upon the old confusion of ideas which considers a man's right and his remedy to be one and the same thing. I have already shown to you, by the passages I have cited from the opinions of Lord Stowell and of Judge Story, how they regard this subject. They say that the slave who goes to England, or goes to Mas- sachusetts, from a slave state, is still a slave — that he is still his master's property ; but that his master has lost control over him, not by reason of the cessation of his property, but because those states grant no remedy to the master by which he can exercise his control. There are numerous illustrations upon this point — illustrations furnished by the copy- right laws, illustrations furnished by patent laws. Let us take a case — one that appeals to us all. There lives now a man in England who from time to time sings to the enchanted ear of the civilized world strains of such melody that the charmed senses seem to aban- don the grosser regions of earth, and to rise to purer and serener regions above. God has created that man a poet. His inspiration is his ; his songs are his by right divine ; they are his property, so recognised by human law. Yet here in these United States men steal Tennyson's works and sell his property for their profit ; and this because, in spite of the violated conscience of the nation, we refuse to give him protection for his property. Examine your Constitution ; are slaves the only species of property there recognised as requiring peculiar protection ? Sir, the inven- tive genius of our brethren of the north is a source of vast wealth to them and vast benefit to the nation. I saw a short time ago in one of the New York journals, that the estimated value of a few of the patents now before us in this Capitol for renewal was $40,000,000. 1 cannot believe that the entire capital invested SLAVERY. 565 In inventions of this character in the United States can fall short of one hundred and fifty or two hundred million dollars. On what protection does this vast property rest ? Just upon that same constitutional protection which gives a remedy to the slave owner when his property is also found outside of the limits of the state in which he lives. Without this protection, what would be the condition of the northern inventor? Why, sir, the Vermont inventor protected by his own law would come to Massachusetts, and there say to the pirate who had stolen his property, " render me up my property, or pay me value for its use." The Senator from Ver- mont would receive for answer, if he were the counsel of this Vermont inventor, " Sir, if you want protection for your property go to your own state ; property is governed by the laws of the state within whose jurisdiction it is found ; you have no property in your inven- tion outside of the limits of your state ; you cannot go an inch beyond it." Would not this be so ? Does not every man see at once that the right of the inventor to his discovery, that the right of the poet to his inspiration, depends upon those principles of eternal jus- tice which God has implanted in the heart of man, and that wherever he cannot exercise them, it is because man, faithless to the trust that he has received from God, denies them the protection to which they are entitled t Sir, follow out the illustration which the Senator from Vermont himself has given ; take his very case of the Delaware owner, of a horse riding him across the line into Pennsylvania. The Senator says: "Now, you sec that slaves are not property like other property ; if slaves were property like other property, why have you this special clause in your Constitution to protect a slave ? You have no clause to pro- tect the horse, because horses are recognised as property everywhere." Mr. President, the same fallacy lurks at the bottom of this argu- ment, as of all the rest. Let Pennsylvania exercise her undoubted jurisdiction over per- sons and things within her own boundary; let her do as she has a perfect right to do — declare that hereafter, within the state of Pennsylvania, there shall be no property in horses, and that no man shall maintain a suit in her courts for the recovery of property in a horse ; and where will your horse owner be then ? Just where the English poet is now ; just where the slaveholder and the inventor would be if the Constitution, foreseeing a difference of opinion in relation to rights in these subject-matters, had not provided the remedy in relation to such property as might easily be plundered. Slaves, if you please, are not property like other property in this : that you can easily rob us of them ; but as to the right in them, that man has to overthrow the whole history of the world, he has to overthrow every treatise on jurisprudence, he has to ignore the common sentiment of man- kind, he has to repudiate the authority of all that is considered sacred with man, ere he can reach the conclusion that the person who owns a slave, in a country where slavery has been established for ages, has no other pro- perty in that slave than the mere title which is given by the statute law of the land where it is found. I never heard this question disputed before ; I never heard a suggestion that slaves were not protected as property by the Constitution of the United States till I heard it from the Senator from Maine here the other day. In the sixteenth volume of Peters's Reports, there is the report of a case which occurred between the states of Maryland and Pennsylvania. It was elaborately argued. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania sent her attorney -general into the room below to affirm her right to the legislation which she had passed. Although the suit was in the name of an individual, really it was the rights of Maryland that were concerned, and it was the state of Maryland that was interested in the decision. The case is known by the title in the law-books of Prigg versus The State of Pennsylvania. Every judge on the bench gave his decision in that case. Every judge on the bench concurred in the decision. Judge Story delivered the opinion of the court; the other judges delivering their individual opinions, where they did not pre- cisely agree with the general language of the court. Amongst those judges was Judge McLean, one of the dissentient judges in the Dred Scott case. Let us hear what he says about slaves being property under the Consti- tution. I shall read a short passage, a para- graph or two only. I take this out of his statement of his opinion at page 661, of 16th Peters. He quotes the clause of the Constitu- tion that protects us in our rights to fugitive slaves, and he says : ■' It was designed to protect the rights of the master, and against whom! Not against the state, nor the people of the state in which he resides; but against the people and the legislative action of other states, where the fugitive from labor might be found. Under the confederation, the mastar has no legal means of enforcing his eights in a state opposed to slavery. A disregard of rights thus asserted was deeply felt in the South. It produced great excitement, and would have led to results destructive of the Union. To avoid this, the constitutional guarantee was essential." Now what is this guarantee ? He tells us, at page 071 of the same volume: " I cannot perceive how any one can doubt that the remedy given in the Constitution, if, indeed, it give any remedy without legislation, was designed to be a peaceful one; .'» remedy sanctioned by judicial authority; a remedy guarded by the forms of law. But the inquiry is reiterated, is not the master entitled to his property? I answer that he is. His right in guarantied In the Constitution; and the most summary means for its enforcement is found in the act of Congress. And neither the state nor its citizens can obstruct the prosecution of this right.'" That was Judge McLean's language. When I find language like this even from the minority of the court in the Dred Scott case, when I find the entire court, man for man, concurring that the constitutional rights of the 566 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. South are guarantied in slaves as property by this clause in the Constitution, I must express jny intense surprise at hearing the Senator from Maine, declare that the Dred Scott decision was not t; be supported, because it rested for a corner-stone on the assumption that slaves were recognised by the Constitu- tion as property, which assumption he denied. — Hon J. P. Benjamin, in the Senate, March 11th, 1858. " Sir : I believe that no cancer on the phy- sical body was ever more certain, steady, and fatal in its progress than is this cancer on the political body of the state of Virginia. I admit that we are not to be blamed for the origin of this evil among us ; we are not to be blamed for its existence now, but we shall deserve the severest censure if we do not take measures, as soon as possible, to remove it." — Mr. Berry, in the Virginia Legislature, in 1832. " It is now asserted that slavery is ' a mo- ral evil,' in other words a sin, and conse- quently that those who hold slaves are guilty therefor. Sir, when I look to those enduring precepts of moral conduct which, mocking all change, and defying all flight of years, shall be made more and more illustrious as eternal ages shall crown them with the fruits of their happy influence, I see slavery there tolerated, I had almost said inculcated. I see such lan- guage as this : ' Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids shall be of the heathen that are round about you ; of them shall you buy bondmen and bondmaids ; and ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession,' &c. And looking through the pages of that sacred book from Genesis to Apocalypse, I find an exhortation to every virtue and a rebuke for every sin ; but I nowhere find a condemnation of the slaveholder. I see there the admoni- tion, ' Servants, be obedient to your masters;' but I do not see the direction, ' Masters, manu- mit your slaves.' I see it said, ' Ye shall not bear false witness against your neighbor ;' but I do not see anything like this : ' Form abolition societies, and abuse slaveholders.' I read, ' Blessed are the peacemakers ;' but no blessing is promised for attempting to ex- cite servile insurrection. * * * Satisfied ourselves that there is no immorality in it, we have a very slight opinion of those who are s ) egregiously wounded in conscience for us." ~-Mr. Bocock of Va., H. of R., June 30, 1848. " This is a grave and important subject — one that ought to be and will be considered. Its im- portance demands that it should be considered and debated here ; and is not, as some gentle- men think, a reason that it should be passed »n silence, and acted upon in secret. No, sir, our action should be calm and dispassionate, but open, bold, and manly. Sir, that it is an evil, a great and appalling evil, he dared be lieve no sane man would or could deny. "Nor, sir, can it be denied that it deprives us of many of those advantages, facilities, and blessings which we should enjoy had we a more dense white population. That it is a blighting, withering curse upon this land, is cJ#arly demonstrated by this very discussion itself. " Notwithstanding Eastern gentlemen had waxed so warm, there are many, very many in Eastern Virginia who had rather resign their slaves gratuitously than submit to the ills of slavery ; many who had rather turn them loose and leave them behind, while they should seek a happier clime — a land alike a stranger to slaves and slavery." — Mr. Boiling of Va. in the Legislature in 1832. "You think that slavery is a great evil. Very well, think so ; but keep your thoughts to yourselves. For myself, I regard slavery as a great moral, social, and religious blessing — a blessing to the slave, a blessing to his mas- ter." — Eon. Albert G. Brown of Miss. " That what is called slavery is, in reality, a political institution, essential to the peace, safety, and prosperity of those states of the Union in which it exists." — Mr. Calhoun. " I took occasion to observe that I believed the people of Norfolk county would rejoice, could they, even in the vista of time, see some scheme for the gradual removal of this curse from our land. I was desirous to see a report from the committee declaring the slave popu- lation an evil, and recommending to the people of this commonwealth the adoption of some plan for its riddance." — Mr, Chandler of Va., in the Legislature, in 1832. " But if, unhappily, we should be involved in war — in a civil war between the two parts of this confederacy, in which the efforts upon the one side should be to restrain the intro- duction of slavery into new territories, and upon the other side to force its introduction there, what a spectacle should we present to the astonishment of mankind, in an effort, not to propagate rights, but — I must say, though I trust it will be understood to be said with no design to excite feeling — a war to propagate wrongs in the territories thus acquired from Mexico. It would be a war in which we should have no sympathies — no good wishes ; in which all mankind would be against us ; in which our own history itself would be against us ; for from the commencement of the Revo- lution down to the present time, we have con- stantly reproached our British ancestors for the introduction of slavery into this country. And allow me to say that, in my opinion, it is one of the best defences which can be made to preserve the institution of slavery in rhis country, that it was forced upon us against the wishes of our ancestors, of our own American SLAVERY. 567 colonial ancestors, and by the cupidity of our British commercial ancestors." — Mr. Clay, in 1850. Resolutions of the colony of Darien, in the state of Georgia : — "We, the representatives of the extensive district of Darien, in the colony of Georgia, being now assembled in Congress, by the au- thority and free choice of the inhabitants of said district, now freed from their fetters, do resolve." Then follow several resolutions, setting forth the grounds of complaint against the oppressions of Great Britain, closing with : — " To show to the world that we are not in- fluenced by any contracted or interested mo- tives, but by a general philanthropy for all mankind, of whatever climate, language, or complexion, we hereby declare our disappro- bation and abhorrence of the unnatural prac- tice of slavery in America, (however the un- cultivated state of our country or other specious arguments may plead for it) — a practice found- ed in injustice and cruelty, and highly dan- gerous to our liberties as well as lives, debasing part of our fellow-creatures below men, and corrupting the virtue and the morals of the rest, and laying the basis of that liberty we contend for, and which we pray the Almighty to continue to the latest posterity, upon a very wrong foundation. We, therefore, resolve at all times to use our utmost endeavors for the manumission of our slaves in this colony, upon the most safe and equitable footing for the masters and themselves." " That slavery is the natural, the proper condition of the African — one that is advan- tageous to his master, and a great blessing to him." — Mr. Featherston of Miss. " To extend the institution indefinitely, it (the Constitution) prohibited the passage of any law to stop the importation of slaves from Africa and elsewhere, prior to the year 1808. Another clause, with a view to its perpetua- tion, for ever provides for the recapture of fugitives who escape to non-slaveholding states. Notwithstanding these plain stipula- tions between the slaveholding and non-slave- Lolding states, constituting the essential, vital provisions of the Constitution, without which all admit the confederation could not have been formed, we are cantingly told that ' slavery is a sin, and the North is opposed to its extension. We the philanthropists of this day, are better thau the sages and heroes, purified by the trials of the Revolution and covered with its glories, who assembled in the old halls of the Confederation in 1787.' I have no reply to make to these pharisaical pretensions: they are beneath contempt. I am content with the religion of the Bible and the Constitution of our fathers, uncorrupted by the comments of the pseudo moralists and statesmen who now shed their coruscations upon ui. I shall certainly not condescend to reply to the puling sophistry upon this sub- ject, so often heard in this House. Were I disposed to argue the question of slavery, with- out reference to the Constitution, in all its relations, religious, moral, social, and political, no fear of its successful vindication would re- strain me. " It would seem to be profanation to call an institution of society irreligious, immoral, which is expressly and repeatedly sanctioned by the word of God — which existed in the tents of the patriarchs, and in the households of his own chosen people." — Hon. S. W. Inge, of Ala. " When the entire abolition of slavery takes place, it will be an event which must be pleas- ing to every generous mind, and every friend of human nature." — Mr. Iredell of Jy. C, in the convention of that state to ratify the Federal Constitution. In a letter of Mr. Jefferson to Dr. Price, which bears date Paris, August 7th, 1785, is the following extract : — " Southward of the Chesapeake, it will find but few readers concurring with it (Dr. P.'s book) in sentiment on the subject of slavery. From the mouth to the head of the Chesa- peake, the bulk of the people will approve it in theory, and it will find a respectable mi- nority ready to adopt it in practice ; a minority which, for weight and worth of character, pre- ponderates against the greater number who have not the courage to divest their families of a property which, however, keeps their conscience uneasy. Northward of the Chesa- peake, you may find here and there an oppo- nent to your doctrine, as you may find here and there a robber or a murderer ; but in no greater number. In that part of America, there being but few slaves, they can easily disencumber themselves of them ; and eman- cipation is put into such a train that in a few years there will be no slaves northward of Maryland. In Maryland, I do not find such a disposition to begin the redress of the enor- mity as in Virginia. This is the next state to which we may turn our eye for the interesting spectacle of justice in conflict with avarice and oppression ; a conflict wherein the sacred side is gaining daily recruits from the influx into office of young men, grown and growing up." In Mr. Jefferson's notes on Virginia, he thus alludes to the prospects of emancipa- tion : — " I think a change already perceptible since the origin of our present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating ; that of the slave is rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, and the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of Heaven, for a total emancipation." In another place, declaring his own senti- ments, he said : — " Nobody wishes more ardently than I to see an abolition not only of the trade, but of the condition of slavery ; and certainly nobody 568 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. will be more willing to encounter any sacrifice for that object." "I attached myself in early life to that party which was always and ever opposed to the extension of slavery, and I say here to- night that the Whig party of the north has always had that creed, and these Republicans can't take out a patent for it, for many a long year. And I say that Millard Fillmore has been true to that party, and has never had any other principle but that which would pre- vent the further extension of slavery." — Hon. Hiram Ketchum of N. Y. " I thought, till very lately, that it was known to everybody that, during the Revolu- tion, and for many years after, the abolition of slavery was a favorite topic with many of our ablest statesmen, who entertained with respect all the schemes which wisdom or ingenuity could suggest for its accomplish- ment." — Mr. Leigh of Ya. in Convention. " Every addition the states receive to their number of slaves tends to weaken and render them less capable of self-defence. In case of hostilities with foreign nations, they will be the means of inviting attack, instead of repel- ling invasion. It is a necessary duty of the general government to protect every part of their confines against dangers, as well inter- nal as external. Everything, therefore, which tends to increase danger, though it be a local affair, yet, if it involves national expense or safety, becomes of concern to every part of the Union, and is a proper subject for the conside- ration of those charged with the general administration of this government." — Mr. Ma- iison. " Slavery is ruinous to the whites — retards improvement — roots out industrious popula- tion — banishes the yeomanry of the country- deprives the spinner, the weaver, the smith, the shoemaker, the carpenter, of employment and support. This evil admits of no remedy ■ — it is increasing, and will continue to in- crease, until the whole country will be inun- dated with one black wave covering its whole extent, with a few white faces here and there floating on the surface. The master has no capital but what is vested in human flesh ; the father, instead of being richer for his sons, is at a loss how to provide for them ; there is no diversity of occupations, no incen- tives to enterprise. Labor of every species is disreputable, because performed mostly by slaves. Our towns are stationary, our vil- lages almost everywhere declining, and the general aspect of the country marks the curse of a wasteful, idle, reckless population, who have no interest in the soil, and care not how much it is impoverished. " Public improvements are neglected and the entire continent does not present a region for which nature has done so much and art so little. If cultivated by free labor, the soil of Virginia is capable of sustaining a vast population, among whom labor would be honorable, and where " the busy hum of men" would tell that all were happy and all were free." — Mr. Marshall of Ya. in House of Delegates in 1832. "But from the earliest times Avar had ex- isted, and war conferred rights in which all had acquiesced. Among the most enlightened nations of antiquity one of these rights was that the victor might enslave the vanquished. That which was the usage of all nations could not be pronounced repugnant to the law of nations, which w«as certainly to be tried by the test of general usage. That which had received the assent of all must be the law of all. " Slavery, then, had its origin in force ; but as the world had agreed that it was the logitr imate result of force, the state of things which was thus produced by general consent could not be pronounced unlawful. " Throughout Christendom this harsh rule had been exploded, and war was no longer considered as giving a right to enslave cap- tives. But this triumph had not been uni- versal. The parties to the modern law of nations do not propagate their principles by force ; and Africa had not yet adopted them. Throughout the whole extent of that immense continent, so far as we know its history, it is still the law of nations that prisoners are slaves. The question, then, was, could those who had renounced this law be permitted to participate in its effects by purchasing the human beings who are its victims ? " Whatever might be the answer of a mor- alist to this question, a jurist must search for its legal solution in those principles which are sanctioned by the usages, the national acts, and the general assent of that portion of the world of which he considers himself a part, and to whose law the appeal is made. If we resort to this standard as the test of interna- tional law, the question must be considered as decided in favor of the legality of the trade. Both Europe and America embarked in it, and for nearly two centuries it was carried on without opposition and without censure. A jurist could not say that a practice thus sup- ported was illegal, and that those engaged in it might be punished either personally or by deprivation of property." — Chief Justice Mar- shall. " Slavery discourages arts and manufac- tures. The slaves produce the most pernicious effects on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven upon a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities." — Geo Mason of Ya. SLAVERY. 569 "We know that the picture is the ' counter- feit presentment' of the true one. We know that inefficiency and languor characterize our movements ; that enterprise is scarcely known to us, but from observation of its influence on other communities. We know that the bless- ings of our position, and soil, and climate, are countervailed by the apathy of our public counsels, and by our exclusive reliance upon involuntary labor. Our interests and senses proclaim the progress of general decline ; con- science and experience attest that slavery is its principal cause. Is it not so? When we Took at Virginia, as a whole, without pausing upon the bright and the beautiful that still show forth as intrinsic qualities of her character, but look at her in reference to her every day practical habit and appearance, is she not anything but prosperous? Do we not in this respect contemplate her justly, when we re- gard her as meager, haggard, and enfeebled ; with decrepitude stealing upon her limbs ; as given over to leanness and impotency ; and as wasting away under the improvidence and the inactivity which eternally accompany the fatal institution that she cherishes ; and cher- ishes, too, as a mother, who will hazard her own life rather than part even with a mon- strous offspring that afflicts her? Sir, it is true of Virginia, not merely that she has not advanced, but that in many respects she has greatly declined; and what have we got as a compensation for this decline — as a compensa- tion for this disparity between what Virginia is and what she might have been ? Nothing but the right of property in the very beings who have brought this disparity upon us. This is our pay ; this is what we have gotten to re- munerate us for our delinquent prosperity ; to repay us for our desolated fields, our torpid enterprise ; and in this dark day of our hum- bled importance, to sustain our hopes, and to soothe our pride as a people." — Gov. McDowell. Opinions of the B.ev. Dr. McKnight. Because the law of Moses (Esod. xxi. 22) allowed no Israelite to be made a slave for life without his own consent, the Judaizing teachers, to allure slaves to their party, taught that under the Gospel, likewise, involuntary slavery is unlawful. This doctrine the apostle lemned here, as in his other epistles (1 Cor. vii. 20, 21, 23; Col. iii. 22), enjoining Christian slaves to obey and honor their masters, whether they were believers or un- believers (verses 1-12), and by assuring Timothy that if any person taught otherwise he opposed the wholesome precepts of Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of the Gospel which is in all points conformable to godliness or sound morality (verse 3), and was puffed up with pride, without possessing any true know- ledge either of the Jewish or Christian revela- tion (verse ) ). The passage in the epistle referred to by Or. McKnight, is in these words : — Sundry Instructions. 1. Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 2. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren ; but rather do tin ia service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers Ol the benefit. These things teach and exhort. 3. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to whole- some words, eren the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4. lie is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about ques- tions and suites of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, rail- ings, evil surmisings, 5. Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and des- titute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. By ordering Timothy to teach slaves to con- tinue with and obey their masters, the apostle hath showed that the Christian religion neither alters men's .rank in life nor abolishes any right to which they are entitled by the law of nature, or by the law of the country where they live. Instead of encouraging slaves to disobedience, the. Gospel makes them more faithful and conscientious. And by sweeten- ing the temper of masters, and inspiring them with benevolence, it renders the condition of the slave more tolerable than formerly • in proportion as masters imbibe the true spirit of the Gospel, they will treat their slaves with humanity, and even give them their free- dom, when their services merit such a favor. 5. Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in single- ness of your heart, as unto Christ; 6. Not with eyeservice. as menpieasers : but as the ser- vants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart ; 7. With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and to men : 8. Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether lie be loud or free. As the Gospel does not cancel the civil rights of mankind, I say to bond servants, obey your masters, who have the property i f your body, with fear and trembling, as liable to be punished by them for disobedience: obey also from the integrity of your own dis- position as obeying Christ. Do this not merely when their eyes are on you, or they are to ex- amine your work, as those do whose sole care is to please men, but as bondmen of Christ, doing the will of God in this matter from the soul — that is diligently. With cheerfulness do your duty to your earthly master, as servants to the Lord Christ ; for in serving them faithfully ye serve him, and therefore do not consider yourselve servants to men only. And that ye may be supported under the hardship of your lot, recollect what your religion teaches you, that whatever good action any man does, for that, though he should receive any reward from men, he shall receive at the judgment a re- ward from Christ, whether he be a slave or a freeman. 22. Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpieasers; but in sin- gleness of heart, fearing God: 23. Aud whatever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men ; 24. Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. 25. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done : and there is no respect of persons. 570 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Dr. McKnight explains this paesage in the following note : — Though the word doulos properly signifies slave, our English translators, in all the places where the duties of slaves are inculcated, have justly translated it servant ; because anciently the Greeks and Romans had scarce any ser- vants but slaves, and because the duties of a hired servant, during the time of his service, are the same as those of the slave, so that what the apostle said to the slave, was, in effect, said to the hired servant. Upon those principles' the translations of the Scriptures designed for countries where slavery is abol- ished, and servants are freemen, the word deilos may, with truth, be translated a ser- vant. In this and the parallel passage (Ephe- sians, vi. 5), the apostle is very particular in his precepts to slaves and lords ; because in all the countries where slavery was established, many of the slaves were exceedingly addicted to fraud, lying, and stealing, and many of the masters were tyrannical and cruel to their slaves. Perhaps also he was thus particular in his precepts to slaves, because the Jews held perpetual slavery to be unlawful, and because the Judaizing teachers propagated that doctrine in the church. But, from the apostle's precepts, it may be inferred that if slaves are justly acquired, they may be law- fully retained, as the Gospel does not make forbid any of the political rights of mankind. " There is not a slaveholder, in this House or out of it, but who knows perfectly well that, whenever slavery is confined within cer- tain special limits, its future existence is doomed ; it is only a question of time as to its final destruction. You may take any single slaveholding county in the Southern states, in which the great staples of cotton and sugar are cultivated to any extent, and confine the present slave population within the limits of that county. Such is the rapid natural in- crease of the slaves, and the rapid exhaus- tion of the soil in the cultivation of those crops, (which add so much to the com- mercial wealth of tiie county,) that in a few years it would be impossible to support them within the limits of each county. Both master and slave would be starved out; and what would be the practical effect in any one county, the same result would happen to all the slaveholding states. Slavery cannot be con- fined within certain specified limits without producing the destruction of both master and slave. It requires fresh lands, plenty of wood and water, not only for the comfort and happi- ness of the slave, but for the benefit of the owner. We understand perfectly well the practical effect of the proposed restriction upon our rights, and to what extent it inter- feres with slavery in the states ; and we also understand the object and purpose of that in- terference. If the slaveholding states should ever be so regardless of their rights, and their honor, as co-equal states, to' be willing to sub- mit to this proposed restriction, for the sake of harmony and peace, they could not do it. There is a great, overruling, practical neces- sity, which would prevent it. They ought not to submit to it upon principle if they could, and could not if they would." — Mr. Warner of Ga. "Never will your country be productive, never will its agriculture, its commerce, or its manufactures flourish, so long as they depend upon reluctant bondmen for their progress." — Wm. Piuckney of Md. in a letter to the Le- gislature, in 1789. " Slavery has the effect of lessening the free population of a country. The wealthy are not dependent upon the poor for those aids and those services, compensation for which enables the poor man to give bread to his family. The ordinary mechanic arts are all practised by slaves. "In the servitude of Europe in the middle ages, in years of famine, the poor had to bar- ter their liberty for bread ; they had to sur- render their liberty to some wealthy man to save their families from the horrors of famine. The slaves were sustained in sickness and in famine upon the wealth of their master, who preserved them as he would any other species of property. All the sources of the poor man's support were absorbed by him. In this coun- try he cannot become a slave, but he flies to some other country more congenial to his con- dition, and where he who supports himself by honest labor is not degraded in his caste. Those who remain, relying upon the support of casual employment, often become more degraded in their condition than the slaves themselves." — Mr. T. J. Randolph of Va., in the Legislature, in 1832. " It has been said that slavery is a ' doomed institution ; and so I believe' — doomed to exist for ever. It is one of the oldest institutions among men. In every age, in every clime it has been practised and sanctioned by man- kind, whether acting upon the light of nature or of revelation. Indeed, among men, Chris- tianity itself has not so many evidences in its favor. A small part of mankind have been Christians, while the practice of slavery has been universal. Solon and Lycurgus _ are known to us by the fame of their legislation ; they made no laws against slavery. Greece and Rome, the most distinguished and civ- ilized of ancient nations, were slaveholders. Our Constitution, the work of our fathers, recognised it. Our Saviour stood upon the world amid slaves, where the master had power over the life of the servant ; He did not rebuke it, or denounce it as a crime. And I trust I will be pardoned for resting my con- science upon these high authorities, and for declining to commit it to the keeping of these modern Free Soil saints, who have so much trouble in keeping their own."-—/. H. Savage \ofTenn., in H. of E., May 13, 1850. SLAVERY. 571 " I believe that the institution of slavery is a noble one ; that it is necessary for the good, the well-being of the negro race. Looking to history, I go further, and I say, in the pres- ence of this assembly, and under all the im- posing circumstances surrounding me, that I believe it is God's institution. Yes, sir, if there is anything in the action of the great Author of us all ; if there is anything in the conduct of His chosen people ; if there is anything in the conduct of Christ himself, who came upon this earth, and yielded up his life as a sacrifice, that all through his death might live; if there is anything in the con- duct of his apostles, who inculcated obedience upon the part of slaves towards their masters as a Christian duty, then we must believe that the institution is from God." — Hon. William Smith of Ya., in a speech in the H. of Reps. The following lecture on " Slavery — its con- stitutional status — its influence on the African race and Society," was delivered in the Tre- mont Temple, Boston, Mass., on the 24th of January, 1856, by Hon. R. Toombs of Ga. : — I propose to submit to you this evening some considerations and reflections upon two points. 1st. The constitutional powers and duties of the federal government, in relation to do-' mestic slavery. '2d. The influence of slavery, as it exists in the United States, upon the slave and society. Under the first head, I shall endeavor to show that Congress has no power to limit, re- strain, or in any manner- to impair slavery ; but, on the contrary, it is bound to protect and maintain it in the states where it exists, and wherever its flag floats, and its jurisdiction is paramount. On the second point, I maintain that so long as the African and Caucasian races co-exist in the same society, that the subordination of the African is its normal, necessary, and pro- per condition, and that such subordination is the condition best calculated to promote the highest interest and the greatest happiness of both races, and consequently of the whole so- ciety ; and that the abolition of slavery, under these conditions, is not a remedy for any of the evils of the system. I admit that the truth of these propositions, stated under the second point, is essentially necessary to the existence and permanence of the system. They rest on the truth that the white is the superior race, and the black the inferior ; and that subordi- nation, with or without law, will be the status of the African in this mixed society ; and, therefore, it is the interest of both, and espe- cially of the black race, and of the whole so- ciety, that this status should be fixed, con- trolled, and protected by law. The perfect equality of the superior race, and the legal subordination of the inferior, are the founda- tions on which we have erected our republican systems. Their soundness must be tested by their conformity to the sovereignty of right, the universal law which ought to govern all people in all countries. This sovereignty of right is justice, commonly called natural jus- tice, not the vague, uncertain imaginings of men, but natural justice as interpreted by the written oracles, and read by the light of the revelations of nature's God. In this sense I recognise a " higher law," and the duty of all men, by legal and proper means, to bring every society in conformity with it. I proceed to the consideration of the first point. The old thirteen states, before the Revolu- tion, were dependent colonies of Great Bri- tain; each was a separate and distinct political community, with different laws, and each be- came an independent and sovereign state by the Declaration of Independence. At the time of this declaration, slavery was a fact, and a fact recognised by law in each of them, and the slave trade was lawful commerce by the laws of nations and the practice of mankind. This declaration was drafted by a slave- holder, adopted by the representatives of slaveholders, and did not emancipate a single African slave ; but, on the contrary, one of the charges which it submitted to the civilized world against King George, was, that he had attempted to excite "domestic insurrection among us." At the time of this declaration, we had no common government ; the Articles of Confederation were submitted to the repre- sentatives of the states eight days afterwards, and were not adopted by all of the states until 1781. These loose and imperfect articles of union sufficed to bring us successfully through the Revolution. Common danger was a stronger bond of union than these articles of confederation ; after that ceased, they were inadequate to the purposes of peace. They did not emancipate a single slave. The Constitution was framed by delegates elected by the state legislatures. It was an emanation from the sovereign states as inde- pendent, separate communities. It was rati- fied by conventions of these separate states, each acting for itself. The members of these conventions represented the sovereignty of each state, but they were not elected by the whole people of either of the states. Minors, women, slaves, Indians, Africans, bond and free, were excluded from participating in this act of sovereignty. Neither were all the white male inhabitants over twenty-one years old, allowed to participate in it. Some were excluded because they had no land ; others for the want of good characters ; others again because they were non-freemen ; and a large number were excluded for a great variety of still more unimportant reasons. None exer- cised this high privilege except those upon whom each state, for itself, had adjudged it wise, safe, and prudent to confer it. By this Constitution, these states granted to the federal government certain well-defined and clearly-specified powers, in order " to make a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the 572 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. common defence and general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to (themselves and their) posterity." And, with great wis- dom and forecast, this Constitution lays down a plain, certain, and sufficient rule for its own interpretation, by declaring that " the powers not herein delegated to the United States by ,• the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The federal government is, therefore, a limited government. It is limited expressly to the exercise of the enu- merated powers, and of such others only " which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution" these enumerated powers. The declaration of the purposes for which these powers were granted, can neither in- crease nor diminish them. If any one or all of them were to fail by reason of the insuffi- ciency of the granted powers to secure them, that would be a good reason for a new grant, but could never enlarge the granted powers. That declaration was itself a limitation instead of an enlargement of the granted powers. If a power expressly granted be used for any other purpose than those declared, such use would be a violation of the grant and a fraud on the Constitution ; and, therefore, it follows that if anti-slavery action by Congress is not warranted by any express power, nor within any of the declared purposes for which any 6uch power was granted, the exercise of even a granted power to effect that action, under any pretence whatever, would fall under the just condemnation of the Constitution. The history of the times, and the debates in the convention which framed the Constitution, show that this whole subject was much con- sidered by them, and " perplexed them in the extreme ;" and those provisions of the Consti- tution which related to it, were earnestly con- sidered by the state conventions which adopted it. Incipient legislation, providing for eman- cipation, had already been adopted by some of the states. Massachusetts had declared that slavery was extinguished in her limits by her bill of rights ; the African slave trade had been legislated against in many of the states, including Virginia, and Maryland, and North Carolina. The public mind was unquestion- ably tending towards emancipation. This feel- ing displayed itself in the South as well as in the North. Some of the delegates from the present slaveholding states thought that the power o abolish, not only the African slave trade, but slavery in the states, ought to be given to the federal government ; and that the Constitution did not take this shape, was made one of the most prominent objections to it by Luther Martin, a distinguished member of the convention from Maryland; and Mr. Ma- son, of Virginia, was not far behind him in his emancipation principles. Mr. Madison (-ympathized to a great extent, to a much greater extent than some of the represent- atives from Massachusetts, in this anti-slavery feeling ; hence we find that anti-slavery feel- ings were extensively indulged in by- many members of the convention, both from slave- holding and non-slaveholding states. This fact has led to many and grave errors; artful and unscrupulous men have used it much to de- ceive the northern public. Mere opinions of individual men have been relied upon as au- thoritative expositions of the Constitution. Our reply to them is simple, direct: they _ were not the opinions of the collective body of the people, who made, and who had the right to make, this government ; and, there- fore, they found no place in the organic law, and by that alone are we bound; anil, there- fore, it concerns us rather to know what was the collective will of the whole, as affirmed by the sovereign states, than what were the opin- ions of individual men in the convention. We wish to know what was done by the whole, not what some of the members thought was best to be done. The result of the struggle was, that not a single clause was inserted in the Constitution giving power to the federal government anywhere, either to abolish, limit, restrain, or in any other manner to impair the system of slavery in the United States ; but, on the contrary, every clause which was in- serted in the Constitution on this subject, does in fact, and was intended either to increase it, to strengthen it, or to protect it. To support these positions, I appeal to the Constitution itself, to the contemporaneous and all subse- quent authoritative interpretations of it. The Constitution provides for the increase of sla- very by prohibiting the suppression of the slave trade for twenty years after its adoptions. It declares in the 1st clause of the 9th section of the first article, that " the migration or im- portation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person." After that time it was left to the discretion of Congress to prohibit, or not to prohibit, the African slave trade. The extension of this traffic in Afri- cans from 1800 to 1808, was voted for by the whole of the New England states, including Massachusetts, and opposed by Virginia and Delaware; and the clause was inserted in the Constitution by votes of the New England states. It fostered an active and profitable trade for New England capital ami enterprise for twenty years, by which a large addition! A\-as made to the original stock of Africans in the United States, and thereby it increased slavery. This clause cf the Constitution was specially favored; it was one of those clauses which was protected against amendment by article fifth. Slavery is strengthened by the 3d clause, 2d section of first article, which fixes the basis of representation according to numbers, by providing that the "numbers shall be deter-; mined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for | a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons." TlIs SLAVERY. 573 provision strengthens slavery, by giving the existing slaveholding states many more rep- resentatives in Congress than they would have, if slaves were considered only as property ; it was much debated, but finally adopted, with the full understanding of its import, by a great majority. The Constitution protects it impliedly, by withholding all power to injure it, or limit its duration, but it protects it expressly by the 3d clause of 2d section of the 4th article, by the 4th section of the 4th article, and by the 15th clause of the 1st article. The 3d clause of the 2d section, 4th article, provides, that" no persons held to service or labor in one state by the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." The 4th section of the 4th article provides, that Congress shall protect each state " on application of the legislature (or of the executive when the legislature cannot be con- vened) against domestic violence." The 15th clause of the 8th section of the 1st article, makes it the duty of Congress " to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The first of these three clauses last referred to, protects slavery by following the escaping slaves intonon-slavehokUng states and returning him to bondage ; the other clauses place the whole military power of the republic in the hands of the federal govern- ment to repress " domestic violence" and " in- surrections." Under this Constitution, if he flies to other lands, the supreme law follows, captures, and returns him; if he resists the law by which he is held in bondage, the same Constitution brings its military power to his subjugation. There is no limit to this protec- tion ; it must exist as long as any of the states tolerate domestic slavery, and the Constitu- tion, unaltered, endures. None of these clauses admit of misconception or doubtful construc- tion. They were not incorporated into the char- ter of our liberties by surprise or inattention ; they were each and all of them introduced into that body, debated, referred to committees, re- ported upon, and adopted. Our construction of them is supported by one unbroken and har- i monious current of decisions and adjudications I by the executive, legislative, and judicial de- partments of the government, state and fed- eral, from President Washington to President Pierce. Twenty representatives in the Congress of the United States hold their seats to-day, 1 by the virtue of one of these clauses. The 1 African slave trade was carried on its whole appointed period under another of them. ' Thousands of slaves have been delivered up under another ; and it is a just cause of con- gratulation to the whole country that no oc- : casion has occurred to call into action the remaining clauses which have been quoted. These constitutional provisions were gene- rally acquiesced in even by those who did not approve them, until a new and less obvious question sprung out of the acquisition of ter- ritory. When the Constitution was adopted, the question of slavery had been settled in the Northwest Territory by the articles of cession of that territory by the state of Virginia ; and at that time the United States had not an acre of land over which it claimed unfettered juris- diction, except a disputed claim on our south- western boundary, which will hereafter be considered in its appropriate connexion. The acquisition of Louisiana imposed upon Con- gress the necessity of its government. This duty was assumed and performed for the general benefit of the whole country, without challenge or question, for nearly seventeen years. Equity and good faith shielded it from criticism. But in 1819, thirty years after the Constitution was adopted,' upon application of Missouri for admission into the Union, the extraordinary pretension was for the first time asserted by a majority of the non-slaveholding states, that Congress not only had the power to prohibit the extension of slavery into new territories of the republic, but that it had power to compel new states, seeking admis- sion into the Union, to prohibit it in their own constitutions, and mould their domestic policy in all respects to suit the opinions, whims, or caprices of the federal government. This novel and extraordinary pretension subjected the whole power of Congress over the territories to the severest criticism. Abundant authority was found in the Constitution to manage this common domain merely as pro- perty ; the 2d clause, 3d section of the 4th article declares, "that Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States ; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States or of any particular state." But this clause was rightfully adjudicated by the supreme judicial authority not to confer on Congress general jurisdiction over territo- ries, but by its terms to restrain that juris- diction to their management as property, and even without that adjudication, it would not be diflicult to prove the utter disregard of all sound principles of construction of this at- tempt to expand this simple duty " to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations concerning the territory and other property of the United States" into this gigantic as- sumption of unlimited power in all cases whatsoever over the territories. When the Constitution seeks to confer this power, it uses appropriate language ; when it wished to confer this power over the District of Columbia, and the places to be acquired for forts, magazines, and arsenals, it gives Con- gress power " to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over them." This is explicit, it is apt language to express a par- ticular purpose, and no ingenuity can construe the clause concerning the territories into the same meaning. 574 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. This construction was so clear that Congress wan then driven to look for power to govern its acquisitions in the necessity and propriety of it as a means of executing the express power to make treaties. The right to acquire territory, under the treaty-making power, was itself an implication — and an implication whose rightfulness was denied by Mr. Jeffer- son, who exercised it; the right to govern being claimed as an incident of the right to acquire, was then but an implication of an implication, and thn power to exclude slavery therefrom was still another remove from the fountain of all power — express grant. But whether this power to prohibit slavery in the common territories claimed from the one source or the other, it cannot be sustained upon any sound rule of constitutional con- struction. The power is not expressly granted. Then, unless it can be shown to be both " ne- cessary and proper" in order to the just exe- cution of a granted power, the constitutional argument against it is complete. This re- mains to be shown by the advocates of this power. Admij; the power in Congress to govern the territories until they shall be ad- mitted as states into the Union — derive it either from the clause of the Constitution last referred to, or from the treaty-making power, this power to prohibit slavery is not an inci- dent to it in either case, because it is neither " necessary nor proper" to its execution — that it is not necessary to execute the treaty-making power, is shown from the fact that the treaty power not only was never used for this pur- pose, but can be wisely and well executed without it, and has been repeatedly used to increase and protect slavery. The acquisi- tions of Louisiana and Florida are examples of its use, without the exercise of this pre- tended " necessary and proper" incident. Nu- merous treaties and conventions, with both savage and civilized nations, from the founda- tion of the government, demanding and re- ceiving indemnities for injuries to this species of property, are conclusive against this novel pretension. That it is not necessary to the execution of the power " to make needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property of the United States," is proven from the fact that seven territories have been governed by Congress, and trained into sovereign states, without its exercise. _ It is not proper, because it seeks to use an im- plied power for other and different purposes from any specified, expressed, or intended by the grantors. The purpose is avowed to be, to limit, restrain, weaken, and finally crush out slavery ; whereas the grant expressly pro- vides for strengthening and protecting it. It is not proper, because it violates the funda- mental condition of the Union — the equality of the states. The states of the Union are all political equals. Each state has the same rights as every other state — no more, no less. The exercise of this prohibition violates this equality and violates justice. By the laws of nations, acquisitions, either by purchase or conquest, even in despotic governments, ennro to the benefit of all of the subjects of the state. The reason given for this principle, by the most approved publicists, is, that they are the fruits of the common blood and treasure. This prohibition destroys this equality, ex- cludes a part of the joint owners from an equal participation and enjoyment of the com- mon domain, and, against justice and right, appropriates it to the greater number. There- fore, so far from being a necessary and proper means of executing granted powers, it is an arbitrary and despotic usurpation, against the letter, the spirit, and declared purpose of the Constitution ; for its exercise neither " pro- motes a more perfect union, nor establishes justice, nor insures domestic tranquillity, nor provides for the common defence, nor pro- motes the general welfare, nor secures the blessings of liberty to ourselves or our pos- terity ;" but on the contrary, puts in jeopardy all these inestimable blessings. It loosens the bonds of union, seeks to establish injustice, disturbs domestic tranquillity, weakens the common defence, and endangers the general welfare, by sowing hatreds and discords among our people, and puts in eminent peril the liberties of the white race, by whom and for whom the Constitution was made, in a vain effort to bring them down to an equality with the African, or to raise the African to an equality with them. Providence has ordered it otherwise, and vain will be the efforts of man to resist this decree. This effort is as wicked as it is foolish and unauthorized. It does not benefit, but injures the black race. Penning them up in the old states will neces- sarily make them more wretched and misera- ble, but will not strike a fetter from their limbs. It is a simple wrong to the white race, but it is the refinement of cruelty to the blacks. Expansion is as necessary to the in- creased comforts of the slave as to the pros- perity of the master. The constitutional construction of this point* by the South works no wrong to any portion of the republic, to no sound rules of construc- tion, and promotes the declared purposes of the Constitution. We simply propose that the common territories be left open to the common enjoyment of all the people of the United States, that they shall be protected in their persons and property by the federal govern- ment until its authority is superseded by a state constitution, and then we propose that the character of the domestic institutions of the new state be determined by the freemen thereof. This is justice — this is constitutional equality. But those who claim the power, in behalf of Congress, to exclude slavery from the com- mon territories, rely rather on precedent and authority, than upon principle, to support the pretension. In utter disregard of the facts, they boldly proclaim that Congress has, from the beginning of the government, uniformly asserted, and repeatedly exercised, this power. This assertion, I will proceed to show, is SLAVERY. 5/0 not supported by a single precedent up to 1820. Before that time the general duty to protect this great interest equally with every other, both in the territories and elsewhere, waeople, and they brought wisdom, experience, earning, and patriotism to the great work. They sought that system of government which would secure the greatest and most enduring happiness to the whole soicety. They incor- ? orated no Utopian theories into their system, 'hey did not so much concern themselves about what rights man might possibly have in a state of nature, as what rights he ought to have in a state of society : they dealt with po- litical rights as things of compact, not of birthright; in the concrete, and not in the abstract. They held and maintained, and in- corporated into their system, as fundamental truths, that it was the right and duty of the state to define and fix, as well as to protect and defend, the individual rights of each mem- ber of the social compact, and to treat all in- dividual rights as subordinate to the great interests of the whole society. Therefore they denied "natural equality," repudiated mere go- vernments of men necessarily resulting there- from, and established governments of laws — thirteen free, sovereign, and independent repub- lics. Avery slight examination of our state con- stitutions will show how little they regarded vague notions of abstract liberty, or natural equality in fixing the rights of the white race as well as the black. The elective franchise, the cardinal feature of our system, I have already • shown, was granted, withheld, or limited, ac- cording to their ideas of public policy and the ' interest of the state. Numerous restraints upon the supposed abstract right of a mere numerical majority to govern society in all cases, are to be found planted in all of our constitutions, state and federal, thus affir min g 37 this subordination of individual rights to the interest and safety of the state. The slaveholding states, acting upon these principles, finding the African race among them in slavery, unfit to be trusted with poli- tical power, incapable as freemen of securing their own happiness, or promoting the public prosperity, recognised their condition as slaves, and subjected it to legal control. There are abundant means of obtaining evidence of the effects of this policy on the slave and society, accessible to all who seek the truth. We say its wisdom is vindicated by its results, and that under it the African in the slaveholding states is found in a better position than he has ever attained in any other age or country, whether in bondage or freedom. In support of this point, I propose to trace him rapidly from his earliest history to the present time. The monuments of the ancient Egyptians carry him back to the morning of time — older than the pyramids ; they furnish the evidence both of his national identity and his social degradation before history began. We first behold him a slave in foreign lands ; we then find the great body of his race slaves in their native land ; and after thirty centuries, illu- minated by both ancient and modern civiliza- tion, have passed over him, we still find him a slave of savage masters, as incapable as himself of even attempting a single step in civilization ; we find him there still, without government, or laws, or protection ; without letters, or arts, or industry ; without religion, or even the aspirations which would raise him to the rank of an idolater, and in his lowest type, his almost only mark of humanity is, that he walks erect in the image of the Crea- tor. Annihilate his race to-day, and you will find no trace of his existence within half a score of years, and he would not leave be- hind him a single discovery, invention, or thought worthy of remembrance by the human family. In the eastern hemisphere he has been found in all ages scattered among the nations of every degree of civilization, yet inferior to them all, always in a servile condition. Very soon after the discovery and settlement of America, the policy of the Christian world bought large numbers of these people of their savage masters and countrymen, and imported them into the Western world. Here we are enabled to view them under different and far more favorable conditions. In Hayti, by the encouragement of the French government, after a long probation of slavery, they became free, and, led on by the conduct and valor of the mixed races, and by the aid of overwhelming numbers, they massacred the small number of whites who inhabited the island, and succeeded to the undisputed sway of the fairest and best of all the West India islands, under the highest state of cultivation. Their condition in Hayti left nothing to be desired for the most favora- ble experiment of the race in self-government and civilization. This experiment has now been tested for sixty years, and its results are 578 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. befure the world. Fanaticism may palliate but cannot conceal the utter prostration of the race. A war of races began the very moment the fear of foreign subjugation ceased, and resulted in the extermination of the greater number of the mulattoes, who had rescued the African from the dominion of the white race. Revolutions, tumults, and disorders, have been the ordinary pastime of the emancipated blacks ; industry has almost ceased, and their stock of civilization acquired in slavery has been already nearly exhausted, and they are now scarcely distinguished from the tribes from which they were torn in their native land. More recently the same experiment has been tried in Jamaica, under the auspices of Eng- land. This was one of the most beautiful, pro- ductive, and prosperous of the British colonial possessions. In 1838, England, following the false theories of her own abolitionists, pro- claimed total emancipation of the black race in Jamaica. Her arms and her power have watched over and protected them ; not only the interest, but the absolute necessities of the white proprietors of the land compelled them to offer every inducement and stimulant to in- dustry ; yet the experiment stands before the world a confessed failure. Ruin has over- whelmed the proprietors ; and the negro, true to the instincts of his nature, buries himself in filth, and sloth, and crime. Here we can compare the African with himself in both con- ditions, in freedom and in bondage ; and we can compare him with his race in the same climate, and following the same pursuits. Compare him with himself under the two dif- ferent conditions in Hayti and Jamaica, or with his race in bondage in Cuba, and every comparison demonstrates the folly of his eman- cipation. In the United States, too, we have peculiar opportunities of studying the African race under different conditions. Here we find him in slavery ; here we find him also a free man in both the slaveholding and non-slave- holding states. The best specimen of the free black is to be found in the southern states, in the closest contact with slavery, and subject to many of its restraints. Upon the theory of the anti-slavery men, the most favorable condition in which you can view the African ought to be in the non-slaveholding states of this Union. There we ought to expect to find him display- ing all the capabilities of his race for improve- ment and progress — in a temperate climate, with the road of progress open before him, among an active, industrious, ingenious, and educated people, surrounded by sympathiz- ing friends, and mild, just, and equal insti- tutions ; if he fails here, surely it can be chargeable to nothing but himself. He has had seventy years in which to cleanse himself and his race from the leprosy of slavery; yet what is his condition here to-day? He is free: he is lord of himself; but he finds it is truly a " heritage of woe." After this seventy years of education and probation among them- selves, his inferiority stands as fully a con- fessed fact in the non-slaveholding as in the slaveholding states. By them he is adjudged unfit to enjoy the rights and perform the duties of citizenship — denied social equality by an irreversible law of nature, and political rights by municipal law, incapable of maintaining the unequal struggle with the superior race ; the melancholy history of his career of freedom is here most usually found in the records of criminal courts, jails, poor-houses, and peni- tentiaries. These facts have had themselves recognised in themost decisive manner through- out the northern states. No town, or city, or state encourages their immigration ; many of them discourages it by legislation ; eome of the non-slaveholding states have prohibited their entry into their borders under any cir- cumstances whatever. Thus, it seems, this great fact of "inferiority" of the race is equally admitted everywhere in our country. The northern states admit it, and to rid themselves of the burden, inflict the most cruel injuries upon an unhappy race ; they expel them from their borders, and drive them out of their boundaries, as wanderers and outcasts. The result of this policy is everywhere apparent; the statistics of population supply the evidence of their condition. In the non-slaveholding states their annual increase, during the ten years pre- ceding the last census, was but a little over one per cent, per annum, even with the addi- tions of the emancipated slaves and fugitives from labor from the South, clearly proving that in this, their most favored condition, when left to themselves, they are scarcely capable of maintaining their existence, and with the prospect of a denser population and a greater competition for employment consequent there- on, they are in danger of extinction. The southern states, acting upon the same admitted facts, treat them differently. They keep them in the subordinate condition in which they found them ; protect them against themselves, and compel them to contribute to their own and the public interests and wel- fare ; and under this system, we appeal to facts, open to all men, to prove that the Afri- can race has attained a higher degree of com- fort and happiness than his race has ever before attained in any other age or country. Our political system gives the slave great and valu- able rights. His life is equally protected with that of his master : his person is secure from assaults against all others except his master ; and his master's power, in this respect, is placed under salutary legal restraints. He is entitled, by law, to a home,, to ample food and clothing, and exempted from " excessive" labor ; and when no longer capable of labor, in old age and disease, he is a legal charge upon his master. His family, old and young, whether capable of labor or not, from the cradle to the grave, have the same legal rights ; and in these legal provisions, they enjoy as large a proportion of the products of their labor as any class of unskilled hired laborers in the world. We know that these rights are, in the main, faithfully secured to them ; but I rely not on our knowledge, but submit oxir in- SLAVERY. 573 stitutions to the same tests by which we try those of other countries. These are supplied by our public statistics. They show_ that our 6laves are larger consumers of animal food than any population in Europe, and larger than any other laboring population in the United States ; and that their natural increase is equal to that of any other people. These are true and undisputable tests that their physical comforts are amply secured. In 1790 there were less than seven hundred thousand slaves in the United States ; in 1850 the number exceeded three and one quarter millions. The same authority shows their increase, for the ten years preceding the last census, to have been above twenty-eight per cent., or nearly three per cent, per annum, an increase equal, allowing for the element of foreign immigration, to the white race, and nearly three times that of the free blacks of the North. But these legal rights of the slave embrace but a small portion of the privileges actually enjoyed by him. He has, by univer- sal custom, the control of much of his own time, which is applied, at his own choice and convenience, to the mechanic arts, to agricul- ture, or to some other profitable pursuit, which not only gives him the power of pur- chase over many additional necessaries of life. but over many of its luxuries, and in numer- ous cases, enables him to purchase his freedom when he desires it. Besides, the nature of the relation of master and slave begets kind- nesses, imposes duties (and secures their per- formance), which exist in no other relation of capital and labor. Interest and humanity co- operate in harmony for the well-being of slave labor. Thus the monster objection to our in- stitution of slavery, that it deprives labor of its wages, cannot stand the test of a truthful investigation. A slight examination of the true theory of wages, will further expose its fallacy. Under a system of free labor, wages are usually paid in money, the representative of products — under ours, in products them- selves. One of your most distinguished states- men and patriots, President John Adams, said that the difference to the state was " imagi- nary." " What matters it (said he) whether a landloi-d, employing ten laborers on his farm, gives them annually as much money as will buy them the necessaries of life, or gives them those necessaries at short hand?" All experience has shown that if that be the mea- sure of the wages of labor, it is safer for the laborer to take his wages in products than in their fluctuating pecuniary value. Therefore, if we pay in the necessaries and comforts of life more than any given amount of pecuniary wages will buy, then our laborer is paid nigher than the laborer who receives that amount of wages. The most authentic agri- cultural statistics of England show that the wages of agricultural and unskilled labor in that kingdom, not only fails to furnish the la- borer with the comforts of our slave, but even with the necessaries of life; and no slaveholder could escape a conviction for cruelty to his slaves who gave his slave no more of the neces- saries of life for his labor than the wages paid to their agricultural laborers by the noblemen and gentlemen of England would buy. Under their system man has become less valuable and less cared for than domestic animals ; and noble dukes will depopulate whole districts of men to supply their places with sheep, and then with intrepid audacity lecture and de- nounce American slaveholders. The great conflict between labor and capi- tal, under free competition, has ever been how the earnings of labor shall be divided between them. In new and sparsely settled countries, where land is cheap, and food is easily pro- duced, and education and intelligence approxi- mate equality, labor can successfully struggle in this warfare with capital. But this is an exceptional and temporary condition of society. In the Old World this state of things has long since passed away, and the conflict with the lower grades of labor has long since ceased. There the compensation of unskilled labor, which first succumbs to capital, is reduced to a point scarcely adequate to the continuance of the race. The rate of increase is scarcely one per cent, per annum, and even at that rate, population, until recently, was considered a curse ; in short, capital has become the master of labor, with all the benefits, without the natural burdens of the relation. In this division of the earnings of labor be- tween it and capital, the southern slave has a marked advantage over the English laborer, and is often equal to the free laborer of the North. Here again we are furnished with authentic data from which to reason. The census of 1850 shows that, on the cotton es- tates of the South, which is the chief branch of our agricultural industry, one-half of the arable lands are annually put under food crops. This half is usually wholly consumed on the farm by the laborers and necessary animals ; out of the other half must be paid all the necessary expenses of production, often including additional supplies of food beyond the produce of the land, which usually equals one-third of the residue, leaving but one-third for net rent. The average rent of land in the older non-slavehohling states is equal to one- third of the gross product, and it_ not unfre- quently amounts to one-half of it (in England it is sometimes even greater), the tenant, from his portion, paying all expenses of production and the expenses of himself and family. From this statement it is apparent that the farm la- borers of the South receive always as much, and frequently a greater portion of the pro- duce of the land, than the laborer in the New or Old England. Besides, here the portion due the slave is a charge upon the whole pro- duct of capital and the capital itself; it is neither dependent upon seasons nor subject to accidents, and survives his own capacity for labor, and even the ruin of his master. But it is objected that religious instruction is denied the slave — while it is true that reli- gious instruction and privileges are not en-. 580 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. joined by law in all of the states, the number of slaves who are in connexion with the differ- ent churches abundantly proves the univer- sality of their enjoyment of those privileges. Vnd a much larger number of the race in slavery enjoy the consolations of religion than the efforts of the combined Christian world have been able to convert to Christianity out of all the millions of their countrymen who remained in their native land. The immoralities of the slaves, and of those connected with slavery, are constant themes of abolition denunciation. They are lament- ably great ; but it remains to be shown that they are greater than with the laboring poor of England, or any other country. And it is shown that our slaves are without the addi- tional stimulant of want to drive them to crime — we have at least removed from them the temptation and excuse of hunger. Poor human nature is here at least spared the wretched fate of the utter prostration of its moral nature at the feet of its physical wants. Lord Ashley's report to the British Parliament shows that in the capital of that empire, per- haps within the hearing of Stafford House and Exeter Hall, hunger alone daily drives its thousands of men and women into the abyss of crime. It is also objected that our slaves are de- barred the benefits of education. This objec- tion is also well taken, and is not without force. And for this evil the slaves are greatly indebted to the abolitionists. Formerly in none of the slaveholding states was it forbidden to teach slaves to read and write ; but the character of the literature sought to be fur- nished them by the abolitionists caused these states to take counsel rather of their passions than their reason, and to lay the axe at the root of the evil ; better counsels will in time prevail, and this will be remedied. It is true that the slave, from his protected position, has less need of education than the free laborer, who has to struggle for himself in the warfare of society ; yet it is both useful to him, his master, and society. The want of legal protection to the marriage relation is also a fruitful source of agitation among the opponents of slavery. The com- plaint is not without foundation. This is an evil not yet removed by law ; but marriage is not inconsistent with the institution of slavery as it exists among us, and the objection, there- fore, lies rather to an incident than to the essence of the system. But in the truth and fact marriage does exist to a very great extent among slaves, and is encouraged and protected by their owners ; and it will be found, upon careful investigation, that fewer children are born out of wedlock among slaves than in the capitals of two of the most civilized countries of Europe — Austria and France: in the former, one-half of the children are thus born ; in the latter, more than one-fourth. But even in this we have deprived the slave of no pre-existing right. Wo found the race without' any know- ledge of or regard for the institution of mar- riage, and we are reproached with not having as yet secured to it that, with all other bless- ings of civilization. To protect that and other domestic ties by laws forbidding, under proper regulations, the separation of families, would be wise, proper, and humane ; and some of the slaveholding states have already adopted partial legislation for the removal of these evils. But the objection is far more formida- ble in theory than in practice. The accidents and necessities of life, the desire to better one's condition, produce infinitely a greater amount of separation in families of the white than ever happens to the colored race. This is true even in the United States, where the general condition of the people is prosperous. But it is still more marked in Europe. The injustice and despotism of England towards Ireland has produced more separation of Irish families, and sundered more domestic ties within the last ten years, than African slavery has effected since its introduction into the United States. The twenty millions of free- men in the United States are witnesses of the dispersive injustice of the Old "World. The general happiness, cheerfulness, and content- ment of slaves attest both the mildness and humanity of the system and their natural adaptation to their condition. They require no standing armies to enforce their obedience ; while the evidence of discontent, and the ap- pliances of force to repress it, are everywhere visible among the toiling millions of the earth ; even in the northern states of this Union, strikes and mobs, unions and combinations against employers, attest at once the misery and discontent of labor among them. England keeps one hundred thousand soldiers in time of peace, a large navy, and an innumerable police, to secure obedience to her social insti- tutions ; and physical force is the sole gua- rantee of her social order, the only cement of her gigantic empire. I have briefly traced the condition of the African race through all ages and all countries, and described it fairly and truly under Ame- rican slavery, and I submit that the proposi- tion is fully proven, that his position in sla- very among us is superior to any which he has ever attained in any age or country. The picture is not without shade as well as light: evils and imperfections cling to man and all of his works, and this is not exempt from them. The condition of the slave offers great opportunities for abuse, and these opportuni- ties are frequently used to violate humanity and justice. But the laws restrain these abuses and punish these crimes in this as well as other relations of life, and they who assume it as a fundamental principle in the constitu- tion of man, that abuse is the unvarying con- comitant of power and crime of opportunity, subvert the foundations of all private morals and of every social system. Nowhere do these assumptions find a nobler refutation than in the general treatment of the African race by Southern slaveholders ; and we may, with hope and confidence, safely leave to them the SLAVERY. 581 removal of existing abuses, and the adoption of such further ameliorations as may be de- manded by justice and humanity. The con- dition of the African (whatever may be his interests) may not be permanent among us ; he may find his exodus in the unvarying laws of population. Under the conditions of labor in England and the continent of Europe, domestic slavery is impossible there, and could not exist here, or anywhere else. The mo- ment wages descend to a point barely sufficient to support the laborer and his family, capital cannot afford to own labor, and it must cease. Slavery ceased in England in obedience to this law, and not from any regard to liberty or humanity. The increase of population in this country may produce the same results, and American slavery, like that of England, may find its euthanasia in the general prostration of all labor. The next aspect in which I propose to ex- amine this question is, its effects upon the material interests of the slaveholding states. Thirty years ago slavery was assailed, mainly on the ground that it was a dear, wasteful, unprofitable labor, and we were urged to emancipate the blacks, in order to make them more useful and productive members of so- ciety. The result of the experiment in the West Indi*, islands, to which I have before referred, not only disproved, but utterly anni- hilated this theory. The theory was true as to the white race, and was not true as to the black ; and this single fact made thoughtful men pause and ponder, before advancing further with this folly of abolition. An inquiry into the wealth and productions of the slaveholding states of this Union demonstrates that slave labor can be economically and profitably em- ployed, at least in agriculture, and leaves the question in great doubt, whether it cannot be thus employed in the South more advantage- ously than any other description of labor. The same truth will be made manifest by a comparison of the production of Cuba and Brazil, not only with Hayti and Jamaica, but with the free races, in similar latitudes, en- gaged in the same or similar productions in any part of the world. The slaveholding states, with one-half of the white population and between three and four millions of slaves, furnish above three-fifths of the annual ex- ports of the republic, containing twenty-three millions of people ; and their entire products, including every branch of industry, greatly exceed per capita those of the more populous northern states. The difference in realized wealth in proportion to population is not less remarkable and equally favorable to the slave- holding state. But this is not a fair compari- son ; on the contrary, it is exceedingly unfair to the slaveholding states. The question of material advantage would be settled on the side of slavery, whenever it was shown that our mixed society was more productive and prosperous than any other mixed society with the inferior race free instead of slave. The question is not whether we could not be more prosperous and happy with these three and a half millions of slaves in Africa, and their places filled with an equal number of hardy intelligent enterprising citizens of the superior race, but it is simply whether, while we have them among us, we would be most prosperous with them in freedom or bondage ; with this bare statement of the true issue, I can safely leave the question to the facts already hereto- fore referred to, and to those disclosed in the late census. But the truth itself needs some explanation, as it seems to be a great mystery to the opponents of slavery, how the system is capable at the same time of increasing the comforts and happiness of the slave, the profits of the master, and do no violence to humanity. Its solution rests upon very obvious principles. In this relation the labor of the country is unit- ed with and protected by its capital, directed by the educated and the intelligent, secured against its own weakness, waste, and folly, associated in such form as to give the greatest efficiency in production, and the least cost of maintenance. Each individual free black la- borer is the victim, not onlv jf his own folly and extravagance, but of his ignorance, mis- fortunes, and necessities. His isolation en- larges his expenses, without increasing his comforts ; his want of capital increases the price of everything he buys, disables him from supplying his wants at favorable times, or on advantageous terms, and throws him into the hands of retailers and extortioners. But labor united with capital, direeted by skill, forecast, and intelligence, while it is capable of its highest production, is freed from all these evils, leaves a margin both for increased com- forts to the laborer and additional profits to capital. This is the explanation of the seem- ing; paradox. The opponents of slavery, passing by the question of material interests, insist that its effects on the society where it exists is to de- moralize and enervate it, and render it inca- pable of advancement and a high civilization ; and upon the citizen to debase him morally and intellectually. Such is not the lesson taught by history, either sacred or profane, nor the experience of the past or present. To the Hebrew race were committed the oracles of the Most High ; slaveholding priests administered at his altar, and slaveholding prophets and patriarchs received his revela- tions and taught them to their own and trans- mitted them to all future generations of men. The highest forms of ancient civilization, and the noblest development of the individual man, are to be found in the ancient slavehold- ing commonwealths of Greece and Rome. In eloquence, in rhetoric, in poetry and painting, in architecture and sculpture, you must still go and search amid the wreck aifd ruins of their genius for the " pride of every model and the perfection of every master," and the language and literature of both, stamped with immortality, passes on to mingle itself with the thought and the speech of all lands and all centuries. Time will not allow me to 582 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. multiply illustrations. That domestic slavery neither enfeebles nor deteriorates our race, that it is not inconsistent with the highest advancement of man and society, is the lesson taught by all ancient and confirmed by all modern history. Its effects in strengthening the attachment of the dominant race to liberty, was eloquently expressed by Mr. Burke, the most accomplished and philosophical states- man England ever produced. In his speech on conciliation with America, he uses the fol- lowing strong language : " Where this is the case, those who are free are by far the most proud and jealous of their freedom. I cannot alter the nature of man. The fact is so, and these people of the southern colonies are much more strongly, and with a higher and more stubborn spirit, attached to liberty than those to the northward. Such were all the ancient commonwealths, such were our Gothic ances- tors, and such in our day were the Poles, such will be all masters of slaves who are not slaves themselves. In such a people the haughtiness of domination combines itself with the spirit of freedom, fortifies it, and renders it invin- cible." No stronger evidence of what progress so- ciety may make with domestic slavery can be desired, than that which the present condition of the slaveholding states present. For near twenty years, foreign and domestic enemies of their institutions have labored by pen and speech to excite discontent among the white race, and insurrections among the black. These efforts have shaken the national government to its foundations, and bursted the bonds of Christian unity among the churches of the land ; yet the objects of their attacks — these states — have scarcely felt the shock. In sur- veying the whole civilized world, the eye rests not on a single spot where all classes of society are so well content with their social system, or have greater reason to be so, than in the slaveholding states of this Union. Stability, progress, order, peace, content, prosperity, reign throughout our borders. Not a single soldier is to be found in our widely-extended domain to overawe or protect society. The desire for organic change nowhere manifests itself. Within less than seventy years, out of five feeble colonies, with less than one and a half millions of inhabitants, have emerged fourteen republican states, containing nearly ten millions of inhabitants, rich, powerful, educated, moral, refined, prosperous, and hap- py ; each with republican governments ade- quate to the protection of public liberty and private rights, which are cheerfully obeyed, supported, and upheld by all classes of society. With a noble system of internal improvements f»enetrating almost every neighborhood, stimu- ating and Rewarding the industry of our peo- ple ; with moral and intellectual surpassing physical improvements; with churches, school- houses, and colleges daily multiplying through- out the land, bringing education and religious instruction to the homes of all the people, they may safely challenge the admiration of the civilized world. None of this great improve- ment and progress have been even aided by the federal government ; we have neither sought from it protection for our private pursuits, nor appropriations for our public improvements. They have been effected by the unaided indi- vidual efforts of an enlightened, moral, ener- getic, and religious people. Such is our social system, and such our condition under it. Ita political wisdom is vindicated in its effects on society ; its morality by the practices of the patriarchs and the teachings of the apostles ; we submit it to the judgment of mankind, with the firm conviction that the adoption of no other system under our circumstances would have exhibited the individual man, bond or free, in a higher development, or so ciety in a happier civilization. "A movement of this sort cannot be con- templated by us in silence. Such an attempt upon any neighboring country would neces- sarily be viewed by this government with very deep concern, but where it is made upon a nation whose territories form the slavehold- ing states of our Union, it awakens a still more solemn interest. It cannot be permitted to succeed without the most strenuous efforts on our part to arrest a calamity so serious tc every part of the country. # ****** " But there is another view of this subject still more important to us, and scarcely less important to Texas herself. The establish- ment, in the very midst of our slaveholding states, of an independent government, forbid- ding the existence of slavery, and by a people born for the most part among us, reared up in our habits, and speaking our language, could not fail to produce the most unhappy effects upon both parties. If Texas were in that condition, her territory would afford a ready refuge for the fugitive slaves of Louisi- ana and Arkansas, and would hold out to them an encouragement to run away, which no municipal regulations of those states could possibly counteract." — Mr. Upshur of Va., in regard to the movement in Texas. " Slavery, gentlemen, older in other countries also, than the records of human society, existed in America at the date of its discovery. The first slaves of the European, were natives of the soil : and a Puritan governor of Massachu- setts, founder of the family of Winthrop, oequeathed his soul to God, and his Indian slaves to the lawful heirs of his body. Negro slavery was introduced into Hispaniola in 1501 : more than a century before the coloniza- tion of America by the English. Massachu- setts, by express enactment in 1641 punishing ' manstealing' with death : — and it is so pun- ished to this day under the laws of the United States — legalized yet the enslaving of captives taken in war, and of such ' strangers/ foreign- ers, as should be acquired by purchase: while confederate New England two years later, pro- viding for the equitable division of lands, gooda SLAVERY. 583 and 'persons,' as equally a part of the ' spoils' of war, enacted also the first fugitive slave law in America. White slaves — convicts and pau- pers some of them ; others at a later day, prisoners taken at the battles of Dunbar and Worcester, and of Sedgemoor — were at the first, employed in Virginia and the British West Indies. Bought in England by English ' dealers, among whom was the queen of James II., with many of his nobles and courtiers, some of them perhaps of the house of Suther- land ; they were imported and sold at auction to the highest bidder. In 1620, a Dutch man- of-war first landed a cargo of slaves upon the banks of James River. But the earliest slave ship belonging to English colonists, was fitted out in 1645, by a member of the Puritan church of Boston. Fostered still by English Erinces and nobles : confirmed and cherished y British legislation and judicial decisions, even against the wishes and in spite of* the remonstrances of the Colonies, the traffic increased ; slaves multiplied, and on the Fourth of July, 1776, every colony was now become a slave state ; and the sun went down that day upon four hundred and fifty thousand of those who in the cant of eighty years later, are styled ' human chattels,' but who were not by the act of that day emancipated. " Eleven years afterwards, delegates assem- bling at Philadelphia, from every state except Rhode Island, ignoring the question of the sinfulness and immorality of slavery, as a subject with which they as the representatives of separate and independent states had no concern, founded a union and framed a consti- tution, which leaving with each state the exclusive control and regulation of its own domestic institutions, and providing for the taxation and representation of slaves, gave no right to Congress to debate or to legislate concerning slavery in the states or territories, except for the interdiction of the slave trade and the extradition of fugitive slaves. The Plan of Union proposed by Franklin in 1754, had contained no allusion even to slavery ; and the Articles of Confederation of 1778, but a simple recognition of its existence— so wholly was it regarded then, a domestic and local concern. In 1787 every state, except perhaps Massachusetts, tolerated slavery either abso- lutely or conditionally. — But the number of slaves north of Maryland, never great, was even yet comparatively small ; not exceeding forty thousand in a total slave population of six hundred thousand. In the North, chief carrier of slaves to others even as late as 1807, slavery never took firm root. Nature warred against it in that latitude ; otherwise every Btate in the Union would have been a slave- holding state to this day. It was not profitable there ; and it died out — lingering indeed in New York till July 1827. It died out : but not so much by the manumission of slaves, as by their transportation and sale in the South: and thus New England, sir, turned an honest penny with her left hand, and with her right, modestly wrote herself down in history, as both generous and just. " In the South, gentlemen, all this was pre- cisely reversed. The earliest and most reso- lute enemies to slavery, were Southern men. But climate had fastened the institution upon them ; and they found no way to strike it down. From the beginning, indeed, the Southern colonies especially had resisted the introduction of African slaves ; and at the very outset of the revolution, Virginia and North Carolina interdicted the slave trade. The Continental Congress soon after, on the sixth of April, 1776, three months earlier than the Declaration of Independence, resolved that no more slaves ought to be imported into the thirteen colonies. Jefferson, in his draught of the Declaration, had denounced the King of England alike for encouraging the slave trade, and for fomenting servile insurrection in the provinces. Ten years later, he boldly at- tacked slavery in his " Notes on Virginia ;" and in the Congress of the Confederation, prior to the adoption of the Constitution, with its solemn compacts and compromises upon the subject of slavery, proposed to exclude it from the territory northwest the river Ohio. Colonel Mason of Virginia vehemently condemned it, in the convention of 1787. Nevertheless it had already become manifest that slavery must soon die away in the North, but in the South continue and harden into perhaps a permanent, uneradicable system. Hostile in- terests and jealousies sprang up, therefore, in bitterness even in the convention. But the blood of the patriot brothers of Carolina and Massachusetts smoked yet upon the battle fields of the revolution. The recollection of their kindred language, and common dangers and sufferings, burned still fresh in their hearts. Patriotism proved more powerful than jealousy, and good sense stronger than fanaticism. There were no Sewards, no Hales, no Sumners, no Greeleys, no Parkers, nc Chase, in that convention. There was a Wil- son ; but he rejoiced not in the name of Hen- ry ; and he was a Scotchman. There was a clergyman — no, not in the convention of '87, but in the Congress of '76 ; but it was the de- vout, the learned, the pious, the patriotic Witherspoon ; of foreign birth also, a native of Scotland, too. The men of that day and gen- eration, sir, were content to leave the ques- tion of slavery just where it belonged. It did not occur to them, that each one among them was accountable for ' the sin of slave- holding' in his fellow; and that to ease his tender conscience of the burden, all the fruits of revolutionarj' privation and blood and trea sure ; all the recollections of the past ; all the hopes of the future : nay the Union, and with it, domestic tranquillity and national indepen- dence, ought to be offered up as a sacrifice. They were content to deal with political ques- tions ; and to leave cases of conscience to the church and the schools, or to the individual man. And accordingly to this Union and 084 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Constitution, based upon these compromises — execrated now as • covenants with death and leagues with hell' — every state acceded : and upon these foundations, thus broad, and deep, and stable, a political superstructure has, as if by magic, arisen, which in symmetry and pro- portion — and, if we would but be true to our trust, in strength and durability — finds no pa- rallel in the world's history. " Patriotic sentiments, sir, such as marked the era of '89, continued to guide the statesmen and people of the country for more than thirty years, full of prosperity ; till in a dead politi- cal calm, consequent upon temporary extin- guishment of the ancient party lines and issues, the Missouri Question resounded through the land with the hollow moan of the earthquake, shook the pillars of the republic even to their deep foundations. "Within these thirty years, gentlemen, slave- ry as a system, had been abolished by law or disuse, quietly and without agitation, in every state north of Mason and Dixon's line — in many of them, lingering, indeed, in individual cases, so late as the census of 1840. But ex- cept in half a score of instances, the question had not been obtruded upon Congress. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 had been passed without opposition and without a division, in the Senate ; and by a vote of forty-eight to seven, in the House. The slave trade had been declared piracy punishable with death. Re- spectful petitions from the Quakers of Penn- sylvania, and others, upon the slavery ques- tion, were referred to a committee, and a report made thereon, which laid the matter at rest. Other petitions afterwards were quietly rejected, and, in one instance, returned to the fjetitioner. Louisiana and Florida, both slave- lolding countries, had without agitation been added to our territory. Kentucky, Tennes- see, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, slave states each one of them, had been ad- mitted into the Union, without a murmur. No Missouri Restriction, no Wilmot Proviso had as yet reared its discordant front to ter- rify and confound. Non-intervention was then both the practice and the doctrine of the statesmen and people of that period : though, as yet, ho hollow platform enunciated it as an article of faith, from which, nevertheless, obe- dience might be withheld, and the platform 'spit upon/ provided the tender conscience of the recusant did not forbid him to support the candidate and help to secure the 'spoils.' " I know, sir, that it is easy, very easy, to de- nounce all this as a defence of slavery itself. Be it so : be it so. But I have not discussed the institution in any respect ; moral, religious, or political. Hear me. I express no opinion in regard to it: and us a citizen of the North, I have ever refused, and will steadily refuse, to discuss the system in any of these particulars. It is precisely this continued and persistent discussion and denunciation in the North, which has brought upon us this present most perilous crisis : since to teach men to hate, is to prepare them to destroy, at every hazard, the object of their hatred. Sir, I am resolved only to look upon slavery outside of Ohio, just- as the founders of the constitution and Union regarded it. It is no concern of mine ; none, none : nor of yours, Abolitionist. Neither of us will attain heaven, by denunciations of sla- very : nor shall we, I trow, be cast into hell for the sin of others who may hold slaves. I have not so learned the moral government of the universe : nor do I presumptuously and impiously aspire to the attributes of Godhead ; and seek to bear upon my poor body, the iniqui- ties of the world. " I know well indeed, Mr. President, that in the evil day which has befallen us, all this and he who utters it, shall be denounced as ' pro- slavery ;' and already from ribald throats, there comes up the slavering, drivelling, idiot epithet of ' dough-face.' Again, be it so. These, Abolitionist, are your only weapons of warfare : and I hurl them back defiantly into your teeth. I speak thus boldly, because I speak in and to and for the North. It is time that the truth should be known, and heard, in this the age of trimming and subterfuge. I speak this day not as a northern man, nor a southern man ; but, God be thanked, still as a United States man, with United States princi- ples ; — and though the worst happen which can happen — though all be lost, if that shall be our fate ; and I walk through the valley of the shadow of political death, I will live by them and die by them. If to love my country ; to cherish the Union ; to revere the Constitu- tion : if to abhor the madness and hate the treason which would lift up a sacrilegious hand against either : if to read that in the past, to behold it in the present, to foresee it in the future of this land, which is of more value to us and the world for ages to come, than all the multi- plied millions who have inhabited Africa from the creation to this day : — if this it is to be pro- slavery, then, in every nerve, fibre, vein, bone, tendon, joint and ligament, from the topmost hair of the head to the last extremity of the foot, I am all o\ er and altogether a pro-sla- very man." — -Hon. C. L. Vallandigham, of Ohio, at Dayton, Oct. 29, 1855. " ' Is slavery never to disappear from the Union?' This is a startling and momentous question ; but the answer is easy, and the proof is clear. It will certainly disappear if Texas is reannexed to the Union — not by abolition, but slowly and gradually, by ' diffu- sion/ as it has already nearly receeded from several of the more northern of the slavehold ing states ; and as it will continue thus more rapidly to recede by the annexation of Texas, and finalby, in the distant future, without a shock, without abolition, without a convulsion, disappear into and through Texas into Mexico and Central and Southern America." — It. J. Walker, Governor of Kansas. " I can only say, there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it, (slavery ;) SLAVERY.— SLAVE TRADE, AFRICAN. 585 but there is only one proper and effectual mode in which it can he accomplished, and that is by legislative authority ; and this, so far as my suffrage will go, shall never he wanting." — General Washington. Slave Trade, African. Revival of. In the annual message of Governor Adams, of South Carolina, for the year 1856, he pro- ceeded to argue in favor of the reopening of the slave trade as follows : — " It is apprehended that the opening of this trade will lessen the value of slaves, and ulti- mately destroy the institution. It is a suffi- cient answer to point to the fact that unre- stricted immigration has not diminished the value of lahor in the northwestern confeder- acy. The cry there is the want of lahor, not- withstanding capital has the pauperism of the old world to press into the grinding service. If we cannot supply the demand for slave lahor, then we must expect to be supplied with a species of labor we do not want, and which is, from the very nature of things, antagonistic to our institutions. It is much better that our drays should be driven by slaves, that our factories should be worked by slaves, that our hotels should be served by slaves, that our locomotives should be manned by slaves, than that we should be exposed to the introduction from any quarter of a population alien to us by birth, training, and education, and which in the process of time must lead to that conflict between capital and labor ' which makes it so difficult to maintain free institutions in all wealthy and highly civilized nations where such institutions as ours do not exist.' In all slaveholding states true policy dictates that the superior race should direct, and the inferior perform all menial service. Competition be- tween the white and black man for this ser- vice may not disturb northern sensibility, but it does not exactly suit our latitude. " Irrespective, however, of interest, the act of Congress declaring the slave trade piracy is a brand upon us which I think it important to remove. If the trade be piracy, the slave must be plunder, and no ingenuity can avoid the logical necessity of such a conclusion. My hopes and fortunes are indissolubly associated with this form of society. I feel that I would be wanting in duty if I did not urge you to withdraw your assent to an act which is itself a direct condemnation of your institutions. But we have interests to enforce a course of self-respect. I believe, as I have already sta- ted, that more slaves are necessary to a con- tinuance of our monopoly in plantation pro- ducts. I believe that they are necessary to the full development of our whole round of agricultural and mechanical resources ; that they are necessary to the restoration of the South to an equality of power in the general government, perhaps to the very integrity of the slave society, disturbed as it has been by causes which have induced an undue propor- tion of the ruling raw. To us have been com- mitted the fortunes of this peculiar form of society resulting from the union of unequal races. It has vindicated its claim to the ap- probation of an enlightened humanity ; it hag civilized and christianized the African ; it haa exalted the white race itself to higher hopes and purposes, and it is perhaps of the most sacred obligation that we should give it the means of expansion, and that we should press ( it forward to a perpetuity of progress." In the House of Representatives of the United States, Monday, Dec. 15, 1856, Mr. Etheridge (Fillmore American), of Tenn., asked leave to introduce the following resolu- tion : — " Resolved. That this House of Representatives regard all suggestions and propositions of every kind, by whomsoever made, for a revival of the African slave trade, as shocking to the moral sentiment of the enlightened portion of man- kind ; and that any action on the part of Congress conniv- ing at or legalizing that horrid and inhuman traffic, would justly subject the Government and citizens of the United States to the reproach and execration of all civilized and Christian people throughout the world." Mr. Smith (Democrat), of Va., objected. Mr. Etheridge moved a suspension of the rules, which was carried — yeas 140, nays 53. During the pendency of these proceedings, the following remarks were made by mem- bers : — Mr. Walker. I do not design to enter mto debate, but only to ask the gentleman from Tennessee whether, if there is a suspension of the rules, and this resolution is received, it is his purpose to call the previous question with a view of cutting off debate upon the adoption of the resolution ? Mr. Etheridge. I will answer the gentle- man. The resolution, to my mind, contains a self-evident proposition. I presume there is no gentleman here who has not an opinion upon the question, and I do not wish to dis- cuss it. I shall move the previous question if I shall succeed in getting the floor. Mr. Jones of Tenn. I would ask my col- league if he cannot modify his resolution so as to leave out all his reasons, his argument, and his speech ? I say to my colleague that I am [loud cries of " Order \" " Order !"] as much opposed to opening the African slave trade as he is or any other man. [Cries of " Order I" " Order I"] The Speaker. Debate is not in order. Mr. Jones of Tenn. I do not intend to de- bate the matter, but I am not to be put down by my colleague. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. Orr. I give notice that, if the rules are suspended, I will oiler the following reso- lution as a substitute for that proposed by the gentleman from Tennessee : — "Resolved, That it is inexpedient to repeal the laws pro hibitiug the African slave trade." Mr. Purtear. Before I vote upon this question, I desire to ask the indulgence of the House to state that I am as much opposed to the revival of the slave trade as any gentleman upon this floor ; but I believe that this resolu- 586 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tion is intioduced out of place, and that this is not the time for it. I shall therefore vote against it. If the time shall ever arrive when my vote can affect the question, I shall vote against the revival of the slave trade. Mr. Smith of Va. In explanation of the vote which I shall give, I will say that I deem the revival of the slave trade as inexpedient ; but I think I understand the object in intro- ducing this resolution, and not concurring in that object, I shall vote "no." Mr. Zollicoffer. I desire to say that I am decidedly opposed to the reopening of the slave trade ; but as I do not perceive that any good can grow out of introducing that question here, 1 shall vote " no." Mr. Phelps. I am opposed to re-establish- ing the slave trade, and should vote against a bill which proposes to repeal the laws now prohibiting it. But I am against abstractions ; and as the message of Governor Adams of South Carolina is not before us, I record my vote in the negative. Mr. Burnett. I am as much opposed to reopening the slave trade as any man upon this floor ; but believing I fully understand the object of the gentleman who introduced the resolution, and that I can understand the inducements which have led him to present it at this time, I shall vote " no." Mr. Washburne of Me. I shall object to any explanations hereafter. Mr. Jewett. I would inquire of the Chair whether, if the rules are suspended, the first question will be upon the amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Orr], and then upon the resolution offered by the gentle- man from Tennessee ? The Speaker. The amendment of the gen- tleman from South Carolina has not been re- ceived. If the rules are suspended, the question will be first upon the resolution offered by the gentleman from Tennessee. Mr. Jewett. I vote " no." Mr. Barksdale. I am not in favor of re- opening the African slave trade. Mr. Washburne of Me. I object to debate. Mr. Barksdale. I do not believe that any gentleman upon this side of the House is. [" Order !" " Order !"] But I regard the reso- lution of the gentleman from Tennessee as ill- timed [renewed cries of " Order !"], out of place, thrown into the House as a firebrand [loud cries of " Order I" " Order !" and great confusion], and for the accomplishment of a party purpose. I therefore vote " no." Mr. Keitt. I wish to say that if I had been in the House— [cries of " Order !" " Or- der !"] The Speaker. The gentleman from South Carolina desires to state the manner in which he should have voted, had he been within the Hall when his name was called. That cour- tesy has never been refused to any member, and if the gentleman confines himself to that point, tlie Chair thinks he is in order. Mr. Keitt. I wish to say that had I been here when my name was called, I should have voted "no;" among other reasons — [loud cries of "Order!"] — because I consider the resolution as improper and irrelevant. What my views are upon the whole subject, I will express, when I can do so fully. Mr. Garnett stated that had he been within the Hall, when his name was called, he should have voted " no." Mr. Kelly stated that he should have voted " no," had he been in the House when his name was called. Mr. Greenwood (Dem.) of Ark. So far as I am advised, there is no gentleman on this side of the House who is in favor of reopening the African slave trade ; but I shall vote against the suspension of the rules. Mr. Orr. I ask the gentleman from Ten- nessee to let my resolution be introduced as an amendment to the one he has offered, so that the House may have the choice between them. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think with the gentle- man himself, that it is inexpedient to open the slave trade ; and, if he will consent to let my amendment be offered, I am confident there will be an almost unanimous vote of the House against the re-opening of that trade. Mr. Etheridge. If it were impossible for the gentleman to get in his resolution as I got mine, I would withdraw the call for the pre- vious question, and let his resolution come in ; but it is just as easy for him as it was for me to present his resolution, and, if objected to, to move a suspension of the rules for its intro- duction. [Cries of " Order !"] Mr. Jones of Tenn. I wish to ask my col league a question. Will he answer me ? Mr. Etheridge. I will. Mr. Jones. Does my colleague desire to have a fair expression of this House against the reopening of the slave trade ; or does he wish such an expression as will be offensive to his own friends and his own section of the country ? Mr. Barclay (Rep.) of Pa. I object to debate. Mr. McMullen (Democrat) of Ya. stated that he was opposed to reopening the slave trade ; but could not vote for the resolu- tion because of the terms in which it was couched. Mr. Millson. I ask to be excused from voting on the adoption of the resolution. If this were a measure of legislation, I would vote on the one side or the other. I am ready to vote for a resolution condemnatory of the slave trade on grounds of expediency, huma- nity, and morality. [Cries of " Order !"] I will not be half a minute. I wish to state the reasons for my request. The rule says : — " Every member who shall be in the House when the question is put shall give his vote, unless the House, fot special reason, shall excuse him." The Speaker. The previous question is or- dered, and the gentleman cannot debate the question. Mr. Millson. I do not ask to debate it ; I merely wish to give " the special reason" foi SLAVE TRADE, AFRICAN 587 my request to be excused from voting on the adoption of the resolution. A vote for or against the resolution will place me in a false position. There are parts and bearings of the resolution to which I have objection, and I cannot consistently vote for it ; while I am in favor of the general objects of the resolution, and am therefore unwilling to vote against it. For these reasons, like some of my colleagues, I desire to be excused from voting at all, as neither an affirmative nor a regative vote will represent me correctly. Mr. Eustis. Inasmuch as my friend from Tennessee [Mr. Etheridge] has seen fit to im- pose the gag-rule upon us, and as I desire to vote understandingly, I want to know from the chair whether I can have my reasons for giving the vote which I intend to give spread upon the record ? I vote against the resolu- tion, not that I am in favor of the revival of the slave trade, for I believe there is but one opinion upon this subject. I vote against it, because I look upon the resolution as uncalled for, as unwarranted, and " full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." [Cries of " Order !" " Order !"] Mr. Grow. I object. The Speaker. Debate is out of order. Mr. Florence. Mr. Speaker, there is not quite enough cheese on this "figure 4" to catch me. The attractive trap is not quite well enough baited, as beautifully gilded as it is, to be deceived by it. The real purpose to my mind is too apparent. I am quite as decidedly and as strongly opposed to reopen- ing the African slave trade as any one in this broad land, believing it to be contrary to the spirit of the age, and repulsive to the most acute and sensitive feelings of philanthropy and enlarged humanity ; but as I cannot see that any practical good is to result from an introduction of the subject here, or why the valuable time of this short session of Con- gress should be taken up either with the dis- cussion or agitation of it, in the form and manner in which the resolution offered by the gentleman from Tennessee presents it, I vote in the negative. Mr. Harris of 111. Is it in order to ex- plain the vote I give ? The Speaker. It is not. Mr. Harris of 111. I will vote, then, and I vote for all that part of the resolution which denounces the slave trade. [Cries of "Or- der !" " Order !"] Mr. McMullen. I ask to be excused from voting upon this unnecessary and nonsensical resolution. Mr. Sage. I move the gentleman be ex- cused. The motion was agreed to. Mr. Oliver of Mo. I am decidedly opposed to the revival of the African slave trade The Speaker. Debate is not in order. Mr. Oliver of Mo But upon this resolu- tion I vote " no." Mr. Orr. If I can get the floor, I shall The gentleman is not in give my opinions hereafter in the shape of a resolution. I vote " no." Mr. Savage. Mr. Speaker, I am very much opposed to voting on such a resolution as this, and before doing so address an inquiry to the Chair. I inquire of the Chair whether all declarations, resolutions, innuendoes, sugges- tions, and propositions, by whomsoever made, suggesting or intending that the present Con- gress will connive at or legalize the slave trade, are not dishonest, fraudulent, and false, and made for political effect ? The Speaker. order. Mr. Savage. I vote " no." Mr. Smith of Tenn. I am opposed to the renewal of the slave trade, but upon this re- solution I vote "no," because I believe the purpose of it is wrong. Mr. Smith of Va. stated that he was against the revival of the slave trade, and against the resolution, and therefore voted " no." Mr. Sneed. On this stump speech I vote " no." [Laughter.] Mr. Wright of Tenn. I am opposed to the policy of reopening the slave trade. The people whom I represent, and I believe I can say that nearly the whole of the people of Tennessee, are opposed to that policy. _ But whilst I am utterly opposed to that policy, I am also opposed to the resolution offered by my colleague, because, sir, I believe it has effected precisely the object which he intended it to have ; that was, sir, to open afresh and a"-ain a question which I hope will soon be banished from this hall; and to divide and distract a party to which he is bitterly opposed was another object of the resolution. This latter object he cannot effect, however much he may have desired it. Sir, I vote "no." [Cries of " Order !" frequently interrupted the remarks.] Mr. Zollicoffer. I would have preferred to have an opportunity to change the phraseology of the resolution ; but as no alternative is given to me but to vote for it or against it, to avoid misconstruction of my sentiments I will vote " ay." Mr. Cadwalader. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to enter my protest against that part of the resolution which mi°-ht, if unexplained, imply an assumption on the part of this House of a right to cen- sure a recent public act of the chief magis- trate of one of the states of the Union. I vote for the resolution. Mr. C. took his seat amid loud calls to order by the Speaker and by the House. Mr. McMullen. Some of my friends thought I desired to dodge this question by asking to be excused from voting. The Speaker. For what purpose does the gentleman rise ? Mr. McMullen. I rise for the purpose of voting, and I vote "no," against this dema- gogical resolution. 588 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. The resolution was then adopted, yeas 152, nays 57. The ayes and noes on this resolu- tion will be found in a tabular statement with that on Mr. Orr's resolution. Mr. Orr. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to offer the following resolution :— " Resolved, That it is inexpedient, unwise, and contrary to the settled policy of the United States, to repeal the laws prohibiting the African slave trade. Mr. Barclay (Republican) of Penn. objected. The rules were suspended, yeas 181, nays 10. The negative vote was as follows : — Nays.— Messrs. Barclay, Barksdale, Hendley S. Bennett, Brooks, Crawford, Day, Garnett, Quitman, Shorter, Walker. —10. Mr. Quitman. There are two words I should like to see stricken out of that resolution. The Speaker. That can be done only by unanimous consent. Mr. Orr. It is due to the gentleman from Mississippi to state, that if the rules be sus- pended I shall call for the previous question on the passage of the resolution. Mr. Quitman. I vote no, then, as the gentle- man from South Carolina is determined to call for the previous question. Mr. Keitt. I vote ay, on the suspension of the rules, out of compliment to my col- league ; but on the passage of the resolution I shall vote no. Mr. Florence. Inasmuch as this matter has been lugged in, not by this but by the other side of the House, I vote to suspend the rules, with a view to the introduction of the resolution of the gentleman from South Caro- lina. Mr. Caruthers said that if he had been within the bar when his name was called, he would have voted in the affirmative. Mr. Brooks. It is not in order to give the reasons for my vote ? The Speaker. It is not. Mr. Brooks. I vote in the negative. _ The question now being on the adoption of the resolution, Mr. Orr called for the previous question. Mr. Bovce. I have a substitute for my col- league's resolution, which I ask may be read for the information of the House. The reso- lution was read, as follows : — " Resolved, That the House of Representatives, expressing, as they believe, public opinion both North and South, are utterly opposed to the reopening of the slave trade." Mr. Quitman. I ask my friend from South Carolina to withdraw his call for the previous question, to enable me to offer an amendment to his resolution. I agree to the resolution, if the words, " contrary to the settled policy of the United States," be stricken out. I deem it improper to pronounce judgment on that point in advance! of discussion. Mr. Orr. I think the resolution is in the best shape as it is. If it docs not meet with gentlemen's approbation, they can frame other resolutions which will suit them, and present them to the House. I decline to withdraw the call for the previous question. Mr. Washburne of Me. I ask the gentle- man from South Carolina to withdraw the call for the previous question long enough for me to offer an amendment to his resolution. Mr. Orr. I ask the House to vote on the resolution as it is. I therefore respectfully decline to withdraw the call for the rrevious question. The resolution was then adopted, yeas 183, nays 8. The yeas and nays will be found in the tabular statement on the following page, as also those on Mr. Etheridge's resolution. Mr. Barksdale- stated that he could not vote for the resolution, regarding it too bivad in its terms. He would have voted for that proposed by the gentleman's colleague [Mr. Boyce] . Mr. Shorter. Mr. Speaker, the South has not applied to Congress to repeal the law pro- hibiting the foreign slave trade, and until she does so, I am opposed to any agitation of the question here. It may be unwise and inex- pedient to repeal existing laws on this subject, but I am not prepared to say what will, or will not, be the " settled policy" of the South in time to come. Without intending to say that I am in favor of reopening the slave trade, I vote against the resolution. Mr. Watkins. I have declined voting on the several resolutions relative to reopening the slave trade, because I have paired off with Mr. Watson. If I had been at liberty to vote, I should have voted in accordance with my views of the nationality of the subject. [Laughter.] Mr. Puryear stated that if he had been present when his name was called, he would have voted in the affirmative. Mr. Paine stated that if he had been within the bar when his name was called, he would have voted in the affirmative. Recapitulation of the votes. 109 Repub- licans, 24 Fillmore Americans, and 18 Demo- crats, voted for Mr. Etheridge's resolution, and 50 Democrats and 7 Fillmore Americans against it. 102 Republicans, 23 Fillmore Americans, and 58 Democrats, voted for Mr. Orr's resolu- tion, and 8 Democrats against it. Republicans in Roman, Fillmore Ameri- cans in small caps, Democrats in italics. The following Table presents at a glance the vote of the members of the House on the propositions respectively of Messrs. Etheridge and Orr. The members to whose names no vote is appended, did not vote on either reso- lution. SLAVE TRADE, AFRICAN. 589 MEMBERS' NAMES. Aiken of S. C. - AKERSOfMo. Albright of Ind. Allen of 1U. Allison of Pa. Bull of Ohio Barbour of la. - Barclay of Pa. Barksdnle of Miss. Bell of Texas Bennett of Miss. Bennett of N. Y. Benson of Me. - Billinghurst of Wis Bingham of Ohio Bishop of N. J. - Bliss of Ohio Bocock of Va. Bmuie of Md. Boyce of S. C. Bradshaw of Pa. Branch of N. C. Brenton of la. . Brooks of S. C. - Broom of Pa. Buffinton of Mass. Burlingame of Mass, Burnett of Ky. - Gidwalader of Pa. Campbell of Pa. Campbell of Ky. Campbell of Ohio Carlisle of Va. - Caruthers of Mo. Caskie of Va. Chaffee of Mass. ChildsofN. Y. - Clark of N. Y. - Clark of Conn. - Clawson of N. J. Clingman of N. C. Cobb of Ga. Cnbb of Ala. Colfax of Ind. Comins of Mass. Covode of Pa. Cos of Kv. - Cragin of N. H. - Ciaige of N. C. • Crawford of Ga. Cullen of Del. - Cumback of la. Danirell of Mass. Davidson of La. Davis of Md. Davis of 111. Davis of Mass. - Day of Ohio Dean of Conn. - Denver of Cal. - De Witt of Mass. Dick of Pa. Dickson of N. Y. Dodd of N. Y. . Dowdell of Ala. Dunn of Ind. Durfee of R. I. - Edie of Pa. Edmundson of Va. Edwards of N. Y. Elliott of Ky. Emrie of Ohio • English of Ind. - Etherldoe of Tenn. Eostis of La. Evans of Texas - Faulkner of Va. - Flagler of N. Y. Florence of Pa. - nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay nay yea yea yea yea yea yea nay nay yea yea nay yea yea yea nay yea yea nny yea nay nay yea yea yea yea nay nay yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea nay yea yea nay yea nay yea yea yea nay nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea memb ers' names. Foster of Ga. - Fuller of Pa. - Fuller of Me. - Garnett of Va. - Galloway of Ohio Giddings of Ohio Gilbert of N. Y. Goode of Va. Granger of N. Y. Greenwood of Ark. Grow of Pa. Hall of Iowa Hall of Mass - Harlan of Ohio Harris of Md. - Harris of 111. - Harris of Ala. - Harrison of Ohio Haven of N. Y. Herbert of Cal. Hickman of Pa. Hodges of Vt. - Hoffman of Md. Hoiloway of Ind. HortonofN. Y. Horton of Ohio Houston of Ala. Howard of Mich. Hughstonof N. Y. Jewett of Ky. Jones of Tenn. - Jones of Pa. Keitt of S. C. - Kelly of N. Y. - Kennett of Me. Kelsey of N. Y. Kidwell of Va. - King of N. Y. - Knapp of Mass. Knight of Pa. - Knowlton of Me. Knox of 111. Kunkel of Pa. • Lake of Miss. - Letcher of Va. . LeiterofOhio - Lindlet of Mo. - Lumpkin of Ga. Mace of Ind. A. K. Marshall of Ky H. Marshall of Ky. S. S. Marshall of 111 Matteson of N. Y. Maxwell of Fla. McCarty of N. Y. McMullen of Va. McQueen of S. C. Miller of N. Y. Miller of Ind. - Millson of Va. - Millward of Pa. Moore of Ohio - Morgan of N. Y. Morrill of Vt. - Morrison of 111. Mott of Ohio - Murray of N. Y. Nichols of Ohio Norton of HI. • Oliver of N. Y. - Oliver of Mo. Orr of S. C. Packer of Pa. - Paine of N. C. - Parker of N. Y. Pearce of Pa. • Feck of Mich. . PeltonofN. Y. Pennington of N. J. nay yea nay yea yea yea nay yea nay yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea nay nay yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay nay yea nay yea yea yea yea yea nay yea nay nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea ~U a yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea I yea I yea ' yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea MEMBERS' NAMES. Perry of Me. ... yea yea Pettitofla. - - - yea yea Phelps of Mo. ... nay yea Pike of N. H. ... yea yea Porter of Mo. ... yea yea Powell of Va. - - - nay yea Pringle of N. Y. - - yea yea Purviance of Pa. - - yea yea Purtear of N. C. - - yea Quitman of Miss. - - nay nay Keade of N. C. - Heady of Tenn. - - yea yea Kicaud of Md. --- yea yea Ritchie of Pa. ... yea yea Rivers of Tenn. - - yea yea Robbins of N. J. - - yea yea Roberts of Pa. - - - yea yea Robinson of Pa. - - yea yea Puffin of N. C. - - - nay yea Bust of Ark. ... Sabin of Vt. ... yea yea Sage of N. Y. - - - yea yea Sandidge of La. ktpp of Ohio ... yea yea Savage of Tenn. - - nay yea Scott of Ind. ... yea yea Seivard of Ga. ... Sherman of Ohio - - yea yea Shorter of Ala. - - - nay nay Simmons of N. Y. - yea yea Smith of Tenn. ... nay yea Smith of Ala. ... yea yea Smith of V a. ... nay| SNEEDofTenn. - - nny yea Spinner of N. Y. - - yen • yea Stanton of Ohio - - yea yea Stephens of Ga. - - nay yea .Stewart of Md. - Stranahan of N. Y. - - yea yea Swope of Ky. ... yea Talbott of Ky. ... nay yea TappanofN. H. - - yea yea Taylor of La. ... nay yea Thorington of Iowa - - yea yea Thurston of R. I. - - yea yea Todd of Pa. ... yea yea Trafton of Mass. ' - TRippEofGa. - - - nay yea Tyson of Pa.* ... yea Underwood of Ky. - . yea yea 1 'ail of N. J. - - - yea yea Valk of N. Y. - - - yea yea Wade of Ohio • - - yea yea Wakeman of N. Y. - - yea yea Walbridge of Mich. - - yea yea Walker of Ala. ... nay nay Waldron of Mich. • - yea yea Warner of Ga. ... nay yea Washburne of Wis. - - yea yea Washburne of 111. - - yea yea Washburne of Me. - - yea yea Watkins of Tenn. Watson of Ohio Welch of Conn. - - yea yea Wells of Wis. ... yea yea Wheeler of N. Y. - - yea yea Whitney of N. Y. - yea yea Williams of N. Y. - yea yea Winslow of N. C. - - nay yea Wood of Maine - - yea yea Woodruff of Conn. - - yea yea Woodworth of 111. - - yea yea Wright of Miss. - - nay nay Wright of Tenn. - - nay yea Zollicoffer of Tenn. - yea yea Yeas - 152 183 Nays - 57 8 * Mr. Tyson since supported Mr. Buchanan, wo THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. The lion. John A. Quitman, of Mississippi, in alluding to the reasons which induced his vote against the resolutions of Messrs. Orr and Etheridge, thus spoke on the 15th of Dec, 1856, in the House : — I voted against hoth resolutions ; and now take this first opportunity of stating the rea- sons of those votes. Both resolutions were, in my opinion, as objectionable in substance, as the mode of forcing a vote on them, under the pressure of the previous question, was im- proper. The prominent features in the pro- position of the member from Tennessee are its sinister expressions, and the intensely vir- tuous indignation manifested, not against the revival of the African slave trade, but against the wickedness of those who would have the hardihood to make suggestions or propositions in relation thereto ; and, as if to deter all good patriots from even harboring such sug- gestions, it invokes the reproach and execra- tion of " the civilized and Christian people throughout the world" upon the government and people of the United States should Con- gress, by any action, connive at or listen to such suggestions. It denounces thoughts, propositions, and opinions, on the assumption that they are shocking to the moral sentiment of mankind. Now, sir, I find in the written chart of the duties and powers of this House no authority to take charge of the public or private morals of the good people of the coun- try. It is a vain and pharisaical arrogance of superior virtue in us to assume such cen- sorship. I intend no personal disrespect when I say that this House, constituted as it is, is one of the last tribunals to which ques- tions of public morals or of private honor should be referred ; and yet, sir, the resolu- tion of the gentleman from Tennessee, if it sprang from any higher motive than that of entrapping political opponents, was a mere attempt to denounce as immoral and unchris- tian certain opinions known to be entertained by some of our fellow-citizens, and to invoke, in advance of any proposed action, horrid im- precations on the country should Congress in any way connive at such sentiments, by any political action. I surely do the gentleman no injustice when I say, that his object was not merely to obtain an expression of the opinion of this House against the African slave trade. He will hardly venture to say that that alone was his object. It went obvi- ously further. The studied phraseology in which the resolution is clothed, going to the very verge of parliamentary license, indicates the purpose of obtaining the influence of this House to put down and stifle opinions and propositions on subjects of legitimate inquiry, on the grounds that they are infamous and detestable. It is a precedent full of mischief and danger, which I regret especially to see introduced by a Southern man. Under it, what is to prevent the introduction of a reso- lution declaring the holding of slaves to be immoral, inhuman, and contrary to the spirit of Christianity ? Theie are probably some on this floor ready to present such a proposition, and, from the complexion of this House, I am not certain it would not pass, if propelled by the brute force of the previous question. I repeat, the precedent is dangerous, and, in my opinion, more pregnant of evil, than the " suggestions" so much condemned by the mover. I regret that it should have received the sanction of a single Democrat on this floor. Were we sitting as a board of censors upon the morality of practices affecting human hap- piness in general, I would desire to include in our censures the cooley trade, now practised by our refined and virtuous ally, England ; for, by that trade, white men, if I may so des- ignate the Chinese, are carried into the worst kind of slavery. I would wish also to embrace in our deprecations, the " shocking and un- christian" practice of immuring in the un- healthy and fetid prison rooms of a factory for eleven hours of the day, white children of both sexes, and of tender age, thereby de- stroying the health and elasticity of their bodies, and blunting and stupefying their in- tellects, by the constant employment of watch- ing the interminable whirling of the spinning- jenny. I protest, Mr. Speaker, against this House establishing any code of morals for the country ; but if we are to have one, let it be general. I was not at all surprised to see the gentle- man from Tennessee [Mr. Etheridge] refusing to suspend the previous question, at the re- quest of my friend from South Carolina [Mr. Orr], to enable the latter gentleman to offer an amendment, which would have brought the House to a direct vote, on the expediency of reviving the African slave trade ; but I was surprised, in the sequel, to find the gentleman from South Carolina refusing a similar privi- lege to me. After the passage of the obnox- ious resolution of the gentleman from Ten- nessee, my friend from South Carolina, with a view, no doubt, to put himself and friends right upon the journals, introduced a resolu- tion differing from that he had originally pro- posed as a substitute. The first proposition would have been acceptable to all of us ; the difference consisted in the addition of the words " and contrary to the settled policy of the United States." The previous question having been called on this resolution, I ap- pealed to the mover to permit an amendment, striking out the words " contrary to the settled policy of the United States," in order that I. and those acting with me, might unite upon his resolution ; but the gentleman refused to do for a political friend, that which he com- plained had not been accorded to him by a political opponent. This want of courtesy compels me to make some explanation. Mr. Orr. I did not complain of the refusal of the gentleman from Tennessee to let me offer an amendment to his resolution ; I merely requested that he would afford me an oppor- tunity so to do. Mr. Qcitman [addressing Mr. Orr]. Well, SLAVE TRADE, AFRICAN. 591 I recall the word " complain ;" but, in making a request of a political opponent, you implied that it should have been granted. Now, Mr. Speaker, my position on this subject is simply this : I am not in favor of the revival of the African slave trade. Not because I look upon it as " shocking, horrid, or deserving the exe- cration of the civilized world ;" for I believe it has resulted in practical benefit to the ne- gro ; not that I believe the transfer of a slave from benighted Africa to America — from the dominion of a cruel and despotic negro master, to a kind and humane white master, does any harm to him, or to the world ; but I am op- posed to the revival of the African slave trade because, in my judgment, it is inexpedient, impolitic, and adverse to the interests of the section of country which I represent. Such, too, I believe to be the prevailing sentiment at the South. I should have voted, and am ready to vote, for any proposition which shall confine itself to a declaration against the policy or expediency of the African slave-trade ; but I will not, by any fear of consequences or mis- construction, be driven to adopt the affectedly denunciatory language of the gentleman from Tennessee. It is the language either of coward- ice or of hypocrisy ; not that of plain dealing. I speak of the resolution, not of the gentleman. I should not be much surprised to find it fol- lowed by a resolution condemning the internal slave trade. I say again, distinctly, that, had these resolutions simply declared that the revi- val of the African slave trade was inexpedient, and even against public policy, my voice would have been heard strongly in the affirmative ; but I am opposed to lectures upon the morality of that trade. There I stand ; and I cannot be coaxed or dragooned into the support of reso- lutions, which I do not believe to be true. The resolution of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Orr] was also objectionable, though not in the same degree. It proclaimed "'the settled policy of the country" to be against a repeal of the present laws. Now, in the first place, in a progressive country like ours, where public sentiment sways the public policy, there is an impropriety in any Congress resolving what shall be the future or settled policy of the country. Every Congress will have enough to do to adapt its action and legislation to its own proper term of authority and power. I regard such language, to say the least of it, as empty declamation. In the next place, it being admitted that treaties are laws, this language of the resolu- tion goes to the extent of approving and per- petuating all our treaty stipulations in rela- tion to the African slave trade ; and of some of these I do not approve, but, on the con- trary, believe them to be unwise and impoli- tic. Such, for instance, is the stipulation to aid Great Britain in watching, with a naval force, the coast of Africa. Neither am I pre- pared to say, though opposed to the slave trade, that it ought to be treated as piracy. I doubt much whether the horrors of the middle passage do not arise, mainly, from the false philanthropy of exaggerated punishments. Resting in this uncertainty, I could not, by my vote, declare the laws and treaties on this subject to be our " settled policy." For these reasons, now given, because explanation was refused when the resolutions were offered, and because I regarded both resolutions as useless and unnecessary, I opposed them. The Hon. John V. Wright of Tenn., in alluding to the reasons which induced his vote against Mr. Etheridge's resolution, thus spoke in the House, on the 4th of Feb. 1857 : — " Mr. Chairman, one word more, and I will close. When my colleague from the Trenton district [Mr. Etheridge], a few days ago, offered a resolution with regard to the re- opening the African slave trade, I voted against it, because, sir, as I then stated, I thought it was offered for the purpose of dividing and distracting, if possible, the De- mocratic party. Knowing my colleague's deep-rooted hatred to that party to which I am attached, and believing that it is the only party to which the destinies of the country can safely be intrusted, I was unwilling to give my countenance to a scheme which I then thought was set on foot to embarrass its action. I also think, with the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Quitman], whom I am proud to call my friend, that Con- gress is a very unsafe tribunal to decide for the people of the United States what shall or shall not be their standard of morality. But, sir, while I voted against that resolution, as T then stated, I am opposed to the policy of re- opening the African slave trade. I voted very cheerfully for the resolution of the gen- tleman from South Carolina [Mr. Orr,] which declared it to be ' unwise, inexpedient, and against the settled policy of the government' to reopen that trade. I regretted exceedingly that my colleague [Mr. Etheridge] should have raised that question at a time when he well knew that the whole of the people of Tennes- see, with scarcely an exception, are opposed to the policy alluded to. I dc not believe there is a single member here from the South (with perhaps one exception) who does favor that policy ; and yet a settled attempt is being made to impress upon the public mind of the North that the South desires the reopening of that trade. But, whatever the motive ot my colleague may have been, it is passed ; and if he intended what I have said, I am very happy that he was disappointed in his hopes." Hon. Emerson Etheridge of lenn., on the 21st of Feb., 1857, thus gave his reasons for opposing the resolution : — " In the Democratic party were to be found those who openly advocated a revival of the African slave trade, or denounced the laws and treaties by which it is prohibited. Every day they were growing bolder, and increasing 692 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. their numbers. They could have been found here — here, we are told, on this floor. The late Presidential election, which so many fondly hoped would break up the government, was over. Kansas, which, under Mr. Bu- chanan's administration, we are assured by his political friends will soon be a free state, could not much longer furnish northern or southern disunionists with political capital. A propo- sition to reopen the African slave trade would be the best thing — the very best, because it is impossible — to stir up anew the excited mil- lions of the North. It would furnish them a pretext to stigmatize their southern brethren as a race of cannibals. Worcester would again be filled with an assemblage of dio- unionists seeking the overthrow of the Union, to destroy slavery in the states, while Nash- ville might be the rendezvous of a counter con- vocation, urging the same means to preserve and perpetuate it. Sir, I have said that this proposition to reopen the slave trade had its supporters and apologists in the South. Not only so, they are in many instances men of great abilities and of high position. I admit the whole scheme to be impossible without a previous separation of the states, and that it is impos- sible in the Union gives significance to the fact that the scheme has its friends, advocates, and apologists. Sir, I have before me now a copy of the New Orleans Delta, published late in December last. It is a paper conducted with great power and ability. It is radically Democratic, supported Buchanan and Breck- inridge, and is the organ of a powerful di- rision of the Democratic party South. It says : — ■' The Crescent thinks the coup de grace was administered to the slave trade question by the late vote in the House. It is a mistake; the question will grow in importance from this time forth. Quitman, Percy, Walker, Bennett, Wright, Shorter Brooks, Keitt, and Barksdale, are men whose names will be honored hereafter for the unflinching manner in which they stood up for principle, for truth, and consistency, as well as the vital interests of the South, in the late vote in the House by which politicians sought to strangle an in- fant Hercules whose manhood they dreaded." Yes, sir, such was my purpose. If this thing is to be continuously urged, if it is to be regarded as an open question, it may as- sume gigantic proportions. I would strangle it in its infancy. I hope never to behold such a monstrosity as its full development would present. The same paper, in an article upon " the slave trade," says : — " Let it no longer be stigmatized as piracy to maintain slavery by the same means which originated it. Let that opprobrious brand be taken from the brow of the South. Let the sentimental humbuggery of Albert Pike and such like be scouted into ridicule, and let rationalism and true philanthropy be respected." A correspondent of that paper, writing from this city, the 18th of December last, says : — " The question of reopening the trade will be postponed until the next Congress, when a formal proposition will be introduced concerning it, and the question fully rifled." The proceedings of the late Southern Con- vention, which assembled at Savannah, were full of meaning in this respect. For years it had been roving about the country to find some plan for building ships without money, and to monopolize the carrying trade without ships. Aspiring young men found within it opportu- nities for display, and broken-down politicians a chance for resurrection. A seven years' effort to instruct us in the means of growing rich without labor, and building up cities behind mud-banks and sand-bars, nad proved unavailing. Something else must be done. The suffering South, with all its means in- vested in agriculture, must do something to set off its commercial inequality. The " nig- ger pill," which is prescribed for almost every conceivable complaint, must be administered in larger doses. Hence the proposition to reopen the African slave trade — a measure which was favored by about one-third of the convention. Why, sir, this project had so grown in favor, and was exciting so much sympathy in high quarters, that we find the present Democratic governor of Georgia made it the subject of remark in his late message to the legislature of that state. He declared the proposition as " adverse to the sentiments of the civilized world, to our treaty stipulations for its suppression, and the conventional laws of nations, by which it is declared to be pira- cy." Yet, while I, for what I have done, havo been held up as untrue to the South, good, Democratic Governor Johnson is merely chided as an " erring brother," and pressed by his political friends for a cabinet appointment. I think, however, he will have to stand aside to make room for another gentleman from that state, who thinks that to revive that traffic would not be " shocking to the moral senti- ments of the enlightened portion of man- kind." So plain and obvious has this move* ment been, that Mr. Nicholson, the editor of the Union, published in this city, has had to lend his columns to its denunciation. But recently he stigmatized it as an " odious traf- fic," and was permitted to go without a public reprimand for his temerity. It is true, he is soon to withdraw from the editorial chair of the court journal, and one Mr. Appleton is to be the organ-grinder of the party. The cause of this change I leave others to determine. I have now before me a pamphlet, recently published in Georgia, styled "A new Southern Policy, or the Slave Trade as meaning Union and Conservatism." I can commend it to young Democratic politicians as a very able and condensed view of the subject, which they will find of some value, should the stern de- mands of party require them to subscribe to this " new Southern policy." In speaking of the Savannah Convention, he says : — " There were introduced into the convention two leading measures, viz., the laying of a state tariff on northern goods, and the reopening of the slave-trade ; the one to advance our commercial interest, the other our agricultural interest, and which, when taken together, as they were doubtless intended to be, and although they have each been attacked by presses of doubtful service to the South, are character- ized in the private judgment of politicians an one of the completest southern remedies ever submitted to popular action." SLAVE TRADE, AFRICAN. 593 Now, sir, between this author and myself there is, in the language of a good Baptist bro- ther on a memorable occasion, " a slight vari- ation." [Great laughter.] In my judgment, the two propositions, when taken together, constitute a plan the enforcement of which would involve at once the commercial and agricultural ruin of the South. The writer then addresses himself to those who are a little squeamish upon the subject, who, like some of our newspaper correspondents, have trou- fclesome " moral convictions." He says: — "The proposition to revive, or more properly to reopen, the slave trade, is as yet but imperfectly understood, in its intentions and probable results, by the people of the South, and but little appreciated by them. It has been received in all parts of the country with an undefined sort of repug- nance, a sort of squeamishuess, which is incident to all such violations of moral prejudices, and invariably wears off on familiarity with the subject. The South will commence by enduring, and end by embracing the project" This forcibly reminds me of some lines we all have read : — " Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated, needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace." * * # * * * * * Letter of Hon. Howell Cobb, Secretary of the Treasury, on the African Emigrant Scheme. Treasury Department, May 22, 1858. Sir : — It appears from your letter of 20th April, 1858, that application has been made to you by Messrs. E. Lafitte & Co., merchants of Charleston, S. C, " to clear the American ship Richard Cobden, W. F. Black, master, burthen 750 31-95 tons, for the coast of Africa, for the purpose of taking on board African emigrants, in accordance with the United States passen- ger laws, and returning with the same to a port in the United States." You ask the opinion of the Department upon the propriety of your granting or refusing the application. The question is an important one, and I have delayed an answer to your letter until I could give the subject a proper examination. The form in which this application is pre- sented involves the question in some embar- rassment. The object of the applicants must be either to import Africans, to be disposed of as slaves, or to be bound to labor or service — or else to bring them into the country like other emigrants, to be entitled, on their arri- val, to all the rights and privileges of freedom. In either of the two first-named contingencies, the object would be so clearly and manifestly against the laws of the United States, as to leave no room for doubt or hesitation. I deem it proper, however, to call your attention to the provisions of those laws, as they indicate very clearly the general policy of the govern- ment on the subject of African importation. Prior to the 1st January, 1808, the time fixed by the Constitution when Congress would be authorized to prohibit such impor- tation—the Acts of 2d March, 1794, (1347,) and 10th May, 1800, (270,) were passed. 38 These laws indicate the strong opposition felt at that time to the African slave trade. The subsequent Act of March 2d, 1807, (2420,) and 20th April, 1818, (3450,) as well as the acts of 3d March, 1819, (3532,) and 15th May, 1820, (3600,) show not only the promptness with which the power was exercised by Con- gress of prohibiting this trade to the United States, but they also bear evidence of the stern purpose of enforcing their provisions by severe penalties and large expenditures. The legislation of the slaveholding states prior to 1808, exhibits the fact that the first steps taken for its suppression were inaugurated by them. There is no subject upon which the statute books of our country afford more conclusive evidence than the general opposition every- where felt to the continuance of the African slave trade. By reference to the acts of 1794 and 1800, against the slave trade generally, it will be seen that their operation was confined to slaves eo nomine. The first section of the act of 1794 provides, " That no citizen or citizens of the United States, or foreigner, or any other per- son coming into or residing within the same, shall, for himself or any other person whatso- ever, either as master, factor or owner, build, fit, equip, load or otherwise prepare any ship or vessel, within any port or place of the said United States, nor shall cause any ship or vessel to sail from any port or place within the same, for the purpose of carrying on any trade or traffic in slaves, to any foreign country ; or for the purpose of procuring, from any foreign kingdom, place or country, the inhabitants of such kingdom, place or country, to be transported to any foreign country, port or place whatever, to be sold or disposed of, as slaves : and if any ship or ves- sel shall be so fitted out, as aforesaid, for the said purposes, or shall be caused to sail, so as aforesaid, every such ship or vessel, her tackle, furniture, apparel and other appurtenances, shall be forfeited to the United States, and shall be liable to be seized, prosecuted and condemned in any of the Circuit Courts, or District Courts for the district where the said ship or vessel may be found and seized." The language of the act of 1800 is the same in this respect. Both contemplate in general terms the prevention of the trade in slaves. When, however, in 1807, and subsequent there- to, Congress undertook to prevent the impor- tation of slaves into the United States, the language of the law was made more stringent and comprehensive. The first section of the act of 1807 provides : " That from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, it shall not be lawful to import or bring into the United States, or the territories thereof, from any foreign kingdom, place or country, any negro, mulatto, or per- son of color, with intent to hold, sell or dis- pose of such negro, mulatto, or person of color, as a slave, or to be held to service or labor." United States." I would ask, gentlemen, under what other clause of the Constitution do they derive the power to legislate for the territories at all ? where do they obtain the right to esta- blish a territorial government, unless it be from the clause here given ? And if Congress derives its powers to make territorial govern- ments, and to legislate for the territories, from this clause in the Constitution, has it not the power to legislate upon every subject that does not conflict with the Federal Constitution? And where in the Constitution is the restric- tion in regard to slavery ? * * * * Suppose, as is argued, that the term " dis- pose of," can have no reference or application to government, do they restrict the power " to 610 THE POLITICAL TEXT- BOOK. make all needful rules and regulations?" Congress, as I understand from the language of the Constitution, has not only the power " to dispose of" the territories, but also " to make all needful rules and regulations" re- specting them. But Mr. Calhoun argues that the terms " to make all needful rules and regulations" are never applied in the Consti- tution to government, which implies persons to he governed, and he assumes that in every case where they are used in the Constitution, they refer to property, to things, or some pro- cess, such as the rules of court, or the House of Congress, for the government of its pro- ceedings. Now, I take it that rules for the government of the House of Congress are nothing more nor less than laws to govern persons in their conduct, and not to govern property or things. But I need only refer, gentlemen, to the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, which gives to Con- gress the power " to make rules for the govern- ment and regulation of the land and naval forces," to show that this position is incorrect, and that the terms " rules and regulations" are applied in the Constitution to the govern- ment of persons. And now, Mr. Chairman, I maintain that the term " rules and regula- tions," when used in the Constitution, mean nothing else than laws, and the convention whicl framed the Constitution, using them with reference to civil government, could have intended to give them no other meaning, it being not only their common law, but universal signification. Congress, then, according to the Constitution, can make all needful laws respecting the territories, and Congress is to be the judge of what are needful. But, sir, Mr. Calhoun and other gentlemen have ad- mitted the constitutional power, by recom- mending and advocating the passage of the bill this morning laid upon the table in this House, under the sanction of their oaths to support the Constitution. But, sir, my honorable colleague from the ninth district [Mr. French], who found it necessary to discuss this question, because no other Kentuckian had spoken upon the sub- ject, leaves his own Constitution, and travels off to Great Britain to get Judge Blackstone's definition of absolute rights, to show that Congress has no right to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the territories ; and, very suitable to the position which he assumes, he has no occasion for the rights of personal security, or the rights of personal liberty, but he arrays, with much force and gravity, the right of private property, and arguing upon the right to enjoy private property, and the fact that slaves are property in the slave states, and that the public lands in the terri- tories are the property of all the states, the slave as well as the free states, he adduces the corollary, that Congress has no constitutional right to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the territories. Now, sir, no person will deny the absolute right of persons to enjoy their private property, and no person has a greater aversion than I to the interference by government with private, vested, legal rights ; but I would ask if the passage of a law by Congress, prohibiting the introduction of slavery into the territories, or, if you please, authorizing slavery in the territories (for I hold that slavery cannot exist without the authority of positive law), interferes with the rights of citizens in the slave states to enjoy their slave property ? No, sir, not at all. If that be an interference with the right to enjoy slave property, there is scarcely a state in this Union that has not been guilty of this inter- ference with the right of property. I am now temporarily residing in the District of Colum- bia ; if I purchase a slave here to-day, he is my private property, I have a right to control and enjoy the benefit of his service. But, sir, cau I lake that slave to Kentucky, the land of my birth and the home cf my fathers, and enjoy my right to his service there ? No, sir, my colleague knows that the laws of Ken- tucky prohibit it, and would inflict an onerous penalty by way of fine, as well as imprison- ment, for a violation of that law ; and that the courts of Kentucky have enforced the law, and maintained its constitutionality. Bnt, Mr. Chairman, my colleague contends that all the states are joint owners of the land in the territories, and, consequently, Congress has no right to legislate there upon the subject of slavery — at least to prohibit citizens from slave states from carrying their slave property there, and holding them as slaves. So, too, the public lands in the state of Ohio are equally the property of all the states ; now, will my colleague contend that, under his absolute right to enjoy his slave property ia Kentucky, he can take them to the state of Ohio, and settle upon the public lands there, and hold his slaves as property ? Certainly he will not. He knows that the courts of Kentucky have decided that he cannot, and that, if he take up his residence upon the public lands of Ohio with his slaves, and should afterwards remove back to Kentucky, retaining his slaves in possession all the time, the courts in Kentucky will liberate them in obedience to the operation of the laws of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I utterly repudiate this doc- trine of a man's carrying the civil institutions of his own country into whatever state, terri- tory, or country he may go. It is subversive of the just and necessary rules of national law, upon which the comity of nations is based. Who, sir, will deny the doctrine of international law, that when a person emi- grates from one country to another, or even takes up a temporary residence, that, of jus- tice and necessity, he must be obedient to the laws and institutions of the country in which he is residing at the time, and from which he expects protection ? " I have thus, Mr. Chairman, briefly stated my objections to my friend and colleague's [Mr. Wilmot] celebrated amendment. I will now make some observations of a general eha- SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. 611 meter upon the subject of slavery, in relation to which so much has been said in this debate, in order that my position and views may not be misconstrued. First, however, permit me to premise, that if we had acquired either New Mexico or California, and a bill was before the House providing territorial govern- ments therein, or a bill was before the House providing for the admission of either of those provinces as states (the territory being first acquired by treaty), I would vote for a provi- sion excluding slavery. I favor the principle contained in the amendment of my colleague, and will go for engrafting it upon the legisla- tion of the country, but in the proper form, and at the proper time and place, when the power to do so can be rightfully exercised." — Hon. Richard B rod head, in the House of Repre- sentatives, Feb. 9, 1847. " The second objection which I propose to consider, connected with this alleged seizure of the public domain, is, that a Southern man cannot go there because he cannot take his property with him, and is thus excluded by peculiar considerations from his share of the common property. " So far as this branch of the subject con- nects itself with slaves, regarded merely as property, it is certainly true that the necessity of leaving and of disposing of them may put the owners to inconvenience — to loss, indeed — a state of things incident to all emigration to distant regions ; for there are many species of that property, which constitutes the common stock of society, that cannot be taken there. Some because they are prohibited by the laws of nature, as houses and farms ; others because they are prohibited by the laws of man, as slaves, incorporated companies, monopolies, and many interdicted articles ; and others, again, because they are prohibited by statis- tical laws, which regulate the transportation of property, and virtually confine much of it within certain limits, which it cannot over- come, in consequence of the expense attending distant removal ; and among these latter articles are cattle, and much of the property which is everywhere to be found. The remedy in all these cases is the same, and is equally applicable to all classes of proprietors, whether living in Massachusetts, or New York, or South Carolina, and that is to convert all these various kinds of property into the universal re- presentative of value, money, and to take that to these new regions, where it will command whatever may be necessary to comfort or to prosperous enterprise. In all these instances the practical result is the same, and the same is the condition of equality. " Such a principle would strike at indepen- dent and necessary legislation, at many police laws, at sanitary laws, and at laws for the protection of public and private morals. Ar- dent spirits, deadly poisons, implements of gaming, as well as various articles, doubtful foreign bank bills, among others, injurious to a prosperous condition of a new society, would be placed beyond the reach of legislative in tcrdiction, whatever might be the wants or tho wishes of the country upon the subject. For the constitutional right by which it is claimed that these species of property may be taken by the owners to the 'territory' of the United States, cannot be controlled, if it exist by the local legislature ; for that might lead, and in many cases would lead, to the restriction '.f its value. * * * " And we are thus brought to this strange, practical result: that in all controversies re- lative to these prohibited articles, it is not the statute-book of the country where they are to be held which must be consulted to ascertain the rights of the parties, but the statute-books of other governments, whose citizens thus, in effect, bring their laws with them, and hold on to them." — Mr. Cass, 1st sess. iZd Congress. " I take it for granted that what I have said will satisfy the Senate of that first truth, that slavery does not exist there by law, unless slavery was carried there the moment the treaty was ratified by the two parties to the treaty, under the operation of the Constitution of the United States. " Now, really, I must say that the idea that eo instanti upon the consummation of the treaty, the Constitution of the United States spread itself over the acquired country, and carried along with it the institution of slavery, is so irreconcilable with any comprehension, or any reason which I possess, that I hardly know how to meet it." — Mr. Clay in 1850. " In claiming the right for the inhabitants, instead of Congress, to legislate for the terri- tories, the executive proviso assumes that the sovereignty over the territories is vested in the former ; or, to express it in language used in a resolution offered by one of the Senators from Texas (General Houston), have ' the same inherent right of self-government as the people in the states.' The assumption is utterly un- founded, unconstitutional, without example, and contrai*y to the entire practice of the gov- ernment, from its commencement to the pre- sent time." — Mr. Calhoun, March 1850. " How strange, therefore, it does appear that any one who will look at the subject should conclude that Congress can create or destroy slavery anywhere, particularly when it is re- membered that all the constitutional provisions look to its protection ! And notwithstanding all these, it is boldly asserted that Congress has the implied power to abolish or prohibit it in the territories. The Republican party claims this power for Congress, and insists that slavery is sectional and anti-slavery na- tional ; and that, therefore, legislation should keep it from the territories. If these men mean that slavery exists only in a certain sec- tion of the Union, then they are right ; but if they mean to say that it is made sectional by the Constitution, then they ar? wrong ; and 612 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. to prove this it is only necessary to reply that slavery may exist in all the states or none, and that, too, without any alteration of the Consti- tution ; and so well was this provided for, that all the guarantees which slavery needs will enure at once to the slaveholders upon the adoption of that institution by any of the slates. New York might determine to-morrow to establish slavery, and if she did, all the rights which the slaveholders of Georgia pos- sess would be at once secured t*o those of that state, and she would be entitled also to the three-fifths representation on this floor. All can see at once, therefore, the utter absurdity contained in the doctrine that slavery is sec- tional. Under our Constitution it may exist throughout the country or nowhere in it ; but should it exist, no matter where, the Constitu- tion recognises and protects it. And the great principle lying at the foundation of this whole subject is, that sovereignty alone has the power to create or destroy it, and this attribute is possessed neither by Congress, nor the terri- torial legislature, which is but the creature of our will. And, sir, when I speak of sovereign power, I mean such as that Virginia exercised in the ordinance of 1737, and which she pos- sesses to-day over this subject in the terri- tories, to the extent of the interest which she, as a state, holds therein." — Hon. M. J. Craw- ford of Geo., Dec. 16, 1856. " But you say that we propose to prohibit by law your emigrating to the territories with your property. We propose no such thing. We recognise your right in common with our own, to emigrate to the territories with your property, and there hold and enjoy it, in sub- ordination to the laws you may find in force in the country. Those laws, in some respects, differ from our own, as the laws of the various states of this Union vary, on some points, from the laws of each other. Some species of pro- perty are excluded by law in most of the states, as well as territories, as being unwise, immoral, or contrary to the principles of sound public policy. For instance, the banker is prohibited from emigrating to Minnesota, Oregon, or Cali- fornia, with his bank. The bank may be pro- prty by the laws of New York, but ceases to be so when taken into a state or territory where banking is prohibited by the local law. So, ardent spirits, whiskey, brandy, all the in- toxicating drinks, are recognised and protected as property in most of the states, if not all of them ; but no citizen, whether from the North or South, can take this species of property with him, and hold, sell, or use it at his pleasure, in all the territories, because it is prohibited by the local law — in Oregon by the statutes of the territory, and in the Indian country by the acts of Congress. Nor can a man go there and take and hold his slave, for the same rea- son. These laws, and many others involving 8imilar principles, arc directed against no sec- tion, and impair the rights of no state in the Union. They are laws against the introduc- duction. sale, and use of specific kinds of pro- perty, whether brought from the North or the South, or from foreign countries." — Mr. Doug- las, in the Senate in 1850. Mr. Madison said : — _ " On one side it naturally occurs, that the right being given from the necessity of the case, and in suspension of the great principle of self-government, ought not to be extended further, nor continued longer, than the occa- sion might fairly require. " The questions to be decided seem to be, first, whether a territorial restriction be an assumption of illegitimate power ; or, second, a misuse of legitimate power ; and if the latter only, when the injury threatened to the nation from an acquiescence in the misuse, or from a frustration of it, be the greater. " On the first point there is certainly room for difference of opinion ; though, for myself, I must own that 1 have always leaned to the belief the restriction was not within the true scope of the Constitution." — Letter to Mr. Mon- roe, in 1820. " Hearken not to the unnatural voice which tells you that the people of America, knit to- gether as they are by so many cords of affec- tion, can no longer live together as members of the same family — can no longer continue the mutual guardians of their mutual happi- ness — can no longer be fellow-citizens of one great, respectable, and flourishing empire. The kindred blood which flows in the veins of American citizens — the mingled blood which they have shed in defence of their sacred rights, consecrate their union, and excite hor- ror at the idea of their becoming aliens, rivals, enemies. And if novelties are to be shunned, believe me, the most alarming of all novelties — the most wild of all projects — the most rash of all attempts, is that of rending us in pieces in order to preserve our liberties and promote our happiness." — Federalist, page 86. " Should a state of parties arise, founded on geographical boundaries and other physi- cal distinctions which happen to coincide with them, what is to control those great repulsive masses from awful shocks against each other?" Letter to Mr. Walsh, dated Nov. 27, 1819. " I am, and have been for many years, so much opposed to slavery, that I will never live in a state where it exists. But I believe that the Constitution has given no power to the general government to interfere in this matter, and that to have slaves or no slaves depends upon the people in each state or ter- ritory alone. "But besides the constitutional objections, I am persuaded that the obvious tendency of such interferences on the part of the states which have no slaves with the property of their fellow-citizens of the others, is to pic- duce a state of discord and jealousy that will in the end prove fatal to the Union. I believe in no other state are such wild and dangerous sentiments entertained on this sub- SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. 613 l'cct as in Ohio." — General Harrison in a Letter to President Monroe in 1821. Debate in the House of Representatives, Dec. 11, 1856, ox the power of Congress over Slavery in the Territories, &c. Mr. Keitt. I understand the point to be made, that one portion of the Democratic party maintain the doctrine of squatter sove- reignty, and the other do not. One portion of the party understands that neither the Con- gress of the United States nor the territorial legislature have the right to prohibit slavery in a territory. Another portion of the party believes that that, right is given to the terri- torial legislature. Now, sir, the extent of the constitutional powers of the territorial legisla- ture, under the Nebraska bill, depends, they say, upon the judicial construction of that bill. Well, sir, if the Supreme Court decides that this power is not conferred upon the terri- torial legislature, then the northern portion of the Democratic party do not claim the power, but are satisfied with the decision. The Demo- cratic party makes this a judicial question. I shall, at a proper time, discuss this question myself. Mr. H. Marshall. I will read a portion of testimony, which comes from the South ; and I want Southern Democrats to respond here in the face of the nation, whether they endorse the sentiment. I read a statement of the principle of the Kansas bill made by a Sena- tor from Virginia [Mr. Mason], during this session, in the other branch of Congress : — "Now, what was the issue presented in the last canvass in the state so ably represented by the honorable Senator on this floor, or auy where else, I know not; but I do know what was the issue on this subject which was presented in the political platform adopted at Cincinnati by the Demo- cratic party. That issue was the doctrine of the Kansas- Nebraska bill. What was that? The territorial government was so organized there as to admit citizens of all the states. whether free or slave, to take their property into the terri- tories; and when they organized themselves, or were orga- nized under the law. into a legislative body, then to deter- mine for themselves whether this institution should exist amongst them or not. The specific difference is, that under the Kansas law citizens from the slave states might go into the territory with their property; citizens from free states might go there holding no such property, and, when they got there and met in common council as a legislative body, they should determine whether the institution should pre- vail; whereas the party which the honorable Senator is now representing here declares that, in the organic law creating the government in the territory, there shall be a prohibi- tion in limine, that no slaves shall go there. That was the issue presented by the platform adopted at Cincinnati." I ask the Southern Democrat whether he endorses that as the philosophy of politics upon which Mr. Buchanan triumphed? I ask him to assert or deny it ; for the first principle with public men in a government carried on by the intelligence and reposing on the virtue of the people, should be to explain their con- struction of constitutional power so that all may understand them. Mr. Quitman. Will the gentleman yield to me? Mr. II. Marshall. For a response, without a speech, I will. Mr. Quitman. I am ready to make a re- sponse to the question for myself and that portion of the Democratic party South that thinks with me, but I decline to answer cate- gorically and on the terms proposed. How- ever, while the gentleman is defining his own position, let me ask him whether he believes Congress possesses the constitutional power to inhibit slavery in the territories of the United States while they are territories ? Mr. II. Marshall. If so humble an in- dividual as myself could have attracted the gentleman's notice, he would have had a cate- gorical answer to that question in a speech made by me during the last session. In that speech I distinctly stated that I do not believe Congress has power to prohibit slavery from going into the territories of the United States. Mr. Quitman. I will, then, ask the gentle- man Mr. II. Marshall. The gentleman seems to have reversed our relations. When I am try- ing to ascertain the position of the Democratic party, he proposes to occupy my time in ascer- taining my position. Mr. Quitman. It is not my intention to embarrass the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky. My only object is to learn where he stands on the constitutional power of Con- gress. If he does not hold that Congress has power to inhibit slavery in the territories, then where does that power rest, under our system of government? Mr. H. Marshall. I will not be drawn from my line of argument ; but, if I have time, I will answer the gentlemen's question before I take my seat. I call attention to the fact that the gentleman, with all his astuteness and ex- perience, and with my example before him of returning a categorical answer to the question put me, declines to answer categorically the question I put to him. Mr. Quitman. What is your question? Mr. II. Marshall. Does Mr. Mason an- nounce Democratic doctrine when he con- strues the principle of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, as defined in your platform at Cincinnati, to be that the people of a territory, when or- ganized under the organic law, but while they remain in the territorial condition, have the right to determine for themselves, through a territorial legislature, and before they are about to adopt a state constitution, whether or not the institution of slavery should exist among them ? Mr. Quitman. I do not believe that the opinion which the gentleman draws from the short extract he has read is the opinion of Mr. Mason. If it is, then I dissent from it. I do not believe that the people of a territory possess sovereignty of any kind until that sovereignty is delegated by the states, through Congress, under the power delegated to Con- gress to admit states into the Union. Mr. II. Marshall. If the Democratic party North hold the doctrine of squatter sovereignty as proclaimed by General Cass, and the Demo- cratic party South hold the doctrine as stated by the gentleman frona Mississippi, I would 6H THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. like to know on which of them Mr. Buchanan was elected to the Presidency ? Mr. Quitman. I have no time to enter into details, or to refer to the sentiments held by various individuals in this country. I stand on principle, and go with those who hold the same principles that I do. I have confidence that the Democratic party throughout the length and breadth of the land hold the senti- ments on this subject which I have just ex- pressed. Mr. McMullin. I will tell the gentleman from Kentucky that the speech of Senator Mason, as reported and read by the gentle- man, does not express his views on this sub- ject. He and every member from Virginia upon this floor repudiate the doctrine of squat- ter sovereignty as promulgated by General Cass. A senator from Illinois [Mr. Trum- bull] came here this morning and reported that Mr. Mason had made such a speech as the gentleman refers to. I called on Mr. Ma- son in reference to the matter, and he told me that he repudiated the doctrine of that speech, and would correct it. Mr. H. Marshall. Ah ! correct it ! Mr. McMullin. It is a misprint. Mr. II. Marshall. No ; it is not a misprint. I heard it with my own ears. Mr. McMullin. Does the gentleman say that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Mason] sustains the doctrine of that speech ? Mr. H. Marshall. I do not say what senti- ments Mr. Mason entertains ; nor do I quote from him except to ascertain the true Demo- cratic doctrine, and to assist in establishing the principles decided by the last election. [Laughter.] I cannot say, except from the speech, where the distinguished Senator from Virginia stands. But I do mean to say that I happened to be present and heard the speech of the Senator from Virginia. It was spoken substantially as reported, and with a precision that left upon my mind no doubt that he was express- ing his sentiments. I am happy to hear that he will correct it; and I am glad to know from the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Mc- Mullin] that the sentiment is not responded to by any gentleman representing the state of Virginia upon this floor. Mr. McMullin. Not by any member from Virginia; and if the gentleman from Kentucky will call upon Senator Mason, he will learn that that Senator utterly repudiates the doc- trine of squatter sovereignty. Mr. II. Marshall. This doctrine of squat- ter sovereignty is variously defined. I heard it defined by a distinguished Democrat in my own section of the country last summer, to be, that while the people of a territory have the right to decide on the question of the establish- ment or exclusion of slavery at the time of forming a constitution and state government, the first squatters, before the passage of 'an organic law for the government of the terri- tory, had no such power. lie was against the inherent popular sovereignty, but did not touch the question that presses. Perhaps that is the kind of squatter sovereignty which the Senator from Virginia is against also. What I mean by squatter sovereignty I will proceed to define. I assert the proposition, that the people of a territory, while it is a ter- ritory, whether with law or without law — no matter whether Congress has passed a law giving them the power or not — have no right, and Congress cannot give them the right, to exclude slavery from that territory. Mr. McMullin. That is my doctrine. Mr. II. Marshall. Very well, that is what I denounce as squatter sovereignty. There I take my position, and there I took my position during the late canvass. And it was because the position taken by the Democratic party upon this point was construed to mean just what the speech of the Senator from Virginia says it did mean, that I announced every- where upon the stump in my own state, that there was not a whit difference between the principles put forth by the northern branch of the Buchanan Democracy and those held by the moderate portion of the Fremont Kepublican party. I said that, so far as I was concerned, I would not toss a copper between them, since the active restriction advocated by the one and the squatter sovereignty advocated by the other, with equal certainty deprived me ultimately of my constitutional right. I had about as lief be told I should not carry my slave to the territory, as to tell me I might take him, but that the sword of Damocles should be all the time suspended over my head by a single hair. Mr. Quitman. I would inquire if the gen- tleman voted for the admission of California as the measure was, presented by General Taylor ? Mr. II. Marshall. I did vote for the ad- mission of California, and whenever the gen- tleman desires it I shall be happy to show him the reason why I so voted. Mr. Quitman rose. Mr. II. Marshall. Mr. Speaker, whenever I attempt to enlighten the people as to what are the principles and doctrines of the Demo- cratic party, gentlemen do not allow me to get through with two consecutive remarks without interruption. Let us have fairness and plainness about this matter. I come here with a speech not three days old, delivered in the Senate, and I am told that it does not con- tain the views of the gentleman who spoke it. I present statements brought into the Senate by gentlemen occupying the distinguished position of Senators, and I am told that they are not true, that the Democratic party did not go before the people of the North declar- ing themselves in favor of the doctrine of " popular sovereignty," or as opposed to the extension of slavery to the territories. Mr. Jewett. Mr. Speaker, the reference of my colleague to his course and line of dis- cussion in the late canvass, renders it proper that I should propound to him a single ques- tion. Did you not, in your speech at the Big SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. 615 Spring, declare that the Constitution did not carry slavery into the territories ? Mr. II. Marshall. I said nothing in any speech which I made in Kentucky, inconsist- ent with the exact statement I have made to- day. I will state now for the gentleman, for his party, and for the country, that I do hold that the Constitution does not carry slavery 'iuto the territories of the United States. Let the gentleman make the most of that. I never hive held that the Constitution carries slavery into a territory. Mr. Keitt. Does it carry any kind of property ? Mr. II. Marshall. No, sir, it does not carry any kind of property there. Now, let my col- league answer. Will my colleague go before the people of Big Spring, and tell them that the Constitution does carry slavery into the territories? Mr. Jeuett. I will. Mr. II. Marshall. Then my colleague and I make the issue fairly. My position is this : that the Constitution neither establishes any domestic institution in a territory, nor pro- hibits it, but that the Constitution of the Uni- ted States protects whatever of right exists there. That is my doctrine. I take the po- sition held by Mr. Clay. I would be as far from voting to-day to extend slavery into a territory, as I would from prohibiting it. I am neither an Abolitionist on the one side, nor a slavery propagandist upon the other. I want the constitutional rights of American citizens preserved. Mr. Orr of S. C. Now I admit that there is a difference of opinion amongst Democrats as to whether this feature of squatter sov- ereignty be in the bill or not. But the great point upon which the Democratic party at Cin- cinnati rested was, that the government of the territories had been transferred from Congress, and, carrying out the spirit and genius of our institutions, had been given to the people of the territories. I am one of those who do not believe in the doctrine of squatter sovereignty. I do not believe that the Kansas-Nebraska bill establishes or recognises squatter sovereignty within the limits of the territories of Kansas and Nebraska ; and the process of reasoning by which I reach that result is, that I see no authority in the Constitution of the United States which authorizes Congress to pass the Wilmot proviso or any anti-slavery restrictions in the territories ; and I do not apprehend how Congress, not having the power itself, can create an authority and invest a creature with greater power and authority than it pos- sesses itself. I know there are other gentle- men belonging to the Democratic party who think that the territorial legislatures are in- vested with authority to prohibit or introduce elavery within the territories. But the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Smith] the other day struck the true point in this controversy, and it takes all the wind out of the sails of my friend from Kentucky, and leaves him high and dry upon land ; and I invite his attention to the statements and ar- guments in reference to it. I say, although I deny that squatter sov- ereignty exists in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska by virtue of this bill, it is a mat- ter practicalby of little consequence whether it does or not ; and I think I shall be able to satisfy the gentlemen of that. The gentleman knows that, in every slaveholding community of this Union, we have local legislation and local police regulations appertaining to that institution, without which the institution would not only be valueless, but a curse to the community. Without them the slaveholder could not enforce his rights when invaded by others ; and if you had no local legislation for the purpose of giving protection, the institu- tion would be of no value. I can appeal to every gentleman upon this floor Avho repre- sents a slaveholding constituency, to attest the truth of what I have stated upon that point. Now, the legislative authority of a territory is invested with a discretion to vote for or against laws. We think they ought to pass laws in every territory, when the territory is open to settlement, and slaveholders go there, to protect slave property. But if they decline to pass such laws, what is the remedy ? None, sir. If the majority of the people are opposed to the institution, and if they do not desire it engrafted upon their territory, all they have to do is simply to decline to pass laws in the ter- ritorial legislature for its protection, and then it is as well excluded as if the power was in- vested in the territorial legislature, and exer- cised by them, to prohibit it. Now, I ask the gentleman, what is the practical importance to result from the agitation and discussion of this question as to whether squatter sovereignty does, or does not, exist ? Practically it is a matter of little moment. Mr. II. Marshall. Do I understand the gentleman from South Carolina to take the position, that if it is his constitutional right to take his negro into Kansas, or any other terri- tory, he believes that his right becomes of no practical consequence unless he has a territo- rial legislature which will protect him in hold- ing that property ? Mr. Orr. No, sir. The gentleman from Kentucky lives in a slaveholding state, and knows that there must be peculiar laws passed within the limits of that state, for the purpose of securing that peculiar species of property. Suppose a party in a territory inveigles away his slave, and there is no law making it a criminal offence, how do you reach him ? Suppose an individual harbors your slave while in the territory, what remedy have you against him ? AVhat remedy have you to enforce the rights of the owner against tres- passers and intermeddlers, unless you have a local legislature to pass laws to enforce those rights ? I undertake to say that in the state of Kentucky, if there were no local legislation to protect the institution, the institution would be an unmitigated curse to the country. Mr. II. Marshall. The Constitution pro- 616 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tects the slave as property. It does not estab- lish slavery or forbid it in a. territory. When the citizen goes into the territory with his slave, holding him as property, the political law of this country protects him in his pro- perty, whatever that property is of right, and the common law of England furnishes him the remedies to assert his right. If my slave is beaten, I can maintain trespass — if he is con- verted or detained, I can maintain detinue or trover. The remedies I draw from the com- mon law, the right to my slave from the rela- tion legally established in a state, and which does not change by my passage to a territory of my own country, where no law prohibits it. Mr. Orr. I suspect that the only common law which the gentleman could appeal to would be the common law of the territory. It certainly would not be the common law of England. The Constitution of the United States gives to me, or recognises, all the mere right of property I care to have in my slaves in a territory. It recognises and enforces it. It is not the right of property in slaves I speak of as requiring protection ; but it is the local legislation of the territory to prevent that pro- perty being trespassed upon, tampered or in- terfered with by others. But I pass on. The gentleman said he told his constituents, as I understood him, that he would not give the toss of a copper between the Buchanan Democracy of the North and the Fremont party.* Mr. II. Marshall. I want to be under- stood on this subject. Mr. Orr. And I wish to understand the gentleman ; for the comparison he made was to me somewhat singular. Mr. II. Marshall. I said that I would not give the toss of a copper for a choice between the Wilmot-provisoism of Mr. Fremont and the squatter-sovereignty doctrine of the North- ern Democracy. Mr. Orr. Am I to understand that the gentleman, in the last presidential contest, did not care the toss of a copper whether the De- mocratic or the Republican party was suc- cessful ? Mr. H. Marshall. If the gentleman is not astute enough to draw a distinction between a remark in regard to my general policy and one in reference to a particular position, then I cannot expect him to understand me. I re- fer the gentleman to the connexion in which I made the remark on which he comments. I was speaking of the practical consequences of the construction referred to, and said that they were the same to us whether we had the Wilmot proviso or squatter sovereignty. If I was to be hung, I would not care whether it was with a rope or a grape vine. [Laughter.] * The Loudoun (Va.) Democratic Mirror, speaking of a speech made by Hon. Humphrey Marshall, at Leesburg, recently, says: — " He was also very severe upon Mr. Buchanan, charged him with being the squatter sovereignty candidate of the N.irih. and declared that he would as leave see John C. Fremont, or the Devil himself, made President, as James Buchanan." If both views take away from me my constitu- tional rights, it makes no difference whether the deprivation be sudden, or slow but cer- tain. Mr. Orr. Did the gentleman feel no inter- est in the presidential contest just closed, as between the Democratic and the Republican party ? Mr. H. Marshall. I believed that the Re- publican party only presented the distinctive feature of the Wilmot proviso on the slavery ; question, and that it did not present any ad- ministrative question. Mr. Stanton. It presented the question of the Pacific Railroad. Mr. II. Marshall. The fact is that I did not examine the platform of the Republican party very closely and fully. I stopped at the threshold. Learning their doctrine of Con- gressional power to prohibit slavery in the territories, I knew that I had nothing to do with them; and in regard to the Cincinnati platform I found myself, as in days gone by, with all my antagonism to the Democratic party. With reference to one thing, I never did know whether there was any platform on it or not. I allude to the foreign policy of the country. Sometimes it was said that the reso- lutions on that subject were a part of the plat- form, and at others that it made little differ- ence how men felt about them. Mr. Orr. The gentleman replies to my question with a good deal of qualification! I have no doubt that it is my obtuscness which prevents me from clearly seeing what is his answer. Let me ask him another question. What would have been his position if Mr. Fillmore had beeu out of the way ? Or, if it was evident that Mr. Fillmore could not be elected, by which party, the Democratic or Republican, does he think the best interests of the country would be subserved? Mr. II. Marshall, I never contemplated that proposition^ as I always knew he would be in the way ; and what there is of us, we always will keep in the way. Speech of Hon. W. II. English, of Indiana, DELIVERED IN THE IIoUSE OF REPRESENTA- TIVES, December 1~, 1850. The House having under consideration the question of referring the President's message to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and the printing of ten thousand copies thereof, Mr. English said : Mr. Speaker : I have not sought the floor upon any previous occasion during this ses- sion, not only because of a general disinclina- tion to speak, but also because I deem the dis- cussion which is going on in reference to the President's message as somewhat uninterest- ing and unprofitable to this House and the country. I always regret to hear the question of African slavery discussed in these halls. In my humble judgment, it would be wiser and better for Congress to consume less time SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. 617 in talking about this delicate and dangerous subject, and more in attending to the legiti- mate business of legislation. As a general thing, sir, the speeches of gentlemen upon the Republican side have been mere rehashes of those uttered by them upon the stump during the late canvass, and I do not think their ora- torical efforts are of a character likely to do much good, or to change the political senti- ments of anybody. Perhaps there has_ been no more striking instance of this than in the case of my colleague, [Mr. Cumback,] who ad- dressed the House this morning. Sir, the points made by my colleague are the same, if I mistake not, made by him upon many a stump during the late canvass; and, if I am correctly informed, he had the field all to him- self, his competitor being one of the best and purest men in the country, sound upon all po- litical questions, but a plain, unsophisticated farmer, who remained at home, and did not make a speech during the whole canvass. Now, Mr. Speaker, if my colleague,_ after having occupied some two months of time in making this speech before the people, where he was unanswered by his competitor, failed to convince them as to the correctness of his positions, how can he hope to convince this House upon the present occasion ? He and his doctrines were repudiated at home by a ma- jority of some fifteen hundred, notwithstand- ing he had been elected at the preceding elec- tion by a majority of six or sev"en hundred. He twits the President with having been con- demned by the people, but seems to forget his own unqualified condemnation : and when he arraigns the Democracy of the North he seems to forget that his position may be likened to that of the man found guilty by a jury of his country, who asserts the right to change posi- tions with the prosecutor, placing himself in that character and the prosecutor in the box of the prisoner. He should rather speak of the Democracy of Indiana in the spirit of that language applied by one of old to his enemy : "Great let me call him, for he conquered me." Sir, I do not rise with the intention of fol- lowing the example which has been set by my colleague and others in making any extended remarks. I only sought the floor for the pur- pose of answering certain charges which have been made against the Democracy of the North, and against the Democracy of my own state, in reference to the position which they occu- pied in the late canvass. It was charged by my colleague, that the Democratic party of In- diana evaded the great issues before the coun- try, and pandered to the spirit of free-soilism. The same charge has been made by other gentlemen, in even stronger language, and particularly by the gentlemen from Ohio, [Mr. Sherman,] of Kansas-investigating-committee- humbug notoriety, who said : "from what I heard and have read, T am satisfied that, in Ohio and Indiana, the Democratic party evaded meeting the question of the repeal of the Missouri compromise." .«**** ******* "I tell gentlemen they are mistaken if they suppose the people of the North— of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Illinois — -will agree to the extension of slavery Into Kansas. They expect that territory to come into the Union as a free state, under all circumstances. I am Bure that even those who are opposed to me in polities, and coming from the free states, will admit such to be the expectation of their people. They were led to believe it will be a free state, and voted under that impression. Had not such been the case, Buchanan and Breckenridge never would have received any of their votes." And again : " The Democratic party of the North, instead of taking the broad ground that the alleged laws were valid, and that if the people who would vote under those laws should so determine, then Kansas might come in as a slave state, evaded the issue, and insisted that it would come in as a free state. They themselves declared their determination to resist the extension of slavery, and to resist even the admission of Kansas into the Union as a slave state." Now, sir, in what I have to say in reference to these charges, I shall speak not only my own views, but. what I believe to be the senti- ments of the Democratic party in Indiana. I feel it my duty to repel these charges because Indiana is my native state, and because I have been identified from boyhood with her gallant Democracy. With them I have stood in many a hard-fought contest, have rejoiced over their many victories, and mourned over their de- feats, which, thank heaven, have been very few in number. Notwithstanding the advent of new political organizations, and the mutation of things generally, I have never found it ne- cessary to ask: "Where shall I go?" or to look out for new party associations. If I have not approved everything done by the Democra- tic party, I have at least considered it, when compared with any other party, as infinitely preferable and better for the safety and pros- perity of the country. It is a " healthy orga- nization," and under it the people breathe freer and deeper, because it respects the rights of all, and, in spite of every fanatical combi- nation, stands firmly by the Constitution and the Union. Sir, I am proud of the old-fashioned Democratic party, and feel like clinging to it with the affection which Ruth manifested for Naomi. It has stood the Union's friend in the time of the Union's greatest peril. May I not refer, with feelings of pride, to the fact, that in the late great struggle, Indiana, my own beloved mother, so to speak, loomed up the banner Democratic state of the North — giving a larger majority over the combined enemy than any other — and may I not, as one of her representatives, claim the attention of the House and the country in repelling the charges brought by the Black Republicans against the consistencv and soundness of her gallant Democracy ? Sir, I think I know something of the position which they occupied in the late canvass. I trust I shall be pardoned for claiming to know more of their position than the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Sherman,] who attended none of their public meetings, has no sympathy or associa- tion with them, and, of course, must have re- ceived his information from others — perhaps through a colored medium. I under ake to say there was no attempt at ev anion on the C18 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. part of the Democratic party of my state in the late contest. They fought the great battle on the principles enunciated by the Cincinnati convention. There was no attempt to dodge the issues. They made the light fairly and scpiarely, upon broad national principles; and my colleague and his associates of the other side ought to be the last men to accuse the Democratic party of Indiana with any desire to pander to the spirit of abolitionism. They know, or ought to know, that in their own ranks were nut only to be found Free-Soilers but Abolitionists. Yes, sir, the lowest and most God-forsaken, nigger-stealing Abolition- ists were to be found in that state doing battle against the national Democracy, side by side with my colleague and the leaders of the Black Republican party ; and, I am sorry to add, of the Know-Nothing party also. I find in the Louisville Courier the following: " A Conductor on the U. G. R. R. Captured— Startling Developments. — On Sunday morning the Rev. William An- derson, a toll yellow negro, armed with a carpet bag full of incendiary documents, was captured mi the mail boat Tele- graph No. 3. by officers Bligh and I'owell. They took him yesterday, on the steamer Superior, to Carrollton. where his presence was in great demand, a reward of $(JU0 haviug been oli. j rcd for his apprehension by the citizens of that place. This ebony reverend had been engaged for some time in the employ of his white Abolition brethren at the North, in running off slave property from this state to the hypotheti- cal free soil of the North. lie has been particularly atten- tive to the negro owners about Carrollton and the mouth of the Kentucky, carrying off the slaves in gangs. '•Anderson is a class leader and shouting clergyman in the Methodist Episcopal Church North, and chief of the Abolitionists in Madison. He carries with him the records of the social fraternity instituted by our up-river neighbors, and is the grand emissary of that society to promote human liberty, believing, with the Journal of this city, that all men are entitled to liberty, no matter of what color. " In the possession of Anderson were found several docu- ments implicating distinguished persons in the North in the cause of negro-stealing. When proper we shall make such exposures as may be necessary. It is evident that this is but one of a gang of men regularly paid by religious societies at the North, to steal our slaves and breed insur- rectionary feelings among them. It is gratifying to know that he has been arrested in his infamous career." Now, Mr. Speaker, this "Rev. William An- derson" was an ally of my colleague in the late canvass. [Laughter.] Like my colleague he stumped a portion of Indiana, denouncing the Democratic party, saying that they were pro-slavery in belief and sentiment, and in fa- vor of the extension of that institution. This same man made abolition speeches in my own district. He is, I am told, as black as the ace of spades — a regular full-blooded negro, not only in sentiment but in color. [Laughter.] And yet the men who acted with such sable disciples as "the Rev. William Anderson," come here and denounce the Democratic party of the North with having Abolition proclivi- ties ! While negroes were going to the polls in Ohio, and voting to send Black Republicans to this House, negroes in Indiana were travelling about making Republican stump speeches! Mr. Cumback. Do I understand my col- league to say that the individual to whom he refers canvassed my district with me? Mr. English. I say that this negro made Black Republican speeches at the same time my colleague was making similar speeches. They were hail fellows well met — brethren in one cause. Mr. Cumback. He may have made speech- es, hut 1 never saw the man. lie made no speeches in my district. Mr. English. This man, and (I believe) other colored men, made speeches in the north- ern part of the state. It is known to the country, that on several occasions these Re- publicans — I mean the black ones — were sent to meet Governor Willard when he was can- vassing Indiana on broad national principles, which would be held sound in any sound part of the United States. Mr. Colfax. I have heard something about this Mr. Anderson ; and I will state what I have heard. He was sent up to Elkhart coun- ty, in the northern part of the state, and the Republican Central Committee utterly repu- diated him. It was charged that the Demo- cratic party had sent him there to make speeches. [Laughter.] Mr. English. I have never heard that charge, and have no reason to believe that it is true. On the contrary, I have every rea- son to believe that it is not true. He was a Black Republican in principle. He spoke what he believed, and was encouraged to so speak by his Black Republican allies with white faces. [Laughter.] Mr. Cumback. I have no disposition to em- barrass my colleague. He says that these colored speakers were sent to meet Gov. Wil- lard during the canvass. Did not Governor Willard invite any speaker, black or white, to meet him ? and did he not back out when the black one came ? Mr. English. If Governor Willard ever invited any man to meet him, he always prov- ed himself equal to the occasion, and he cer- tainly did not shrink from any contest with his political enemies which a gentleman might honorably engage in. If he backed out from an association on the stump with a negro, as I presume he did, it was more than many of my colleague's associates would have done. Now, with a view of showing the position the Democratic party of Indiana did occupy in the late canvass, and also with the further view of showing the position the Black Republi- can and the Know-Nothing parties occupied in the same canvass in my state, I will read the resolution of the Indiana Fusion convention, adopted May 1, 1856, being the same conven- tion which nominated Mr. Morton, the fusion candidate for governor, at the late election : " Resolved, That we are uncompromisingly opposed to the extension of slavery; and that we utterly repudiate the platform of principles adopted by the self-styled Democratic convention of this state, endorsing and approving the Kansas and Nebraska iniquity. •• Resolved. That we will resist, by all proper means, the admission of any slave state into this Union, formed out of the territories secured to freedom by the Missouri com- promise, or otherwise." Now, these resolutions were adopted at a state convention of Black Republicans and Know-Nothings, and they show conclusively not only the position which the Democratic SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. 619 party occupied, but the position, also, of this fusion party. The Democratic party avowed itself in favor of the principles and doctrines of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, while the Republican party repudiated those doc- trines, and announced to the world that tbey were opposed to the extension of slavery under any and all circumstances, and would not vote to admit a state if she presented herself with a constitution tolerating slavery, even though it should be the unanimous wish of the people of the territory. And what is more, this same man Morton, who was nominated by that conven- tion as the Fusion candidate, had been a mem- ber of the celebrated Pittsburgh convention, over which Mr. Blair presided, and was a member of the committee on resolutions. And yet, sir, in a contest between this man, cover- ed all over with Free-Soilism, and standing upon the sectional platform which I have read, and Governor Willard, who stood upon broad national grounds, I regret to say that not only the Black Republican party support- ed Morton, but, in the main, the Know-No- thing party did the same thing. And as it may be a matter of surprise to some persons upon this floor, I will state that in a contest of this kind betweeu sectionalism upon one side, and nationalism upon the other, involving the most vital interests of the South, in a neigh- boring state, and in the district adjoining the one I represent, in the district represented by the able and distinguished gentleman who ad- dressed the House the other day, [Mr. II. Mar- shall,] the Louisville Journal, the organ of the Know-Nothing party in that region of country, encouraged his Know-Nothing bre- thren of Indiana to rush to the rescue in aid of this abolitionist, Morton, in order to defeat Willard, and prostrate the Democratic party. Mr. H. Marshall. I merely wish to correct a misapprehension of the gentleman in repre- senting the Louisville Journal as my organ. He is mistaken in point of fact ; and when he speaks of the paragraph in that paper to which be has alluded — which I never saw, but have heard commented upon — 1 merely desire to say, that the suggestion imputed to that jour- nal — and correctly, I presume — of a desire upon the part of that journal that the Know- Nothings of Indiana should take part in the election of Morton as against Willard, does not find a response in the Know-Nothing party in my section of the country. Mr. English. I have no desire to misre- present the gentleman, and certainly shall not do so intentionally ; but the fact is notorious, that in several articles preceding the election, the Know-Nothings of Indiana were encour- aged and solicited to cast their votes for Mor- ton as against Governor Willard. Here is one artide from the Journal, which will do for a sample : "State Election in Indiana. — Our opinion is frequently asked by our American friends in Indiana, as to the course they ought to take in their October election. They have better meaus, and are no doubt better able, to form a just opinion upon the subject than we are. Nevertheless, we do not hesitate to assert, our very strong belief, that, to promote heart, they should, with their whole hearts, support Mr Morton against Mr. WiUard fur tht. office of governor." Such hints as the^e met with a cordial re- sponse on the part of the Know-Nothing bre- thren in Indiana. Listen to the following peremptory order issued to the faithful by the New Albany Tribune, the chief organ of the party in that state, and which is published within four miles of theLouisvihe Journal : "Let there, be no clashing between the friends of Fillmore and Fremont, because their cans': it one cause. I^t the ener- gies of the friends of each be uuited against Bncbanan, and we will have no more slave Soii lo curse our Government." I think the gentleman from Kentucky will not make an issue with me touching this point, that the Know-lWuiflgs of Indiana, in accord- ance with the suggestions of the great organ of that party in iAs own state, generally voted with the BlacK Republican party and with the Abolitionists for this man Morton and the rest of the fusion state ticket. And I undertake to say, that not only did the Know-Nothings of Indiana pursue that course, but that many of the Know-Nothings of the state of Ken- tucky, in that particular region, sympathized with the Black Republicans and with the Abo- litionists in their contest with the national Democracy. Mr. II. Marshall. I desire to know of the gentleman whether, when he speaks of the Know-Nothings of Indiana, he means the Fillmore men of that state, and whether he means to represent here that the Fillmore men of the state of Indiana cast their votes for Morton ? Mr. English. I do ; and I have the evi- dence of the New Albany Tribune, and many other of the Fillmore organs of Indiana, to sustain the correctness of the assertion. Mr. H. Marshall. I ask the gentleman whether he does not know that the Hon. Ri- chard W. Thompson — whose character is known to everybody there, and who stood at the head of the Fillmore ticket in the state of Indiana — was on the stump, as active an ad- vocate of Willard's election as the gentleman himself? Mr. English. I do not mean to say that the entire Know-Nothing party of Indiana vo- ted for Morton, but general!;/ they did. There were a i'aw honorable exceptions. I believe Mr. Thompson did not support Willard — at least upon the stump, or with his vote — but, being a national man, it is likely his sympa- thies were with the Democratic party as against the Black Republican. There were only 5224 more votes cast at the presidential election than at the governor's election, Mr. Buchanan receiving but 001 more votes than Willard; the former receiving 118,079 votes, and the latter 117,981. Morton received 112,139votes,Fremont94,370,and Fill- more 22,380. These figures show conclusively, that the Fillmore party of Indiana, with a very few exceptions, voted for Morton and the Republican state ticket, and that, too, with the full knowledge that the result of that con- test would have a great influence, and would not hesitate to assert, our very strung oenei, mat, to promote , , ., — T ... , ., ,.. , ., ., the great national cause which they and we have alike at perhaps decide — as 1 think it did decide — tne 620 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. fate of the presidential election itself. Of the 22,386 men in that state who voted for Fill- more, I have no idea that over one thousand voted for Willard. I suppose I need not ask the gentleman whether the Louisville Journal be the organ of the Know-Nothing party in Kentucky. I will venture to ask him whether it is not gen- erally recognised as such? Mr. II. Marshall. It is. Mr. ENGLisn. Then I repeat my position, that the gentleman's brethren in Indiana not only acted, in the main, with the Abolition, against the Democratic party — not only frater- nized with sectional men against national men, but that his brethren in the state of Kentucky sympathized with their brethren of Indiana, and encouraged them to stand firm in support of the Black Republican state ticket. Mr. II. Marshall. In order that this mat- ter may go to the country right, I would ask the gentleman whether that appeal of the Louisville Journal to the Know-Nothings of Indiana to support Morton instead of Willard, was not put upon the ground that Willard was the biggest Abolitionist of the two, aod whe- ther that is not true? Mr. Englisu. I can answer the latter por- tion of the gentleman's question decidedly and emphatically, and that is, that it is not true ; and I am surprised that the gentleman should ask such a question. Mr. Orr. I presume no well-informed gen- tleman in the country believes it to be true. Mr. English. Sir, I have already read an official resolution, which shows a marked dif- ference between the position occupied by Gov- ernor Willard and the Democratic party and that occupied by Mr. Morton and the fusion party of that state. I have shown that the difference is as great as could possibly be be- tween two parties; the one planting itself upon the doctrines of the Nebraska bill, and the other repudiating it ; one ready to carry out the will of the people, and announcing themselves ready, whenever that will was fair- ly ascertained and expressed, to admit Kansas as a state, whether with a constitution re- cognising or not recognising the institution of slavery. Upon the other hand, the other party pro- claiming that they would not admit Kansas as a state with a constitution tolerating slavery, whether so expressed by the people of the ter- ritory or not. Their battle-cry was " No more slave states," " Resistance to the extension of African slavery under any and all circum- stances.'' Now, under this state of facts, can the gen- tleman from Kentucky see no difference be- tween these two parties ; and is he prepared to come before this House, and declare that he would not to.ss a copper for choice between them? Does he consider one as sound upon the rights of the South as the other, when one party declares itself opposed to the extension of slavery under any and all circumstances — that they will under no state of the case con- sent to the admission of any more slave states ; while the other plants itself upon the doc- trine of non-intervention, of the equality of the states, and the right of the people of a ter- ritory to decide what shall be the character of their own institutions, and pledges itself to recognise those institutions, whatever they may be? I want it to go to the country, and especially to the people of the south, that when we were engaged in the most fearful contest that ever was waged in this country — involving issues and institutions of vital importance to them, but of comparatively little to us — yea, even repugnant to the tastes and ideas of our peo- ple — that when " the Kansas aid fund" was contributing its thousands ; when the worst passions of the worst men (even negroes) were roused against us ; when the storm of fanati- cism was howling all around us, and the great army of sectionalists was bearing down upon us like an avalanche, there came no words of cheer to us from the Know-Nothings of the south ; but there did come a voice from their leading organ, cheering on the enemy, and en- couraging the Know-Nothings of my state to join the enemy's standard. I want the people of the south to know, that whilst these things were going on in the Know-Nothing camp, thousands of foreigners by birth and Catholics (whom the Know-Nothings would have you per- secute) were'standing with us in defence of your constitutional rights, and in beating back the cohorts of Black Republicanism. Mr. II. Marshall. Will the gentleman from Indiana enlighten me upon his opinion of the doctrine of squatter sovereignty ? Mr. English. Oh, that is a matter of minor importance. [Laughter.] Mr. H. Marshall. I ask the gentleman from Indiana, will he permit me to remark, that it may be published with his speech, and go wherever his speech goes, and wherever Democratic speeches generally go, that in the remark I have made indicating that I would not toss a copper between Buchanan and Fre- mont, that I confined it, and mean that it shall be confined, to the declaration that the south- ern people could rely as little upon one as the other. In other words, that the doctrine of ex- clusion and squatter sovereignty are, to the slaveholder, the same doctrine precisely. There I stand ; and I challenge the gentleman or his party to meet me here or elsewhere upon that proposition. Mr English. Mr. Speaker, I have no dis- position to evade the issue tendered by the gentleman from Kentucky. I am willing to concede to him and his party, that there is some difference between the positions occupied by the Democratic party at the North, and that occupied by a portion of the Democratic party at the South, upon this particular ques- tion of popular or squatter sovereignty ; but I do not regard that difference to any considera- ble extent as material, as some other gentle- men seem to do ; because we all agree, that whenever the people of a territory come to form a state government, the will of the peo- ple, clearly expressed, shall be the paramount SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. 621 law, and that that shall be an end of the •whole matter. That I conceive is the essen- tial point, and upon it there is no material difference between the position which I occupy, and which the Democratic party of Indiana occupy, and that occupied by the Democratic party at the South, as I understand it. But can the gentleman see no difference be- tween the position which we occupy and that occupied by the Black Republican party? Why, sir, to what do Ave of the Democratic party of the North hold? We say that, al- though we have no particular love for the in- stitution of slavery — notwithstanding we may in some respects regard it as a social evil, as many of us do, yet we go further and declare that it is not for us to intermeddle -with the affairs of another people, that we will leave it with them to decide as to the character of their own institutions, and that, whenever we know decidedly and fairly what that will is, we in- tend to respect it, and to do our part towards carrying it faithfully into execution. I go still further, and come direct to the most essential point, for I have no disposition, nor have my constituents, to evade the ques- tion, that while I may prefer, and do prefer, that Kansas shall be a free state, yet if the will of her people, fairly and fully expressed, decide that it shall be a slave state, I shall vote to' admit her if I occupy a seat upon this floor ; and I believe that every Democrat from every northern state will do the same thing. Does that look like pandering to Abolitionism ? Does that look as if the charge of gentlemen upon this floor that the Democratic party took stronger grounds in favor of abolition than the Republican party, was well founded ? Can the gentleman from Kentucky point to one Republican representative in this hall who will vote to carry out the will of the people of Kansas, no matter how clearly and decidedly expressed, if that will should be in favor of making Kansas a slave state? I apprehend, sir, not one ; certainly not one from my own state ; and yet the gentleman can see no ma- terial difference between the Republican and Democratic party, and " would not toss up a copper for choice between them \" Mr. Cumback. I ask my colleague if he did not last summer, in an address to his constitu- ents, state that there was not, so far as he knew, a Democrat in all Indiana who was in favor of making Kansas a slave state? And did he not repel the charge made by the Re- publicans that such was the object of that party ? Mr. English. I do not remember the pre- cise language I used in the address to which the gentleman alludes ; but I will say to the gentleman now, that I do not believe there is any considerable number of Democrats in the state of Indiana — I do not know a man of any party there — who is in favor of extending the institution of slavery. But we of the De- mocratic party are willing to allow other peo- ple to do as they please upon this subject, and hold their own opinions iu respect to it. Mr. Cumback. Does my colleague state that he did not make such a statement to his constituents? Mr. English. I think it altogether possi- ble that I did, because I have substantially -re- peated the same thing to-day. I am not in favor of extending the institution of slavery. I have never voted to extend it, and I never expect to vote to extend it. If I were a resi- dent of Kansas, I should no doubt do what I honorably and fairly could to make it a free state, because my sympathies are with free- dom—having been born and educated in a free state, and being a representative from one — but I am willing to accord to others the same free exercise of their opinions and sentiments upon these subjects which I claim for myself. As far as I can now call to mind, I have pub- lished no sentiment upon this subject which I desire to recall. I do remember having said, upon a previous occasion in behalf of the citizens of Indiana, what I might repeat now with very little, if any, modification: that "they are a people who have always acted with strict fidelity to the Constitution and the rights of all the states ; making it their proud boast, that in duty and respect to the differeut sections of our com- mon country, they know no North, no South, no East, no* West — nothing but the Constitu- tion and the Union. As a community they have no sickly sen- timentality upon the subject of slavery; they do not forget that it existed in all the states at the formation of the general government, and that where it exists now it is a matter of necessity rather than of choice ; they believe as a general thing, that negroes are but little better off in a state of freedom at the north than they are in a state of slavery in the south ; they have, by an unprecedented major- ity, excluded the whole black race from com- ing into their borders by constitutional provi- sions, and, as far as I know, there is not at this time one negro in the whole county where I reside. If a slave escapes into Indiana, we give him up promptly to his master ; not be- cause it affords us pleasure to do so, but be- cause it is a right secured to the master by the Constitution and the laws of the country, which it is our duty, as good citizens, to obey. We may not like' the institution of slavery, either in its moral, social, or political bearings, buJ we consider that it is a matter which eaeJ organized community ought to be altywed t decide for itself. We have free institution, and are happy and prosperous, and it is m tural that our sympathies should be in favo of freedom. Whilst we intend to act in pe« feet good faith towards our brethren of th. south, we do not conceal that we ardentl) hope that slavery may not be extended ; ant this I believe is a sentiment common to all tht free states. Mr. Cumback. Do I understand the gentle- man, then, to state he is opposed to the exten- sion of slavery ? Mr. English. I did so state, and, aa I 622 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. thought, so distinctly as not to be misunder- stood. Mr. Cumback. How does the gentleman, then, reconcile that opinion with the statement just made, that he would vote to admit Kansas as a slave state ? Mr. English. Simply in the fact, that if Kansas be made a slave state, it will not be by my action ; and it is not a matter which will concern me. It is enough for me, as a citizen of Indiana, to look to the character of the institutions of that state, leaving the in- stitutions of Kansas to be cared for and regu- lated by the people who are to live under those institutions. We think it is enough for us to attend to our own business, and let the business of our neighbors alone ; and that, if the Abolitionists would attend to their own business, and stop their eternal agitation of the slavery question, it would be better for the slaves and the whole country. Now, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Nichols] yesterday spread before the House, as a matter of great importance, a handbill calling a Democratic meeting in some one of the northern states, during the late can- vass, headed " Buchanan, Breckinridge, and free Kansas." Other gentlemen, I believe, have paraded the same handbill, and with an air of triumph, too, as much as to say, " This will be regarded at the south as conclusive evidence of the unsoundness of the northern Democracy upon the slavery question." I saw no such handbill in the late canvass ; but if there was, what of it ? Why, sir, what does it amount to ? Have not I already said that I am not in favor of extending slavery, and that the Democratic party of the north are not in favor of extending slavery — that they are in favor of Kansas being a free state ? But how made a free state? Not by Congressional intervention. Not by the impertinent interfe- rence of emigrant aid societies. Not at all. But by the free, unbiassed will of her own citizens. We say to " Border Ruffians" in Missouri, to Abolitionists in the north, and to fanatics everywhere, " Hands oft' of this people; give them, as far as possible, freedom to gov- ern themselves, and to work out their own destiny." We are in favor of "free Kansas" in that sense. If there was any such handbill as has been referred to — though I never heard of any — that was its meaning ; or else that we were in fa vor ■ of free white men, in contradistinc- tion to 'lack men ; that we wanted the peo- ple who went to a territory to be free to deter- mine the character of their own institutions. Mr. II. Marshall. I wish my friend from Indiana would state his opinion on a single question. Mr. English. I know the gentleman is an experienced debater, and may possibly get some advantage over me if I give him the floor ; but I will yield to him. Mr. Cobb, of Ccorgia. He has not done so yet, that is certain. Mr. II. Marshall. When the gentleman from Indiana speaks of the freedom of the people of a territory, does he mean that the people, when in a territorial condition, have that freedom ? Mr. English. " Monsieur Tonson come again !" [Laughter.] I believe that the will of the people ought to be carried out. The Democratic party north and south differ some- what as to the time % when that will is to be ascertained ; but we all agree that when it is ascertained it should be fairly executed. I think I may safely say that there is not a southern man within the sound of my voice who will not vote for the admission of Kansas as a free state, if she brings here a constitu- tion to that effect. Is there a southern man here who will vote against the admission of Kansas as a free state, if it be the undoubted will of the people of that territory that it shall be a free state ? Many Members. Not one. Mr. English. No, sir, there is not one southern man who will vote against the ad- mission of a territory into the Union as a free state, if she presents herself with a free state constitution, made such by the clearly express- ed will of her people. Then, if the gentlemen of the south are willing to act thus fairly and liberally towards me and the institutions I prefer, why shall not I meet them in a simi- lar spirit ? We agree that the will of the peo- ple shall prevail. When shall we ascertain that will ? A portion of the gentlemen from the south hold that the proper time is when the people meet for the purpose of framing a state constitution. I believe that is the posi- tion of southern men generally. It is not the position of them all. A portion hold, as I do, that the right of the people begins at an ear- lier period — that this question is within their control from the time the organic act is pass- ed and put into operation. Mr. H. Marshall. They are very few who believe that. Mr. English. I am sorry there are not more. If that be not the true ground, I do not see what has been gained by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. There was a clause in the Missouri compromise restricting slavery forever. It was generally concede! that the term forever was not to be taken in its literal sense — that it only meant during the existence of the territorial government. In fact it has been decided in the Supreme Court of the United States in several instances, that a restriction of the kind would not be binding after the organization of a state government. (See 3d Howard, pages 212 and 589 ; also, 10th Howard, page 82.) Then none would doubt that a state had the right to settle this question for itself. Mr. Suerman. Prior to the prohibition of slavery in a territory by a territorial govern- ment, have the citizens of the south the right to take their slaves there, and hold them as such ? Mr. English. I will continue the line of argument I was pursuing before I was inter- SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. 623 rupted ; but before I take my seat I will reply to the gentleman's interrogatory. I was go- ing on to say that, in my judgment, unless the people of a territory had the right, under their territorial government, to decide this question for themselves, I could not conceive the neces- sity for the repeal of the Missouri restriction. The people, under that law, could establish or prohibit slavery, ichen they came to be admitted as a state, just as well as under this construc- tion of the Kansas bill. Then what was gain- ed f I hold my position to be the correct one, that the people have the right to determine the question for the time being, when they are organized into a territorial government. I will now hear the question of the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. Sherman. My question is this : Does the gentleman hold that, prior to the prohibition of slavery in the territory, and while it is in a territorial condition, the people of the southern states may carry their slaves into that territory, and hold them there as such ? Mr. English. That is a question purely of constitutional law, and will probably be soon determined by the highest judicial tribunal of the country. I am willing to acquiesce in that decision, whatever it may be. But my indi- vidual judgment is, that slavery is not carried into the territories of the United States under the operation of the Constitution. I cannot see that that instrument carries the peculiar institution of the south there, any more than it does the peculiar institution of any other section. Mr. Sherman. In that opinion does not the gentleman diifer from the southern wing of his party ? Mr. English. I apprehend that I do with a portion of it ; but the difference is not mate- rial. The question is a constitutional one ; and the Democratic party, North and South, will acquiesce in whatever may be the decision of the court. I ask the gentleman from Ohio, if the Constitution carries the institution of slav- ery into the territories by its operation, whether the constitution would not just as much carry the institution there if the Kansas-Nebraska bill had never been passed, and the Missouri restriction had not been repealed ? Mr. Sherman. That question presents a double reading. My answer is this : the Con- stitution of the United States carries slavery nowhere ; that it is a local institution, confin- ed within state limits, and goes nowhere ex- cept where express law carries it. Mr. English. In the main I think so too ; but then, if it be true that the Constitution carries slavery into the territories, I say it is a constitutional right which Congress cannot legislate away. Of what use, then, are the Missouri restriction and the Wilmot proviso, if the Constitution carries slavery into the terri- tories ? It is a power which we cannot take away by legislation — the Constitution being the paramount law. I will ask the gentleman further: if the Supreme Court of the United States should decide that the constitution does carry slavery into the territories, will he acquiesce in that decision ? Mr. Sherman. I answer, yes. Mr. Scott. As my colleague is speaking for the Democratic party of Indiana, I wish to know whether that party has any opinion upon the question which he is speaking upon ; and if they have, what is that opinion ? Mr. English. The Democratic party of In- diana regard the Constitution as the highest law of this land, and they will carry out the Constitution as it may be construed by the pro- per judicial tribunal of the country, let that decision be what it may ; but prior to that de- cision, I will give what I understand to be the position of the Democratic party of Indiana — and it certainly is my own — and that is, that they do not consider that the Constitution car- ries the institution of slavery into a territory; they think that there must first be some law establishing or recognising the institution be- fore it can have any legal existence. Gentle- men might go there with their slaves, and hold them by sufferance and permission, but I apprehend not by such a legal right as could ever be enforced in the courts. Mr. Scott. I wish to know of the gentleman whether he and his party in Indiana hold that slavery is lawfully in Kansas at this time? Mr. English. I have never sufficiently ex- amined in reference to that question, or read the laws of Kansas upon that subject with sufficient care to give a very definite or posi- tive reply : but I have this to say, that if sla- very be there legally, and by the will of the people, I shall not interfere with it. I shall do whatever in my power lies to carry out the will of the people, no matter whether that will recognises slavery or prohibits it. If slavery is now in Kansas, or should get there hereafter, and the people do not want it, it is an easy matter for them to get rid of it. If they are restricted at all, it is by the Consti- tution of the United States; otherwise this subject is always and entirely under their con- trol". Mr. Scott. I would most respectfully ask my colleague what is the opinion of the Demo- cratic party of Indiana upon that question? As he speaks for the party of that state, I want to know what their ground is, and what ground they took in the last canvass'/ Mr. English. Their ground, in brief, was and is simply this : that Congress ought not to interfere with the question of slavery in the states or in the territories : that there ought to be an equality between the states; and that. the people of the territories should have the right to regulate and determine those matters just as they please, subject only to the Consti- tution of the United States. That was the broad position the party occupied in the late canvass; and lean tell gentlemen upon the other side that the canvass was conducted fairly and squarely upon the great national doctrines laid down by the Cincinnati convention ; and that there was no attempt at evasion, or trick- 624 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ery, and no concessions made to Abolitionism, Free-Soilism, Sectionalism, Know-Nothingism, or any other ism. It was a square, straight- out, unsullied Democratic victory. Mr. Scott. I -want to know one way or the other — and I care not which — whether the Democratic party of Indiana holds to-day that slavery lawfully exists in Kansas ? Mr. English. I have already explained that I have not examined that particular subject myself with sufficient care to give a positive answer ; but I say again, that if it be true that slavery has been recognised by the actual citizens of the territory — if it has been adopted by the proper law-making power of the country, I shall not interfere with carrying out the will bo expressed. That is a matter to be deter- mined within the territory, and by the people immediately interested; not by Congress, and those who live within the states. Now, the only evidence brought forward to show that the' Democracy of Indiana have been tainted with Free-Soilism was a resolu- tion of a Democratic convention in that state, read to the House a few days since by the gen- tleman from Ohio upon my left [Mr. Nichols] — a resolution which, if I am correctly informed, was adopted as far back as 1849. That was a long time ago, Mr. Speaker ; and perhaps I might be justified in pleading the statute of limitations. But I shall not do that. I concede that upon a certain occasion, when there was a convention of the Democratic party of Indi- ana, a resolution was adopted somewhat Free- Soilish in its tendency. It would, no doubt, be a sufficient answer to all this, to say that it occurred before the passage of the great com- promise act of 1850, which inaugurated anew era, which asserted the same great principles of popular sovereignty and congressional non- intervention afterwards incorporated into the Kansas and Nebraska bill, and which, in 1852, was solemnly received and adopted in the Na- tional conventions of the Whig and Democratic parties as a final settlement, in principle and substance, of the dangerous and exciting ques- tion of slavery. I can tell gentlemen, how- ever, that it might be accounted for in still another way. At the time this resolution was adopted there were a great many in the ranks of the Democratic party who were not Demo- crats in good faith, but had Free-Soil proclivi- ties, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Nich- ols] was perhaps one — for he claimed formerly to be a Democrat. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Cumback] was another, and some other of his Republican colleagues from Indiana were afflicted with the same ugly complaint. When this Free-Soil element — when such gentlemen as these were hanging upon the skirts of the Democratic party, this resolution was smug- gled through a Democratic convention in my state. But I can tell gentlemen that our party has been purified since then, that this corrupt Free-Soil portion lias sloughed off, and a part of it has, by some strange combination in the chapter of accidents, drifted into this hall — on the same principle, perhaps, that dirty scum sometimes rises to the top of boiling water We have lost the sectional portion of our party, but, thank Heaven, we have gained what is far better, the national portion of the old Whig party. W r e have just achieved a great victory over* the Black Republicans of the North, and their Know-Nothing allies of the South. We have, for the time being, at least, and I trust forever, checked the onward march of section- alism at the North. We have fought it, not because it was in the North, but because it was sectionalism. Sir, we are just as ready to fight the same spirit in the South, or wherever else it may lift its hydra head. When Mr. Buchanan said that "the object of his administration would be to destroy any sectional party — North or South — and harmonize all sections of the Union under a national and conservative gov- ernment, as it was fifty years ago," he uttered a sentiment which should meet the cordial approval of every patriotic heart. This is no time for violent, extreme men, or extreme views. The country demands peace. We want a firm, conservative, national administration, which I have confidence we shall have — one looking to the happiness of the whole people and the per- petuation of the Union under the Constitution, as paramount objects — conciliatory in its char- acter — respecting the rights of all and just to all, but firm and decided in rebuking section- alism and fanaticism, no matter from what quarter it may come. These are what I conceive to be some of the views and wishes of the Democracy of my state. In repelling the charges made against them, and in defining their position, I have been led to extend my remarks beyond what I had at first designed. I believe it is their in- tention, as it certainly is mine, to stand by tho rights of the people of an organized territory to determine, under the Constitution, this ques- tion of slavery for themselves, without inter- ference on the part of any outsiders whatever. We intend to stand by the equality of the states, by the Constitution and the Union, to the last, and to war upon Abolitionism and its kindred heresies to the bitter end. " I differ with many of my Southern friends, not as to the right, but as to the source from which that right is derived. I do not think it comes from the Constitution of the United States. Before the Union was formed, before the Constitution was framed, and adopted, slavery — man's right of property in man- was recognised and admitted then, as it is now, all over the country, and by every one. This right of property is not the creature of local laws or municipal regulations ; but it is the law, if I may use the expression, of com- mon consent, protected and sanctioned, it is true by local legislation, but not derived from it. Slavery, then, existing before the Consti- tution was framed— slaves being recognised as property everywhere — I have a right, by virtue of this universal recognition, to carry this, as any other property, into any territory or any state of this country where there is not some local law bearing upon this right SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. 625 and preventing its exercise ; but where there are these local prohibitory laws, however unjust, however unequal, however unfair I may deem them, 1 must yield them obedience until repealed or declared unconstitutional by the proper tribunals of the country. I hope I am understood." — Mr. A. K. Marshall of Ky. in H. ofR., Feb. 4, 1857. Remarks of Hon. John A. Quitman of Miss. in House of Representatives, Dec. 18, 1856. I come now to apply this principle of sovereignty to the territories. At the time of the formation of the Federal Constitution there were not in existence any such muni- cipal communities as those we now term terri- tories. Consequently the language of that instrument, which confers upon Congress the authority " to dispose of and make all need- ful rules and regulations for the territory and other property of the United States," was not intended to convey to Congress the right of legislation over the territories as subsequently constituted. This is clear. The context itself shows that the word " territory" was palpably used in the sense of property, for the disposal of which Congress, the common agent of the states, was to make the " need- ful rules and regulations," such as to survey the lands and to provide for their sale. This is further shown by the stronger and more explicit language used in conferring the power of legislation over such cession as might be made by the states for the seat of govern- ment. Whence, then, is derived the power of Congress to legislate for a territory, as we now understand the term? Before I proceed to answer this question of the power of muni- cipal legislation, I should state, what neces- sarily follows from the views which I have already presented, that the people of a terri- tory possess no sovereign power. They occupy the common territory of all the states, over which the states jointly not only possess the eminent domain, but also the ultimate sover- eignty. The inhabitants of a territory possess no more sovereignty over it than if they had established their residences in the Russian empire. All the political powers that the people of a territory possess or acquire must come from the states, either by the common grant of all the states, or by cession from their agent, the federal government, under the Constitution. Now, sir, having fixed their true relations to the states, I shall proceed to answer the inquiry, Whence does Congress derive the right of legislation over the terri- tories ? It is, in my opinion, implied in the power delegated by the states to Congress in the Constitution, to admit new states into the Union upon equal footing with the original states. This right necessarily implies the right of Congress to prepare the people (or rather the inhabitants, for the term " people" technically signifies a community, politically organized, and cannot, in that sense, be applied to the inhabitants of a territory) for 40 ment. making; organic admission into the Union as a state. The major includes the minor — that is to say, under the power to "admit," Congress pos- sesses the right of paving the way for that act — of making the preliminary arrangements for the important change of the political con- dition of a territory. It is under that power, then, and not under the right to make "rules and regulations" for the disposal of the com- mon territory that Congress can legislate for the territories, or establish municipal govern- ments therein. But, sir, this authority is limited to legislation, and does not extend to the exercise of any power properly appertain- ing to sovereignty, much less to the delega- tion of such attributes to the territorial govern- The power of legislation, and that of laws, are distinct things — the one may be exercised by the legislative branch of the' government ; the other is the exclusive attribute of the sovereign power. In the whole process, this high authority is brought into action in only one instance — on the admission of a new state. In the act of admission into the Union as a state, the people of a territory are at once collectively invested with sovereignty. From that instant they stand as the peer of every other state. The sovereign power passes to them, not from the federal government (for that government can not hold it), but by the cession of the other states, in conformity with their constitutional compact, by which, by empowering Congress as their common agent to admit new states upon an equality with themselves, they have bound themselves to cede their joint sover- eignty, until that moment retained, to their new sister. From the principles I have laid down, Mr. Speaker, the inference clearly follows, that Congress, possessing merely the power of municipal legislation to prepare the territories for admission into the Union, has no power to exclude or abolish slavery in the territories. Much less have the inhabitants of a territory, possessing no inherent sovereignty, and hav- ing no political powers except those derived from Congress, this right. A glance at the condition of the inhabitants of any portion of our common territory, before the establishment of any territorial govern- ment, may still further tend to illustrate my views. What is the condition of the residents now upon the Gadsden purchase — the inha- bitants of the rich and fruitful hills and dales of Arizonia ? Are they in a state of nature, like the wild savage, without a political status, without laws to restrain them, or without rights to be protected ? I think not ; for I differ from my friend from South Carolina [Mr. Orr], in the opinion which he the other day advanced, as to the state of a territory. There is, sir, in my opinion, a common law, which exists in every portion of our common country, as well in the states as in the com- mon territory, from the instant of its acquisi- tion ; and that law is the Constitution of the United States. 626 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Mr. Orr. In speaking of fhe common law, I had reference to the common law of Eng- land. I stated expressly, that, in my belief, the Constitution extended over the territories. Mr. Quitman. I then understood the gentle- man to take the ground that no law for the protection of property existed in any of the territories, until made by the territorial legis- lature. I think that I now comprehend his idea better. I maintain, in the first place, that the inhabitants of such portions of our territory have all the rights, privileges, and immunities provided or reserved in the Con- stitution. Furthermore, every citizen of any of the states, from whatever section of the country he goes, taking up his residence on the common territory of the states, carries with him all the essential rights which he possessed in his own state. The states being joint pro- prietors and co-sovereigns, the citizen of each state stands, as it were, upon the soil of his own state, as much so as if he stood upon the deck of an American vessel on the high seas. The general principles of law that are common to all the states, founded on usage and general conformity, prevail in and constitute the com- mon law of the territory. There may be no judicial organization to enforce that law, but it has vitality, and exists ; and, upon the esta- blishment of judicial tribunals, would be re- cognised and acted upon without positive legislation on the subject of these rights. Prominent among these rights, is that pro- perty recognised by any of the states. When that right, as in the case of slaves, is recognised by the organic law of nearly one-half of the states in the Union, and at least in one instance acknowledged by the Constitution of the United States, it not only exists and is available in the common territory of the states before the esta- blishment of civil government there, but is far beyond the reach of both the federal and territorial governments when found on the common possessions of the states. There is but one power that can destroy my right to my slave, and that is the state in which I hold him, or to which I voluntarily carry him. If the federal government does not possess Hie right, it is absurd to say that one of its de- partments has it. While I concede to that high tribunal, the Supreme Court of the United States, the right to determine finally all cases of law and equity which come within its jurisdiction, I deny its authority to settle questions which involve the political rights of the states. The Constitution is the work of the states, and they must construe it for them- selves upon all questions affecting their rights. These would cease to be rights, if subject to the antagonistic power against which they were limited. It is absurd to suppose that the states, in the formation of the Constitution, jealous of their great essential political rights, would have left them at the mercy of that very power, against the encroachments of which they were erecting a barrier. It is yet more .absurd to suppose that they would have left them, by construction, to one department of the government — and that department, both from its mode of appointment and its tenure of offic - . , the least responsible to the people. I approve, Mr. Speaker, the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska act. I claim, under it, and under the Constitution, the right to carry my slave into either of those territories. I know that this right, if a case can be made on it, may be the subject of the examination and decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and that that decision, in any given case, would be final. I would abide by it, as a settlement of the case decided ; but I am not willing to let it go to the world that I would respect the precedent, or that I would sur- render the principle that the assertion of such essential rights belongs exclusively to the states aggrieved by their violation. The Supreme Court, in my opinion, possesses no jurisdiction to decide finally upon the political rights of the states. I am still old-fashioned enough to stand squarely upon the doctrines of the Virginia anil Kentucky resolutions of 179S-'99. At last, Mr. Speaker, this whole subject resolves itself into several great questions connected with the theory of our political system. Is this essentially a national government, or is it a union of sovereign states ? Does the sovereignty, or supreme power, reside in the central government, or the ma.-s of the people of our country, as a nation, one and indivisible ? or does it yet repose in the sovereign states ? The solution of these great questions ha*, at various periods of our political history, occupied the attention of the best statesmen of the country. The radical principles in- volved in them divided the gigantic intellects of Calhoun and Webster. Almost all the differences of opinion that exist, as to the action of the federal government on the prac- tical issues which spring up from day to day, grow out of the various solutions of these questions. Therefore they are, indeed, worthy of repeated discussion. "It is objected to the bill, that it establishes ' squatter sovereignty,' by which is meant the right of the people, in their territorial charac- ter, by their Legislative Council, to establish or prohibit slavery. Now, a word more on this subject. If it were true that the 'squatter sovereignty' feature existed in the bill, what would the South lose by it? As long as the Missouri restriction stands, slavery cannot go into this territory. If you repeal the restric* tion, and establish 'squatter sovereignty,' slaves may be admitted there. It would then depend on the will of the settlers of the terri- tory. They might admit it or not. The de- cision would be according to the popular will : and there would be a chance for the South : while, under the Missouri restriction, she has no chance." — Mr. Ready of Tern, in House of Representatives, 1st session odd Congress. SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. 627 Mr. Webster, in the debate upon the Ore- gon bill, in 1848, says : — " I am not going into metaphysics, for therein I should encounter the honorable member from South Carolina, and Ave should \rander, in ' endless mazes lost,' until after the time for the adjournment of Congress. The Southern states have peculiar laws, and by those laws there is property in slaves. This is purely local. The real meaning, then, of Southern gentlemen, in making this complaint, is, that they cannot go into the territories of the United States, carrying with them their own peculiar local law — a law which creates property in persons. This, according to their own statement, is all the ground of complaint they have. Now, here I think gentlemen are unjust towards us. How unjust they are, others will judge — generations that will come after us will judge. It will not be contended that this sort of personal slavery exists by general law. It exists only by local law. I do not mean to deny the validity of that local law where it is established ; but I say it is, after all, nothing but local law. It is nothing more. And wherever that local law does not extend, property in persons does not exist. Well, sir, what is now the demand on the part of our Southern friends? They say, 'We will carry our local laws with us wherever we go. We insist that Congress does us injustice, unless it establishes in the territory, in which we wish to go, our own local law.' This de- mand I for one resist and shall resist. It goes upon the idea that there is an inequality, un- less persons under this local law, and holding property by authority of that law, can go into new territory, and there establish that local law, to the exclusion of other law. Mr. Pre- sident, it was a maxim of the civil law, that between slavery and freedom, freedom should always be presumed, and slavery must always be proved. If any question arose as to the status of an individual in Rome, he was pre- sumed to be free until he was proved to be a slave. So, I suppose, is the general law of mankind. An individual is to be presumed to be free until a law can be produced which creates ownership in his person. I do not dis- pute the force and validity of the local law, as I have already said, but I say it is a matter to be proved ; and, therefore, if individuals go into any part of the earth, it is to be proved that they are not freemen, or else the pre- sumption is that they are. " Now, our friends seem to think that an inequality arises from restraining them from going into the territories, unless there be a law provided which shall protect their owner- ship in persons. The assertion is, that we create an inequality. Is there nothing to be said on the other side in relation to inequality? Sir, from the date of this Constitution, and in the councils that formed and established this Constitution, and I suppose in all men's judg- ment since, it is received as a settled truth, that slave labor and free labor do not exist well together. I have before me a declaration of Mr. Mason, in the convention that formed the Constitution, to that effect. He says that the objection to slave labor is, that it puts free white labor in disrepute ; that it makes labor to be regarded as derogatory to the character of the free white man, and that he despises to work — to use his expression — where slaves are employed. This is a matter of great in- terest to the free states, if it be true, as to a great extent it certainly is, that wherever slave labor prevails, free white labor is ex- cluded or discouraged. I agree that slave labor does not necessarily exclude free labor totally. There is free white labor in Virginia, Tennessee, and other states ; but it necessarily loses something of its respectability by the side of, and when associated with, slave labor. Wherever labor is mainly performed by slaves, it is regarded as degrading to free men. The free men of the North, therefore, have a deep interest to keep labor free — exclusively free — in the new territories. "But, sir, let us look further into this alleged inequality. There is no pretence that Southern people may not go into territory which shall be subject to the ordinance of 1787. The only restraint is, that they shall not carry slaves thither, and continue that re- lation. They say this shuts them altogether out. Why, sir, there can be nothing more inaccurate in point of fact than this. I understand that one-half the people who settled in Illinois are people, or descendants of people, who came from the Southern states. And I suppose that one-third of the people of Ohio are those or descendants of those, who emigrated from the South ; and I venture to say, that in respect to those two states, they are at this day settled by people of Southern origin in as great a proportion as they are by the people of Northern origin, according to the general numbers and proportion of the people, South and North. There are as many people from the South, in proportion to the whole people of the South, in those states, as there are from the North, in proportion to the whole people of the North. There is, then, no exclusion of Southern people : there is only the exclusion of a peculiar local law. Neither in principle nor in fact is there any inequality. " The question now is, whether it is not competent to Congress, in the exercise of a fair and just discretion, to say that, consider- ing that there have been five slaveholding states added to this Union out of foreign acquisitions, and as yet only one free state, whether, under this state of things, it is un- reasonable and unjust in the slightest degree to limit their further extension ? That is the question. I see no injustice in it. As to the power of Congress, I have nothing to add to what I said the other day. I have said that I shall consent to no extension of the area of slavery upon this continent, nor any increase of slave representation in the other House of Congress." In Mr. Webster's speech of the 7th of C2S THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. March, 1S50, on the compromise measures of that year, said : — " Sir, wherever there is a particular good to be done — wherever there is a foot of land to be stayed back from becoming slave terri- tory — I am ready to assert the principle of the exclusion of slavery. I am pledged to it from the year 1837 ; I have been pledged to it again and again ; and I will perform those pledges." Reservations of, in their Instructions to their Delegates in the Continental Congress. The Pennsylvania instructions contain the following reservation: — " Reserving to the people of this colony the sole and exclusive right of regulating the in- ternal government and police of the same." And, in a subsequent instruction, in refer- ence to suppressing the British authority in the colonies, Pennsylvania uses this language : — "Unanimously declare our willingness to concur in a vote of the Congress declaring the United Colonies free and independent states, provided the forming the government and the regulation of the internal police of this colony be always reserved to the people of the said colony." Connecticut, in authorizing her delegates to vote for the Declaration of Independence, at- tached to it the following condition : — " Saving that the administration of govern- ment, and the power of forming governments for, and the regulation of the internal concerns and police of each colony, ought to be left and remain to the respective colonial legislatures." New Hampshire annexed this proviso to her instructions to her delegates to vote for independence : — " Provided the regulation of our internal police be under the direction of our own As- sembly." New Jersey imposed the following condi- tion : — " Always observing that, whatever plan of confederacy you enter into, the regulating the internal police of this province is to be re- served to the colonial legislature." Maryland gave her consent to the Declara- tion of Independence upon the condition con- tained in this proviso : — " And that said colony will hold itself bound by the resolutions of a majority of the United Colonies in the premises, provided the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police of that colony be re- served to the people thereof." Virginia annexed the following condition to her instructions to vote for the Declaration of Independence : — " Provided that the power of forming govern- ment for, and the regulations of the internal concerns of the colony, be left to respective colonial legislatures." Story, Judge. On a Slave Case in England. Salem, near Boston, Sept. 22, 1828. To Rt. Hon. Win. Lord Stowell: My Lord : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letters of January and May last, the former of which reached me in the latter part of spring, and the latter quite recently. * * * I have read with great attention, your judg- ment in the slave case from the Vice-Admiralty Court in Antigua. Upon the fullest considera- tions which I have been able to give the sub- ject, I entirely concur in your views. . If I had been called upon to pronounce a judg- ment in a like case, I should certainly have arrived at the same result, though I might not have been able to present the reasons which led to it in such a striking and con- vincing manner. It appears to me that the decision is impregnable. In my native state (Mass.), the state of slavery is not recognised as legal; and yet, if a slave should come hither and afterwards return to his own home, we should certainly think that the local law would reattach upon him, and that his servile character would be redintegrated. I have had occasion to know that your judgment has been extensively read in America (where questions of this nature are not of unfrequent discussion), and I never have heard any other opinion but that of ap- probation of it expressed among the profession of the law. I cannot but think that, upon questions of this sort, as well as general mari- time law, it were well if the common lawyers had studied a little more extensively the prin ciples of public and civil law, and had looked beyond their own municipal jurisprudence. * * I remain with the highest respect, Your most ob't serv't, Joseph Story. Supreme Court. Political Power of. In the House of Representatives, Jan. 1831, Mr. Davis of South Carolina, from the Com- mittee on the Judiciary, to which the Judici- ary Act had been referred, made the following report : — That the committee, profoundly impressed with the importance of matter referred to their consideration, have bestowed upon it that de- liberation it so eminently required ; and the investigation has resulted in a solemn convic- tion that the 25th section of an act of Congress, entitled "An act to establish the judicial courts of the United States," passed on the 4th Sept., 1789, is unconstitutional, and ought to be repealed. This seel, is in the following loords : — " Sec. 25. And be it further enacted, Thai a final judgment or decree in any suit, in the highest court of law or equity of a state in which a decision in the suit coidd be had a where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the SUPREME COURT. 629 United States, and the decision is against their validity; or where is drawn in question ike vali- dity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, any state, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws, of the I ' ui ft (I States, and the decision is in fa- vor of such their validity, or where is drawn, in question the construction of any clause of the Constitution, or of a treaty, or statute of, or commission held under, the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privi- lege, or exemption, specially set up or claimed by either party, tinder such clause of the said Constitution, treaty, statute,or commission, may t^ re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States, upon a writ of error, the citation being signed by the chief justice, or judge, or chancellor, of the court, rendering or passing the judgment or decree complained of, or by a justice of the. Supreme Court of the United States, in the same manner and under the same regulations, and the writ shall have the same effect, as if the judgment or decree complained of had been rendered or passed in a Circuit Court, and the proceeding upon the reversal shall also be the same, except that the Supreme Court, instead of remanding the cause fur a final decision, as before provided, may, at their discretion, if the cause shall have been once remanded before, proceed to a final decision of the same, and award execution. But no oilier error shall be assigned or regarded as a ground of reversal, in any such case as aforesaid, than such as ap- pears on the face of the record, and immedi- ately respects the before-mentioned questions of validity or construction of the said Constitution, treaties, statutes, commissions, or authorities, in dispute." The Supreme Court virtually claims the right, under the Constitution, to pronounce political judgments, and asserts the power, under the judicial act, of carrying them into execution, by coercing sovereign states. The committee readily admit that there is great difficulty in distinguishing between political laws and judgments, and civil laws and judg- ments, in most of the governments of the world, but confidently believe that it was fore- seen and provided for by the framers of the Federal Constitution, by the division and limit- ations of power we find there, between the federal and state governments. None deny that such a division of powers was made by the Constitution, between the federal govern- ment and the states, by the, grant of specific powers to the former, and the reservation of all ungranted powers to the latter; but a great diversity of opinion has existed as to the power to which resort must be had to determine questions and controversies that might arise between the several departments of our feder- ative system. The question is not a new one. In the great political contest in 1798 and 1799, this very question made a distinction, and marked the line of division between the two parties that then divided the country. The Federal party, who were then in power, assert- ed, that the federal court (which had just then declared and enforced as constitutional, the alien and sedition laws,) was the tribunal of last resort established by the Constitution, to judge of and determine questions of contro- versy between the departments of the federal government, and between the federal govern- ment and the states. The Republican, or State Rights party of that day, on the contrary, de- nied that the judicial department of the fed- eral government, or all the departments of that government conjointly, were empowered to decide finally and authoritatively, in ques- tions of sovereignty, controversies between a state and the federal government, and as- serted and insisted that there was no common tribunal established by the Constitution for such a purpose, and that, consequently, each party had the right to judge of and determine the extent of its own rights and powers. The avowed political creed of that party was, that the Union was the result of a compact between the people of the several states, in their sove- reign and corporate capacities and characters of separate and independent societies or states. and not as one entire people forming one na- tion. That these were the opinions and prin- ciples of the Republican party of that day, is proven by Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, and many other able constitutional lawyers. The committee do not mention the names of these distinguished men for the purpose merely of using their opinions as authority for the principles they advocate, but to establish the fact that the great body of the American people did pass upon, sanction, and adopt these principles, as forming the true theory of our government, which was manifested by the pro- motion of these gentlemen to the very stations where these principles were to be tested by action and practice. As it is now a matter of unquestioned history, that Mr. Jefferson penned the memorable resolutions commonly called the Kentucky Resolutions, and that Mr. Madison wrote the Virginia Report, the com- mittee feel entitled to quote them as authority upon questions of constitutional law. * * * The committee are of opinion that the dele- gated powers resulting from the compact of governments to which the states are parties, arc limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, and are no farther valid than they are au- thorized by the grants enumerated in that com- pact, and that it is incumbent in this, as in every other exercise of power by the federal government, to prove from the Constitution that it grants the particular power exercised, that if the powers granted be valid, it is solely because they are granted, and all other powers not granted, are not valid. Testing the 25th section of the act aforesaid, by the foregoing principles and expositions, the committee can- not perceive any grant of power in the Con- stitution to warrant the enactment. That the Constitution does not confer power on the federal judiciary over the judicial de- partments of the states, by any express grant, is certain from the fact that the state judi- ciaries are not once named in that instru- 630 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. inent. On the contrary, it declares that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such in- ferior courts as Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish ; thus giving power to organize a judicial system capable of exer- cising every function to which the judicial power of the United States extended, " and intending to create a new judiciary, to exercise the judicial powers of a new government," unconnected with, and independent of, the state judiciaries.* It is no more necessary to the harmonious action of the federal and state governments, that the federal courts should have power to control the decisions of state courts by appeal, than that the federal legislature should have power to control the legislation of the states, or the federal executive a state executive, by a negative. It cannot be, that when a direct negative on the laws of a state was proposed in convention, as part of the Federal Constitu- tion, and rejected, that it was intended to con- fer on the federal courts, by implication, a power subjecting their whole legislation, and their judgments and decrees on it, to this negative of the federal courts. It cannot be, that this prostration of the independency of the state judicatories, this overthrow of the state governments as co-ordinate powers, could be left to any implication of authority. The committee are, therefore, of opinion, that the power to enact the 25th section above recited, is not expressed in the Constitution of the United States, nor properly an incident to any express power, and necessary to its exe- cution. That, if continued and acquiesced in as construed by the Supreme Court, it raises the decision of the judiciary above the autho- rity of the sovereign parties to the Constitu- tion, may be a warrant for the assumption of powers not delegated in the other departments, nor carried by the forms of the Constitution before the judicial department, and whose de- cisions would be equally authoritative and final with the decisions of that department. However, therefore, it may be admitted or denied, that the judicial department of the federal government is, in all questions sub- mitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort in relation to the authorities of the other departments of that government, it can never be authorized so to decide in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts ; on any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the power delegating it, and the concurrence of this department in usurped powers might subvert for ever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.* The whole judicial power of the United States is declared by the Constitution to be * Mr. Jladisou vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as Congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. Can Congress, by legislation, invest state courts with any portion of that power? Did the Convention contem- plate, in using the term appellate jurisdiction, the right and power of taking an appeal from a state court to the Supreme Court? The answer to these questions must be found in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is given original jurisdiction only in two classes of cases, to wit : in all cases affecting ambassa- dors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those iii which a state shall be a party. The only cases in which a state can be a party are, 1st, where the controversy is between two or more states ; and 2d, where the controversy is between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states. In all other cases, before men- tioned, says the Constitution, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction. AVhat courts have the original jurisdiction in all those cases before mentioned in the second section of the third article, of which the Supreme Court has only the appellate juris- diction? Let the Constitution answer: in " such inferior courts as Congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish." Is a state court an inferior court ? The Constitu- tion does not say so. If the framers of the Constitution had so considered them, and had intended the right and power of taking an appeal from their judgments to the Supreme Court, it was an easy matter, and they doubt- less would have said so: their omitting to do so, is proof irresistible that the power was not intended to be given. It is unreasonable to believe that they who were so very precise and specific in the enumeration of cases and powers of infinitely less moment, would have left to implication and inference a power that breaks down all the barriers between state and federal governments. The Constitution not only invests the whole judicial power of the United States in two specified tribunals, but also prescribes and declares the duties, and rights, and tenure of office of the judges who shall constitute them; not one of which is applicable to the courts or judges of state courts. The courts, in the first place, must be such as are established by Congress; the judges must receive their ap- pointments from the President, with the con- sent of the Senate ; they are to hold their offices during good behavior; their compen- sation cannot be diminished, during their con- tinuance in office ; and are made liable to be impeached and removed from office by the Senate of the United States. Such are the courts and judges that the Constitution in- vested with the jurisdiction of all "other cases before mentioned" in the second section of the third article of that instrument, with the exception of two classes of cases over which original jurisdiction is given to the Supreme Court. Not one of all these requisites cha- racterizes state courts or judges. The state courts are not established by Congress ; the SUPREME COURT. 031 fctate judges do not receive their appointments from the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate ; they hold their offices not necessarily during good behavior, but by such tenure as the state shall choose ; their compensation may be diminished at the pleasure of the states ; and they are not re- sponsible to, or liable to be impeached before the Senate of the United States. The committee believe that it is the impera- tive duty of Congress to repeal, without delay, any of its acts in contravention of the Consti- tution, be the consequences what they may. If Congress had no power to pass such laws, they are null and void, and ought not to re- main on the statute book ; if such be really necessary, the power that created the Consti- tution can and will amend it. Necessity and expedience are the pleas of the tyrant; amend- ment the dictate of the Constitution. By pur- suing the former course, we trample upon the Constitution ; by following the latter, we go back to the people, the original source of all power. * * * * * It has also been urged as a branch of this argument, that the 25th section is indispen- sable to that supremacy of the federal court which is required to preserve the peace of the country with foreign powers, and to render uniform all judgments in treaty cases. The answer to these objections (to the repeal of the 25th section) the committee believe to be full and perfect in the case of Hunter v. Mar- tin, and prefer presenting it in the language of the able judge who delivered it. " I have said that this controlling power was not essential to preserve the peace of the nation ; (Hunter o. Fairfax, 4 Mumford.) Without going to other considerations or au- thorities on the subject, it is sufficient to re- mark that the American people have decided that it is no cause of offence to foreign nations to have their cause decided, and exclusively and finally decided, by the state tribunals. In that amendment to the Constitution by which the jurisdiction of the federal courts is pro- hibited in suits brought against the states by foreign citizens or subjects, this construction is most undoubted, and has never been com- plained of. Since the adoption of that amend- ment, the election of jurisdiction has been en- tirely taken away from foreigners in all suits against the states ; and those suits can now be brought in the states' courts in exclusion of every other ; and that, too, in cases in which, from the circumstance of the states themselves being parties, it might, perhaps, be plausibly urged that the judges of the state courts were not free from bias. I consider that this de- claration by the American people, and which has never excited a murmur in foreign nations, has put down the notion now in question. It has settled the question for ever, that it is no cause of war to foreign nations that the state judiciaries should finally decide the causes elected to be brought therein by their subjects. It has consequently overthrown the only foun- dation on which the whole superstructure of the 25th section of the judicial act has been supposed to rest. "That pretence is the only one on which the power in question could be attempted to be justified. That of rendering uniform all judgments in the case of treaties, is still less tenable, and is even not attained by the actual provisions of the judicial act. Under that act the appeal equally lies to the Supreme Court of the United States, where such uniformity already exists, and is denied where it is want- ing. " If, for example, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided against a treaty, and the Supreme Court of a state decides the same way, there this uniformity already ex- ists, and yet the appeal is allowed. If, on the other hand, the former court decides against a treaty, and the latter in favor of it, this uni- formity is wanting, yet the appeal is denied." The' following is the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court of Virginia, in the above stated case : — " The court is unanimously of opinion that the appellate power of the Supreme Court of the United States does not extend to this court, under a sound construction of the Constitution of the United States ; that so much of the 25th section of the act of Congress to establish the judicial power of the United States as extends the appellate judicial power of the Supreme Court to this court, is not in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States ; and that the writ of error in this case was improvi- dently allowed under the authority of that act ; that the proceedings thereon in the Su- preme Court were coram non judicem, in rela- tion to this court ; and that obedience to its mandate be declined by this court." The committee will present one more judi- cial opinion of a state court against the pow- ers contended for by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in the case of the Common- wealth v. Cobbett, (3 Dallas, 473,) solemnly and unanimously refused to permit the de- fendant, who was an alien, to remove a cause in which he was sued by the state in its Su- preme Court, into a Circuit Court of the United States, notwithstanding the comprehensive- ness of the words of the 12th section of the judicial act. The court, after deciding in the most explicit terms that all power not granted to the government of the United States, re- mained with the several states ; that the fede- ral government was a league or treaty, made by the individual states as one party, and all the states as another ; that when two nations differ as to the construction of a league or treaty existing between them, neither has the exclusive right to decide it; and that if one of the states should differ with the United States, as to the extent of the grant made to them, there is no common umpire between them but the people, by an amendment of the Constitution ; went on to declare its own opi- nion on the subject, and overruled the motion, 632 THE FOLITICb TEXT-BOOK. on the ground that the sovereign state of Pennsylvania could not, on account of its dig- nity, be carried before that court. This was the solemn and unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of one of the most respectable and republican states of the Union. Views of the Minority. The minority of the committee will proceed to advance, in a distinct form, a few of the reasons why, in their opinion, the 25th section of this act ought not to be repealed. And, in the first place, it ought to be the chief object of all governments to protect indi- vidual rights. In almost every case involving a question before a state court under this sec- tion of the judiciary act, the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States are inter- posed for the protection of individuals. Does a citizen invoke the protection of an act of Congress upon a trial before a state court, which decides that act to be unconstitutional and void, and renders judgment against him? This section secures his right of appeal from such a decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. When a citizen, in a suit before a state court, contends that a state law by which he is assailed, is a violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void (if his plea should be overruled), he may bring this question before the Supreme Court of the United States. In like manner, when an individual claims any right before a state court under the Con- stitution or laws of the United States, and the decision is against his claim, he may appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. If this section were repealed, all these im- portant individual rights would be forfeited. The history of our country abundantly proves that individual states are liable to high excitements and strong prejudices. The judges of these states would be more or less than men if they did not participate in the feelings of the community by which they are surrounded. Under the influence of these excitements, in- dividuals whose rights happen to clash with the prevailing feeling of the state, would iiave but a slender hope of obtaining justice before a state tribunal. There would be the power and the influence of the state sovereignty on the one side, and an individual who had made himself obnoxious to popular odium on the other. In such cases, ought the liberty or the property of a citizen, so far as he claims the same under the Constitution or laws of the United States, to be finally decided before a state court, without an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, on whom the con- struction of this very Constitution and these laws has been conferred, in all cases, by the Constitution ? The Supreme Court, considering the elevated character of its judges, and that they reside in parts of the Union remote from each other, can never be liable to local excitements or local prejudices. To that tribunal our citizens can appeal with safety and with confidence (as long as the 25th section of the judicial act shall remain upon the statute book), when- ever they consider that their rights, under the Constitution and law3 of the United States, have been violated by a state court. Besides, should this section be repealed, it would pro- duce a denial of equal justice to parties draw- ing in question the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. In civil actions, the plaintiff might then bring his action in a federal or state court, as he pleased, and as he thought he should be most likely to succeed ; whilst the defendant would have no option, but must abide the con- sequences, without the power of removing the cause from a state into a federal court, except in the single case of his being sued out of the district in which he resides ; and this, although he might have a conclusive defence under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Another reason for preserving this section is, that without it, there would be no uni- formity in the construction and administra- tion of the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. If the courts of twenty- four distinct, sovereign states, each possess the power, in the last resort, of deciding upon the ('(institution and laws of the Uuited States, their construction may be different in every state of the Union. That act of Congress which conforms to the Constitution of the United States, and is valid, in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Georgia, may be a direct violation of the provisions of that instrument, and be void, in the judgment of the Supreme Court of South Carolina. A state law in Vir- ginia might in this manner be declared con- stitutional, whilst the same law, if passed by the legislature of Pennsylvania, would be void. Nay, what would be still more absurd, a law or treaty of the United States with a foreign nation, admitted to be constitutionally made, might secure rights to the citizens of one state, which might be denied to those of another. Although the same Constitution and laws govern the Union, yet the rights acquired under them, would vary with every degree of latitude. Surely the framers of the Constitu- tion would have left their work incomplete, had they established no common tribunal to decide its own construction, and that of the laws and treaties made under its authority. They are not liable to this charge, because they have given express power to the judi- ciary of the union over "all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority." The first Congress of the United States have, to a considerable extent, carried this power into execution by the passage of the judicial act ; and it contains no provision more important than the 25th section. This section ought not to be repealed, because, in the opinion of the minority jf the SUPREME COURT. G33 Committee on the Judiciary, its repeal would seriously endanger the existence of this Union. The chief evil which existed under the old Confederation, and which gave birth to the present Constitution, was, that the general go- vernment could not act directly upon the peo- ple, but only by requisition upon sovereign states. The consequence was, that the states either obeyed or disobeyed these requisitions, as they thought proper. The present Consti- tution was intended to enable the government of the United States to act immediately upon the people of the states, and to carry its own laws into full execution, by virtue of its own authority. If this section were repealed, the general government would be deprived of the power, by means of its own judiciary, to give effect either to the Constitution which called it into existence, or to the laws and treaties made under its authority. It would be com- pelled to submit, in many important cases, to the decisions of state courts, and thus the very evil, which the present Constitution was in- tended to prevent, would be entailed upon the people. The judiciary of the states might re- fuse to carry into effect the laws of the United States ; and without that appeal to the Su- preme Court which the 25th section authorizes, these laws would thus be entirely annulled, and could not be executed without a resort to force. This position may be illustrated by a few striking examples. Suppose the legislature of one of the states, believing the tariff laws to be unconstitutional, should determine that they ought not to be executed within its limits. They accordingly pass a law, imposing the severest penalties upon the collector and other custom house ofiicers of the United States within their territory, if they should collect the duties on the importation of foreign merchandise. The collector proceeds to dis- charge the duties of his office under the laws of the United States, and he is condemned and punished before a state court, for violating this state law. Repeal this section, and the decision of the state court would be final and conclusive ; and any state could thus nullify any act of Congress which she deemed to be unconstitutional. The executive of one of the states, in a message to the legislature, has declared it to be his opinion, that the land belonging to the United States within her territory is now the property of the state, by virtue of her sove- reign authority. Should the legislature be of the same opinion, and pass a law for the punishment of the land officers of the United States who should sell any of the public lands within her limits, this transfer of property might be virtually accomplished by the repeal uf the 25th section of the judicial act. Our land officers might then be severely punished, and thus prohibited by the courts of that state from performing their duty, under the laws of the Union, without the possibility of redress in any constitutional or legal form. In this manner, thj title of the United States to a vast domain, which has cost the nation many mil- lions, and which justly belongs to the people of the several states, would be defeated or greatly impaired. Another illustration might be introduced. Suppose the legislature of Pennsylvania, being of opinion that the charter of the Bank of the United States is unconstitutional, were to de- clare it to be a nuisance, and inflict penalties upon all its officers for making discounts or receiving deposites. Should the courts of that state carry such a law into effect, without the 25 th section there would be no appeal from their decision ; and the legislature and courts of a single state might thus prostrate an insti- tution established under the Constitution and laws of the United States. * It has of late years been contended that this section of the judicial act was unconstitu- tional, and that Congress do not possess the power of investing the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction in any case which has been finally decided in the courts of the states. It has also been contended, that, even if they do possess this power, it does not extend to cases in which a state is a party. On this branch of the question we would refer the House to the very able and conclusive argu- ment of the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases of Martin v. Hunter's lessee, (1st Wheaton, 304,) and Cohens v. the state of Virginia, (6 Wheaton, 264,) by which the affirmative of these propositions is clearly established. It may be proper, however, that we should make a few observations upon this part of the question. Those who have argued in favor of these positions assert that the general words of the Constitution, extending the judicial power of the Union "to all cases, in law and equity," arising under the Consti- tution and laws of the United States, ought, by construction, to be restricted to such cases, in law and equity, as may originate in the courts of the Union. They would thus esta- blish a limitation at war with the letter, and, in our opinion, equally at war with the spirit of the instrument. Had such been the inten- tion of the framers of the Constitution, they well knew in what language to express mat; intention. Had it been their purpose to re B trict the meaning of the general language which they had used in the first clause of the section, they could have done so with much propriety in the second. This clause, after providing " that, in all cases affecting ambas- sadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original juris- diction," proceeds to declare "that, in all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. On the supposition contended for, it is wholly unaccountable that the framers of the Constitution did not limit the natural effect of the words used in the first clause, by making the second to read, " that, in all the 634 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. other ca=cs before mentioned," arising in the inferior courts of the United State-, "the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdic- tion." But no such restriction exists ; and, from the fair import of the words used in both clauses, the Supreme Court possess the power of finally deciding " all cases, in law and equity," arising under the Constitution, the laws, and the treaties of the United States, no matter whether they may have originated in a federal or in a state court, and no matter whe- ther states or individuals be the parties. * * * The eleventh amendment to the Constitu- tion of the United States interferes in no respect with the principles for which we have contended. It is in these words: " The judi- cial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit, in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state." Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the court in the case of Cohens v. "V irginia, has given so clear, and, in our opi- nion, so correct an exposition of the true con- struction of the amendment, that we shall, in conclusion, present to the House a few extracts from that opinion, instead of any argument of our own. He says that " the first impres- sion made on the mind by this amendment is, that it was intended for those cases, and for those only, in which some demand against a state is made by an individual in the courts of the Union. If we consider the causes to which it is to be traced, we are conducted to the same conclusion. A general interest might well be felt in leaving to a state the full power of con- sulting its convenience in the adjustment of its debts, or of other claims upon it ; but no in- terest could be felt in so changing the relation between the whole and its parts, as to strip the government of the means of protecting, by the instrumentality of its courts, the Con- stitution and laws from active violation. The words of the amendment appear to the court to justify and require this construction." " To commence a suit is to demand some- thing by the institution of process in a court of justice ; and to prosecute the suit is, accord- ing to the common acceptation of language, to continue that demand. By a suit commenced by an individual against a state, we should understand process sued out by that indivi- dual against the state, for the purpose of establishing some claim against it by the judg- ment of a court ; and the prosecution of that suit is its continuance. Whatever may be the stages of its progress, the actor is still the same. Suits had been commenced in the Supreme Court against some of the states before the amendment was introduced into Congress, and others might be commenced before it sin mid be adopted by the state legis- latures, and might be depending at the time of its adoption. The object of the amendment was not only to prevent the commencement of future suits, but to arrest the prosecution of those which might be commenced when this article should form a part of the Constitution. It, therefore, embraces both objects ; and its meaning is, that the judicial power shall not be construed to extend to any suit which may be commenced, or which, if already com- menced, may be prosecuted against a state, by the citizens of another state. If a suit, brought in one court, and carried by legal process to a supervising court, be a continua- tion of the same suit, then this suit is not commenced nor prosecuted against a state. It is clearly, in its commencement, the suit of a state against an individual, which suit is transferred to this court, not for the purpose of asserting any claim against the state, but for the purpose of asserting a consti- tutional defence agains a claim made by a state." " Under the judiciary act, the effect of a writ of error is simply to bring the record into court, and submit the judgment of the infe- rior tribunal to re-examination. It does not, in any manner, act upon the parties ; it acts only on the record. • It removes the record into the supervising tribunal. Where, then, a state obtains a judgment against an indi- vidual, and the court rendering such judg- ment overrules a defence set up under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the transfer of this record into the Supreme Court, for the sole purpose of inquiring whether the judgment violates the Constitution or laws of the United States, can, with no propriety, we think, be denominated a suit commenced or prosecuted against the state, whose judgment is so far re-examined. — Nothing is demanded from the state. No claim against it of any description is asserted or prosecuted. The party is not to be restored to the possession of anything. — Essentially, it is an appeal on a single point ; and the defendant who appeals from a judgment rendered against him, is never said to commence or prosecute a suit against the plaintiff who has obtained the judgment. The writ of error is given rather than an appeal, because it is the more usual mode of removing suits at common law, and because, perhaps, it is more technically proper where a single point of law, and not the whole case, is to be re-examined. But an appeal might be given, and might be so regulated as to effect every purpose of a writ of error. The mode of removal is form, and not sub- stance. Whether it be by writ of error or appeal, no claim is asserted, no demand is made, by the original defendant ; he only as- serts the constitutional right to have his de- fence examined by that tribunal whose pro- vince it is to construe the Constitution and laws of the Union." * * The point of view in which this writ of error, with its citation, has been considered uniformly in the courts of the Union, has been well illustrated by a reference to the course of this court in suits instituted by the United States. The universally received opinion it>, SUPREME COURT.— TARIFFS. 635 that no suit can be commenced or prosecuted against the United States ; that the judiciary ;i'-i does not authorize such suits: yet writs of error, accompanied with citations, have unit' irmly issued for the removal of judgments in favor of the United States into a superior court, where they have, like those in favor of an individual, been re-examined, and affirmed or reversed. It has never been suggested that such writ of error was a suit against the United States, and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the appellate court. It is, then, the opinion of the court, that the defendant who removes a judgment rendered against him by a state court into this court, for the purpose of re-examining the question whether that judgment be in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, does not commence or prosecute a suit against a state, whatever may be its opinion, where the effect of the writ may be to restore the party the possession of a thing which he demands." James Buchanan, William W. Ellsworth, E. D. White. A bill was accordingly reported (4 against 3 in committee), and on an objection to its second reading by Mr. Doddridge, it was re- jected by the following vote : — Yeas. — Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong. Arnold, Bailey. Noyes Barber, John 8. Barbour, Barringer, Bartley, Bates, Baylor. Beck man. John Blair, Bockee, Boon, Bors( Brodbead, Brown, Buchanan. Burges, Butinan, Cahoou, Chilton. Clark. Condict, Cooper, Coulter, Cowles, Craig, Crane. Crawford, Crockett. Creighton, Crocheron, Crowninshield, John Davis, Deberry, Denny, De Witt, Dickinson, Doddridge, Dorwy, Drayton, Dwight, Eager, Earll. Ellsworth. G. Evans. Johua Evans, Edward Everett, Fiudlay, Finch. Forward. Fry. Gilmore, Gorhani, Green, Grennell. Gurly. Halsey, Hemphill, Hodgess. Holland, HolTman, Hubbard, Hughes. Hunt. Hunt- ington, Ihrie, I ngersoll. Thomas Irwin, Wm. W. Ir\iu, Johns, C. Johnston, Kendall, Kennon, Kincaid, Perkins King, Adam King, Leavitt, Leiper, Lent. Letcher. Magee, Mallary, Martindale, Lewis Maxwell, McCreery. McDuffie, Mclntire, Mercer, Miller, Mitchell, Mouell, Muhlenberg. Norton, Pearce, Pierson, Powers, Reed. Richardson, Rose, Russell, Sanford, Scott, Wm. B. Shepard, A. H. Shepperd. Shields, Sill, Speight, A. Spencer, R. Spencer, Sprigg, Standefer, Sterigere, Henry R. Storrs.Wm. L. Storrs, Strong. Sutherland, Swann, Swift, Taylor, Test, J. Thomson. Vance, Varnum, Verplanck, Vinton, Washington, Weeks, Whittlesey, C. P. White, E. D. White. Williams, Wilson, Wingate, Young. — 137. Nays. — Messrs. Alexander. Allen. Alston. Angel. Barnwell, Bell. James Blair, Bouldin, Cambreleng. Campbell. Chandler, Claiborne. Clay, Coleman, Conner, Daniel, Davenport. W. R. Davis, Desha, Draper, Foster. Gaither, Gordon. Hall. Harvey, Haynes, Hinds, Jarvis, R. M. Johnson, Lamar, Lecompte, Lewis, Loyall, Lumpkin, Lyon, Martin, Thomas Maxwell, McCoy, Nuckolls, Overton, Patton, Pettis, Polk, Potter, Roane, Wiley Thompson, Trezvant, Tucker, Wickliffe, Wild, Yancey. — 51. Tariffs. The several, enacted by Congress from 1789 to 1857. Character of the Bill and other remarks. Date of each Act. No. 1. 9 3*. 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Specific and ad valorem rates, latter from 5 to 15 per cent., . . Specific and ad valorem rates, latter from 3 to 15J " . . . This act only affected "spirits" paying specific duties, . . . . Specific and ad valorem rates, latter from 73 to 15 per cent., . . Specific and ad valorem rates, latter from 10 to 20 per cent., . . This act affected but few articles paying specific and ad valorem rates, This act affected but few articles paying specific and ad valorem rates, This act only affected " salt" paying a specific duty, This act affected but few articles paying specific and ad valorem rates, This act, commonly called " Mediterranean fund," imposing an additional duty of 1\ per cent, in addition to the duties now imposed by law, This act affected but few articles paying specific rates, .... This act imposed double duties, known as war duties, . . . . This act only affected " salt" paying a specific duty, .... This act continued the double duties, No. 12, to 30th June, 1817, Specific, minimum, and ad valorem rates, latter from 7i to 30 per cent., This act affected but few articles paying specific rates, .... This act affected but few articles paying specific and ad valorem rates, This act only affected " wines" paying specific rates, .... Specific, minimum, compound, and ad valorem, latter from 12 to 50 per cent., Specific, minimum, compound, and ad valorem, latter from 20 to 50 per cent., This act only affected " wines" paying specific rates, This act only affected " coffee, tea, and cocoa," paying specific rates, and reducing the rate, This act only affected " molasses" paying specific rates, . . . This act only affected " salt" paying specific rates, This act only affected " wines of France" paying specific rates, . 1 4 July, 1789. ! 10 August, 1790. 3 March, 1791. 2 May, 1792. 7 June, 1794. 29 January, 1795. 3 March, 1797 8 July, 1797. 13 Mav. 1800. 26 March, 1804. 27 March, 1804. 1 July, 1812. 29 July, 1813. 5 February, 1816. 27 April, 1816. 20 April, 1818. 20 April, 1818. 3 March, 1819. 22 May, 1824. 19 May, 1828. 24 May, 1828. 20 May, 1830. 29 May, 1830. 29 May, 1830. 13 July, 1832. 630 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Character of the bill and other remarks. Date of each Act. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Specific, minimum, compound, and ad valorem, the latter from 5 to 50 per cent., This act affected but few articles paying ad valorem rates, . . . Compromise Act — looking to a reduction of duties to 20 per cent., Specific and ad valorem, latter from 12J to 20 per cent., . . . Specific, minimum, compound, and ad valorem, the latter from 1 to 50 per cent., The rates of duty imposed by this act are exclusively ad valorem, and arranged by schedules, and from 5 to 100 per cent., . . The rates of duty imposed by this act are exclusively ad valorem, arranged by schedules, and from 4 to 30 per cent., .... 14 July, 1832. 2 March, 1833. 2 March, 1833. 11 Sept'r, 1841. 30 August, 1842. 30 July, 1840. 3 March, 1857. 1. Entitled " An act for laying a duty on goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United States." This act consists of specific and ad valorem duties, the latter ranging from five to fifteen per centum. The free list quite small. It was approved on the 4th July, 1789. The yeas and nays, on the passage of the bill, not taken in either House of Congress. 2. Entitled " An act making further provi- sion for the payment of the debts of the United States." This act consists of specific and ad valorem duties, the latter ranging from five to fifteen and a half per centum. The free list quite small. It was approved on the 10th August, 1790. The vote in the House of Representatives on its passage stood as follows : — Yeas 40 ; nays 15. In the Senate the yeas and nays not taken. 3. Entitled " An act reapealing, after the last day of June next, the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad, and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same." This act only affected " spirits,"' the duties being altogether specific. It was approved on the 3d March, 1791. The vote in the House of Representatives on its passage stood as follows : — Yeas 35 ; nays 21. The vote in the Senate was, yeas 20; nays 5. 4. Entitled " An act for raising a further sum of money for the protection of the fron- tiers, and for other purposes therein men- tioned." This act consists of specific and ad valorem duties, the latter ran^ins: from seven and a half to fifteen per centum. The free list quite small. It was approved on the 2d May, 1792. The vote in the House of Representatives on its passage stood as follows : — Yeas 37 : nays 20. In the Senate yeas and nays not taken. 5 Entitled " An act laying additional duties on goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United States." This act consists of specific and ad valorem duties, the latter ranging from ten to twenty per centum. The free list not extended. It was approved on the 7th January, 1794. The yeas and nays on the passage of the bill not taken in either House of Congress. 6. Entitled " An act supplementary to the several acts imposing duties on goods, wares, and merchandise." This was limited to but few articles (five) specific and ad valorem, the latter being ten and twenty per centum. It was approved on the 29th January, 1795. The yeas and nays on the passage of the bill not taken in either House of Congress. 7. Entitled " An act for raising a further sum of money by additional duties on certain articles imported, and for other purposes." This was limited to but few articles (ten) specific and ad valorem, the latter being at fif- teen per centum. It was approved on the 3d March, 1797. The vote in the House of Represenatives on its passage stood as follows : — Yeas 66 ; nays 21. In the Senate the yeas and nays not taken. 8. Entitled " An act laying an additional duty on salt imported into the United States, and for other purposes." This, as its title indicates, only affected the duty on " salt," fixing the same at 20 cents per bushel. It was approved on the 8th July, 1797. The vote in the House of Representatives on its passage stood as follows : — Yeas 45 ; nays 40. In Senate, yeas and nays not taken. 9. Entitled " An act to lay additional duties on certain articles imported." This act is confined to certain enumerated articles, which pay specifics and ad valorems, the latter being at twelve and a half per cen- tum. It was approved on the 13th May, 1800. The yeas and nays, on the passage of tho bill, not taken in cither House of Congress. TARIFFS. 637 10. Entitled " An act further to protect the t commerce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary powers." This act is commonly called the " Mediter- ranean fund," and imposed an additional duty of 2\ per centum ad valorem, in addition to the duties now imposed by law upon all goods paying an ad valorem duty. It was approved on* the 26th March, 1804. The vote in the House of Representatives on its passage, stood as follows : — Yeas 98 ; nays — . The vote in the Senate was yeas 20, nays 5. 11. Entitled "An act imposing more spe- cific duties on the importation of certain arti- cles, and also for levying and collecting light money on foreign ships or vessels, and for other purposes." This act consists altogether of articles pay- ing specific duties, and the free list extended to six articles. It was approved on the 27th March, 1804. The vote in the House of Representatives on its passage stood as follows : — Yeas 65 ; nays 41. In the Senate, yeas and nays not taken. 12. Entitled " An act for imposing (double) duties upon all goods, wares, and merchan- dise imported from any foreign port or place, and for other purposes." This act was approved 1st July, 1812, and the duties imposed commonly known as the war duties, being then engaged in a war with Great Britain. The vote in the House of Representatives on its passage stood as follows : — Yeas 76 ; nays 48. The vote in the Senate was yeas 20, nays 9. 13. Entitled " An act laying a duty on im- ported salt, granting a bounty on pickled fish exported, and allowances to certain vessels employed in the fisheries." This, as its title indicates, only affected the duty on " salt," fixing the same at 20 cents fer bushel, computing the same at 56 pounds, t was approved on the 29th July, 1813. The vote in the House of Representatives on its passage stood as follows : — Yeas 90 ; nays 55. The vote in the Senate was yeas 20, nays 10. 14. Entitled "An act to continue in force the act entitled ' An act imposing additional duties upon all goods, wares, and merchan- dise imported from any foreign port or place, and for other purposes.' " Double duties imposed by the act of 1st July, 1812, continued until 30th June, 1817. Additional duty until a new tariff of duties shall be levied by law after 30th June, 1817 ; this, however, never -went into operation, being superseded by the act approved 27th April, 1816. It was approved on the 5th Feb. 1816. In the House of Representatives, yeas and nays not taken. The vote in the Senate was yeas 25, nays 5. 15. Entitled " An act to regulate the duties on imports and tonnage." By this act the whole tariff system was re- modelled. It consists of specific and ad valo- rem duties, the latter ranging from seven and a half to thirty per centum. For the first term the minimum feature is introduced and applied to cotton cloths of a certain descrip- tion, and on cotton, twist, yarn, and thread. It was approved on the 27th April, 1816. The vote in the House of Representatives on its passage stood as follows : — Yeas 88 ; nays 54. The vote in the Senate was yeas 25, nays 7, on the engrossment and third reading. On its passage yeas and nays not taken. 16. Entitled " An act to increase the duty on iron in bars and bolts, iron in pigs, cast- ings, nails and alum." This act, as its title indicates, only affected the duty on certain articles (seven) paying specific duties. It was approved 20th April, 1816. The vote in the House of Representatives on its passage stood as follows : — Yeas 88 ; Nays 47. In the Senate, yeas and nays not taken. 17. Entitled " An act to increase the duties on certain manufactured articles." This act affected the duties on but thirteen articles, paying specific and ad valorem duties, of the latter ranging from twenty-four to thirty per centum. It was approved 20th April, 1816. The yeas and nays on the passage of the bill, not taken in either House of Congress. 18. Entitled " An act to regulate the duties on wines." This act, as its title indicates, only affected the duty on wines not enumerated in the act of 27th April, 1816, fixing the rates of duty at 20 and 25 cents per gallon. It was approved 3d March, 1819. The yeas and nays on the passage of the bill not taken in either House of Congress. 19. Entitled " An act to amend the several acts imposing duties on imports." This act changed the whole system of duties. It consists of specifics, ad valorems, compounds and minimums, in addition to cotton cloths, twist, yarn and thread, the minimum system is extended to Leghorn hats and bonnets, hats or bonnets of straw, chip or grass, the ad va- lorems range from twelve to fifty per cent. It was approved on the 22d May, 1824. The vote in the House of Representatives on its passage stood as follows : — Yeas 105 ; nays 94. The vote in the Senate was: — Yeas 26; nays 21. 638 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 20. Entitled " An act in alteration of the several acts imposing duties on imports." This act changes the rates of duty upon the articles named therein — which pay specifics, ad valorems, compound and minimums, the latter is now extended to manufactures of wool and form four classes, 1st, shall not ex- ceed 50 cents, shall be deemed to cost 50 cents; 2d, shall exceed 50 cents and not exceed $1, shall be deemed to cost $1.00 ; 3d, shall ex- ceed $1 and not exceed $2.50, shall be deemed to cost $2.50; 4th shall exceed $2.50 and not exceed $4, shall be deemed to cost $4, and t hereon to pay a duty of forty-five per centum. Wool is subject to a compound duty of 4 cents per pound and ad valorem of 40 per cent, for i.ui' year, 45 per cent, two years and there- after 50 per centum in addition. The ad va- lorems range from twenty to fifty per centum. 1 1 was approved on the 19th May, 1828. The vote on its passage in the House of Representatives stood as follows: — Yeas 105 ; nays 04. Yi:vs. — Messrs. Anderson of Pa.. Armstrong of Va., Bald- «i i nf Conn., Barber of Conn., Barlow, Barnard of N. Y., Beecher of O., Belden of N. Y.. Blake of Ind., Brown of .V II.. Buchanan of Pa., Buckner of Ky., Buck of \t, Bui.ner of N. Y., Burges of K. I.. Chase of N. Y., Chilton nf Va . Clarke of N. Y., Clarke of Ky., Condict of Ky., Coul- l< i- of Pa.. Creighton of O., Crowninshield of Mass., Daniel of Ivy.. Davenport of O., De Graff of N. Y., Dickinson of N. Y\. Duncan of 111., Dwight of Mass., Earll of N.Y., Find- l:iv nf O.. Forward of Pa., Fry of Pa., Garnsey of N. Y., Harrow of N. Y., Green of Pa., Harvey of N. H., Healy of N. It.. Hobbie of N. Y., Hoffman of N. Y., Hunt of Vt, Jennings of Ind., Johns of Del.. Keese of N. Y., King of Pa., Lawrence of Pa., Lecompte of Ky., Leffler of Va., Letcher of Kv., Little of Md., Lyon of Ky., Magee of N. Y., Mallary of Vt., Markell of N. Y., Martindale of N. Y., Marvin of N. Y., Ma well of Va.. McIIatton of Kv- McKean of Pa., McLean of 0., Nerwin of Conn., Metcalfe of Kv., Miller of Pa., Miner of Pa., Mitchell of Pa., Moore of Ky., Orr of Pa., Phelps of Conn.. Pierson of N. J., Ramsey of Pa., Russell of O., Sergeant of Pa., Sloane of 0., Smith of Ind., Stanberry of 0., Stevenson of Pa., Sterigere of Pa., Stewart of Pa., Storrs of N. Y., Stower of N. Y., Strong of N. Y., Swann of N. J., Swift of Vt.. Sutherland of Pa., Taylor of N. Y., Thompson of N. J., Tracy of N. Y., Tucker of N. J., Vance of 0., Van Horn of Pa., Van Rensselaer of N. Y., Vinton of O., Wales of Vt., Whipple of N. H„ Whittlesey of 0.. Wickliffe of Ky., Wilson of Pa., J. J. Wood of N. Y.. Silas Wood of N. Y., Woods of 0., Woodcock of N. Y., Wolff of Pa., Wright of N.Y., Wright of 0.. Yancey of Ala. — 105. Nats. — Messrs. Alexander of Va., Allen of Mass., Allen of Va., Alston of N. C, Anderson of Me., Archer of Va., Bailey of Mass., P. P. Barbour of Va., Barker of N. H., Barringer of N. C, Bartlett of N. II., Bates of Mass.. Bates of Mo., Bell of Tenn., Blair of Tenn., Brent of La.. Bryan of N. C, But- man of Me., Cambreleng of N. Y., Carson of N. C, Carter of S. C, Claiborne of Va., Conner of N. C, Crockett of Tenn., Culpepper of N. C, Davenport of Va., Davis of Mass., Davis of S. C, Desha of Tenn., Dorsey of Md., Drayton of S. C, Everett of Mass., Floyd of Ga., Fort of Ga., Gale of Md., Gil- mer of Ga., Gorham of Mass., Gurley of La., Haile of Miss., Hallock of N. Y., Hall of N. C, Hamilton of S. C, Haynes of Ga., Hodges of Mass., Holmes of N. C, Ingersoll of Conn., Isacks of Tenn., Johnson of N. Y., McCoy of Va., McDuffie of S. C, Mclntire of Me., McKee of Ala., Mercer of Va., Mitch- el] of Tenn., Moore of Ala., Newton of Va., Nuckolls of S. C, Oakley of N. Y., O'Brien of Me., Owen of Ala., Pearce of R. I., Plant of Conn., Polk of Tenn., Randolph of Va., Reed of Mass., Richardson of Mass., Ripley of Me., Rives of Va., Roane of Va., Sawyer of N. C, Shepperd of N. C, Smyth of Va., Sprague of Me., Taliaferro of Va., Thompson of Ga. Trezvant of Va., Tucker of S. C, Turner of N. C, Varnum of Mass., Verplanck of N. Y., Ward of N. Y., Washington of Md., Weems of Md., Wilde of Ga., Williams of N. C, Win- gate of Me.— 94. The vote in the Senate was yeas 26, nays 21. Yeas. — Messrs. Barnard of Pa., Barton of Mo., Bateman of N. J., Benton of Mo., Bouligny of La., Chase of Vt., Dickerson of N. J., Eaton of Tenn., Foot of Conn., Harrison of 0., Hendricks of Ind., Johnson of Ky., Kane of 111., Knight of R.I., McLane of Del., Marks of Pa., Noble of Ind.. Ridgeley of Del., Rowan of Ky., Ruggles of 0., Sanford of N. Y., Seymour of Vt,, Thomas of 111., Van Buren of N. Y., Webster of Mass., Willey of Conn.— 26. Nays. — Messrs. Berrien of Ga, Branch cf N. C, Cham- bers of Md.. Chandler of Me., Cobb of Ga., Ellis of Miss., Ilayne of S. C, Johnston of La., King of Ala., McKiuley of Ala., Macon of N. C. Parris of Me., Robbins of R. I.. Sils- bee of Mass., Smith of Md.. Smith of S. C, Tazewell of Va., Tyler of Va., White of Tenn., Williams of Miss., Woodbury of N. H-— 20. 21. Entitled "An act altering the duties en wines imported into the United States." As the title of this act indicates, it only affects the duties on wines, which are all specific and range from ten to fifty cents per gallon. It was approved 24th May, 1828. The vote on its passage in the House of Representatives stood as follows : — Yeas 79 ; nays 72. The vote in the Senate was : — Yeas 25 ; nays 10. 22. Entitled " An act to reduce the duties on coffee, tea, and cocoa." The duties on the articles named were re- duced by this act — the rates fixed being all specific. It was approved 20th May, 1830. The yeas and nays on the passage of the bill not taken in either House of Congress. 23. Entitled " An act to reduce the duty on molasses, and to allow a drawback on spirits distilled from foreign materials." The duty on molasses was reduced to 5 cents per gallon specific. It was approved on the 29th May, 1830. The vote on its passage in the House of Rep- resentatives stood as follows : — Yeas 118 ; nays GO. The vote in the Senate on a third reading was yeas 30, nays 8 ; the yeas and nays not taken on a final passage. 24. Entitled " An act to reduce the duty on salt." The duty on salt was reduced to 15 cents per bushel of 56 pounds specific. It was ap- proved 29th May, 1830. The vote in the House of Representatives on its passage stood as follows : — Yeas 105 ; nays 83. The vote in the Senate was : — Yeas 24 ; nays 15. 25. Entitled " An act to carry into effect the convention between the United States and his majesty the King of the French, concluded at Paris on the 4th July, 1831." This act affected the duties on the wines of Erance, the 10th section fixing the rates of duty which are specific. It was approved on the 13th July, 1832. The yeas and nays on the passage of the bill, not taken in either House of Congress. 26. Entitled "An act to alter and amend the several acts imposing duties on imports." This act repealed all previous ones in rela- tion to fixing the rates of duties, and imposed new ones, being flee, specifics, compound, ad TARIFFS. 630 valorems, and minimums. The free list is greatly extended, many articles subject to a compound duty, specific and ad valorems — the ad valorems ranging from five to fifty per centum — the minimums only applied to cotton cloths, cotton twist, yarn and thread. It was approved on the 14th July, 1832. The vote in the House of Representatives on its passage stood as follows : Yeas 132 ; nays 05. The vote in the Senate was, yeas 32 nays 16. 27. Entitled " An act to explain and amend the act to alter and amend the several acts imposing duties on imports passed July 14, 1832, so far as relates to hardware and certain manufactures of copper and brass and other articles." This act only affected certain articles enu- merated, (seven) all paying ad valorems. It was approved 2d March, 1833. The yeas and nays not taken in the House of Representatives. The vote in the Senate was yeas 17, nays 8. 28. Entitled " An act to modify the act of the 14th July, 1832, and all other acts im- posing duties on imports." This is generally known as the Compromise Act, its object being to effect a gradual reduc- tion of duties, as follows : — From and after 31st December, 1833, on all articles where the duties shall exceed twenty per centum ad valorem, a deduction of one tenth of such excess. From and after 31st December, 1835, another tenth part to be deducted ; from and after 31st December, 1837, another tenth part to be deducted; from and after 31st December, 1839, another tenth part to be deducted ; from and after 31st December, 1841, one half of the resi- due to be deducted ; from and after 31st De- cember, 1842, the other half to be deducted ; thus bringing all articles down to a uniform rate of twenty per centum ad valorem. This act was approved 2d March, 1833. The vote in the House of Representatives on its passage stood as follows: — Yeas 119; nays 85. Yeas. — Messrs. Adair of Ky.. Alexander of Va., Chilton Allen of Ky., Robert Allen of Va.. Anderson of Me.. Ansel of X. Y., Archer of Va.. Armstrong of Vn., John S. Barbour of Va.. Barnwell of S. C, Barringer of N. C. James Bates of Me.. Bell of Tenn., Bergen of X. Y.. Bethune of N. ('.. Blair of Tenn., Blair of S. C Boon of Ind., liouck of N. V., BouMin of Va.. Branch of N. C, John Brc Heal f N. II.. Ballard of La.. Cambreleng of N. V.. Can- of Ind . Carson of X. C, Chinn of Vn.. Claiborne of Va.. Clay of Ala.. Clay- ton of Ga., Coke of Va., Conner of X. C, Corwin of O., Coulter of Pa.. Craig of Va.. Creighton of 0., Danie] of Ky.. Davenport of Va.. Warren K. I>a\is of S. <\. Doubleday of X. Y.. Drayton of S. C, Draper. Duncan of III., Felder of S. C, Findlay of 0.. Fitzgerald of Tenn.. Foster of Ga,, Gaither of Ky.. Gilmore of l'a.. Gordon of Va.. Griffin of S. C, Thomas II. Hall of X. 0.. Wm. Hall of Tenn.. Harper ofN.II.. Hawesof Kv.. Hawkins of N.C.. Hoffman ofN.Y., Holland of Me.. Horn of l'a.. Howard of Mil.. Hubbard of N. II., Irvin of 0.. Isacks of Tenn.. .Tarn-"!' Me . Jenifer of Md.. Richard M. Johnson of Kv.. Cave Johnson of Tenn.. Joseph Johnson of Va., Kavanagb of Me., Kerr of Md. Lamar of Ga.. Lansing of X. Y„ Lecompte of Ky.. Letcher of Ky., Lewis of Ala.,' Lyon of Ry„ Mardis of Ala.. Mas in of Va.. Marshall of Kv.. Maxwell of Va.. William McCoy Of Va., McDuffie of S. C Mclivtiro of Me.. McKay of X. C, Mitchell of S. C, Newnan of Ga.. Xewton of Va., Xurkolls of S. C. Patton of Va., Plummer of Miss.. Polk of Tenn., Rencher of X. C, Koaue of Va., Root of V Y. Sem s of Md„ Sewall, Wm. 1!. Shepard of X. C, Augustus II. Shepperd of N. C, Smith of l'a.. Speight of N. C, S] «of Ml.. Man berry of 0., Standifer of Tenn.. Francis Thorn is of Md., Philemon Thomas of La., Wiley Thompson of Geo., John Thompson of 0.. Tompkins of Ky.. Verplanck of X. Y., Ward of N. v., Washington of Md., Wayne i fGeo Weeks ofN. II.. Elisba Whittlesey of 0., Campbell p. White of X. V.. Edward D.White of La., Wickliffeof Kv.. Williams of X. C. Worthington of Md.— 119. Nats. — Messrs. Adams of Mass., Heman Allen of Vt., Allison of l'a.. Appleton of Mass.. Arnold of Tenn., Ashley of Mo.. Bahcock of X. V.. Banks of Pa., Xoyes Barber of Conn.. Bars tow of N. Y.. Isaac C. Bates of Mass.. Bairdsley of X. Y.. lilies of Mass.. John C. Brodhead. Bucher of l'a., llurd of Pa., Burses of R. I., Cahoon of Yt., Chandler of X. II.. Choate of Mass., Collier of X. Y.. Lewis Condict of N. J., Silas Condit of X. J., Cooke of 0., Cooke of X. Y., Cooper, Crane. Crawford of Pa.. John Davis of Mass., Dayan of X. Y.. Dearborn of Mass., Denny of Pa., Dewart of l'a., Dickson of X. Y, Ellsworth of Conn., George Evans of Me., Joshua Evans of Pa., Everett of Mass.. Horace Everett of Vt., Ford of Pa., Grennell of Mass., Hiland Hall of Yt.. IIei» terof Pa., Hodges of Mass.. Hogan of X. Y., Hushes of X.J. , Huntingdon of Conn.. Ibrie of Pa.. Ingersoll of Conn.. Ken- dall of Mass., K.ennou of 0.. King of Pa.. King of X. Y., Henry King of l'a., Leavitt of 0., Mann of Pa., McCarty of Ind.. McCoy of Pa., McKennan of l'a.. Mercer of Va.. Milli- gan of Del., Muhlenberg of Pa., Xelson of Mass., 1'earce of It. I.. Pendleton of X. Y. Pierson of X. \".. Pitcher of X. Y.. Potts of Pa., Randolph of X. J., John Reed of Ma s. Edward C. Reed of X. Y., Rnssell of 0. Slade'of Yt.. Southard of X. J., Stephens of Pa., Storrs of Conn., Sutherland of Pa.. Taylor of X. Y., Vinton of 0., Wardwell of N. Y.. Watmough of Pa., Wilkin of X. Y.. Wheeler of N. V.. Frederick Whit- tlesey of X. Y, Young of Conn. — 85. The vote in the Senate was veas 29, nays 16. Yeas.— Messrs. Bell of X. II.. Bibb of Kv.. Blade of Miss-, Calhoun of S. C, Chambers of Md.. Clay of Ky.. Clayton of Del.. Ewingof 0„ FootofConn. Forsyth ofGa., Frelinghuy- sen of X. J.. Grundy of Tenn.. Hill of X. II , Holmes of Me.. Johnston of La.. King of Ala., Manguni of .V C. Miller of S. C, Moore of Ala., Xaudaiu of Del., Poindexter of Miss., Rives of Va., Robinson of 111., Sprngue of Me.. Tomlinson of Conn.. Tyler of Va., Waggaman of La.. White of Tenn., Wright of X. Y— 29. Nays. — Messrs. Benton of Mo., Buckner of Mo.. Dallas of Pa., Dickerson of X. J., Dudley of X. Y.. Hendricks of Ind., Knight of R. I„ Prentiss of Vt.. Robbins of R. I., Ruggles of 0., Seymour of Vt,. Silsbee of Mass., Smith of Md.. Tipton of Ind., Webster of Mass., Wilkins of Pa.— D3. 29. Entitled " An act relating to duties and drawbacks." The rates of duty fixed by this act of an ad valorem character did not exceed twenty per centum, that being the maximum rate — the lowest being twelve and a half per centum, while there were only twelve articles which paid a specific duty ; the free list, however, was extended, and embraced a great many articles heretofore subject to pay a duty. It was approved on the 11th September, 1841. The vote in the House of Representatives on its passage stood as follows: — Yeas 116; nays 101. The vote in the Senate was veas 33, nays 11. 30. Entitled "An act to provide revenue from imports and to change and modify exisr ing laws imposing duties on imports, and for other purposes." This act changed the entire rates of duties and fixed the same' at specific, minimum, com- pound and ad valorem rales, the latter ranging from one to fifty per centum. It was approv >1 on the 30th August, 1842. The vote in the House of Representatives 640 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. on its passage stood as follows : — Yeas 105 ; nays 103. Yeas.— Messrs. Allen of Me., Landaff W. Andrews of Ky., Sherlock J. Andrews of 0., Appleton of Mass., Aycrigg of N. J.. Babcock of N. Y.. Baker of Mass., Barnard of X. Y., Barton of Va., Beeson of Pa., Bidlaek of Pa., Birdseye of N. Y., Blair of N. Y.. Boardman of Conn., Borden of Mass., Bri<„".cs of Mass., Brockway of Conn., Charles Brown of Pa., J. Brown of Pa., Bruuell of Mass., Calhoun of Mass., Childs of N. Y., Chittenden of N. Y., John C. Clark of N. Y., James Cooper of Pa., Cowen of 0., Cranston of R. I., CushiDg of Mass.. Davis of Ky., Davis of N. Y., Edwards of Mo., Ever- ett of Vt., Ferris "of N. Y., Fessenden of Me., Fillmore of N. Y., Gerry of Pa.. Giddings of 0., Patrick G. Goode of O., Gordon of N. Y., Granger of N. Y., Gustine of Pa., Hall of Vt.. Halstead of N. J., Houck of N. Y., Howard of Mich., Hudson of Mass., Hunt of N. Y., C. J. Ingersoll of Pa,, Jo- seph H. Ingersoll of Pa., James Irwin of Pa., William \V. Irwin of PaT, Kane of Pa., John P. Kennedy of Md., Robert McClellan of N. Y., McKennan of Pa., Thomas F. Marshall of Ky.. Mason of O., Mattocks of Vt, Maxwell of N. J., May- nard of N. Y., Moore of La., Morgan of N. Y., Morris of 0., Morrow of 0., Newhard of Pa., Osborne of Conn., Parmenter of Mass.. Pearce of Md., Plumer of Pa., Pope of Ky., Powell jf Va., Promt of Ind., Ramsay of Pa., Randall of Me., Ran- dall of Md., Randolph of N. J., Read of Pa., Ridgway of 0., Briggs of N. Y., Rodney of Del., Russell of 0., Russell of Pa., 'Saltonstall of Mass., Sanford of N. Y., Slade of Vt., Smith of Conn., Sollers of Md., Stratton of N. J., John T. Stuart of 111., Taliaferro of Va., Richard W. Thompson of Ind.. Tillinahastof R. I., Toland of Pa..Tomlinson of N. Y., Trumbull of Conn., Van Buren of X. Y., Van Rensselaer of N. Y., Wallace of Ind., Ward of N. Y., Edward D. White of La.. Williams of Conn., Joseph L. Williams of Tenn., Yorke of N. J., Young of Vt.— 105. Mays. — Messrs. Adams of Mass.. Arnold of Tenn., Arring- ton of N. C, Atherton of N. II., Black of Ga., Botts of Va., Boyd of Ky., Aaron V. Brown of Tenn., Milton Brown of Tenn., Burke of N. H., Butler of Ky„ Caldwell of X. C, Caldwell of S. C, John Campbell of S. C, W. B. Campbell of Tenn., Thomas J. Campbell of Tenn., Caruthers of Tenn., Cary of Va., Casev of 111.. Clifford of Me., Clinton of X. Y., Coles of Va., Colquitt of Ga., Doan of 0., Doig of N. V.. Ed- wards of Mo., Egbert, Floyd of N. Y., Foster of N. Y., Fos- ter of Ga.. Gamble of Ga., Gentry of Tenn., Gilmer of Va., Goggiu of Va., Goode of Va., Graham of N. C, Green of Ky.. Gwin of Miss.. Habersham of Ga., Harris of Va., Hastings of 0., Hays of Va., Holmes of S. C. Hopkins of Va., Houston of Ala., Hubard of Va., Hunter of Va.. Johnson of Md., Cave Johnson of Tenn., Jones of Va., Kennedy of Ind., King of Ga., Lane of Ind., Lewis of Ala., Linn of N. Y., Littlefield of Me., McClellan of Tenn., McKay of N. C, McKeon of N. Y., Mallory of Va., Mason of Md., Mathiot of 0.. Math- ews of 0., Medill of 0., Miller of Me., Mitchell of N. C, Ows- ley of Ky., Payne of Ala., Rayner of N. C, Reding of N. H., Reynolds of 111., Rhett of S. C, Rogers of S. C, Roosevelt of N. Y„ Saunders of N. C, Shaw of N. H., Shepperd of N. C, Shields of Ala., William Smith of Va., Sprigg of Ky.. Steen- rod of Va., Summers of Va., Sumter of S. C., Jacob Thomp- son of Miss.. John B. Thompson of Ky., Triplett of Ky., Turney of Tenn., Underwood of Ky., Warren of Ga., Wash- ington of N. C, Waterson of Tenn., Weller of 0., Williams of Md., H. Williams of Tenn., Wise of Va., Wood of N. Y., —103. The vote in the Senate was yeas 24, nays 23. Yeas.— Messrs. Barrow of La., Bates of Mass., Bayard of Del., Buchanan of Pa., Choate of Mass., Conrad of La., Crafts of Vt., Crittenden of Ky., Dayton of N. J., Evans of Me., Huntington of Conn., Miller of N. J., Morehead of Ky.. Phelps of Vt., Porter of Mich., Simmons of R. I., Smith of Ind., Sprague of Me., Sturgeon of Pa., Tallmadge of X. Y., White of Tenn., Williams of Me., Woodbridge of Mich., Wright of N. Y.— 24. Nats.— Messrs. Allen of 0., Archer of Va., Bagby of Ala.. Benton of Mo., Berrien of Ga., Calhoun of S. C, Clayton of Del., Cuthbert of Ga.. Fulton of Ark.,Graham of N. C, Hen- derson of Miss., King of Ala., Linn of Mo., Mangum of X. C, Merrick of Md., Preston of S. C, Rives of Va., Sevier of Ark., Bmith of Conn., Tappan of 0., Walker of Miss., Woodbury of N. H., Young of 111.— 23. 31. Entitled " An act reducing the duty on imports, and for other purposes." For the first time, the rates of duty are ex- clusively ad valorem, and arranged by sche- dules ; paying from 5 to 100 per centum. It was approved on the 30th July, 1846. The vote in the Hou ; e of Representatives, on its passage, stood as follows : — Yeas 114 ; nays 95. Ykas. — Messrs. Stephen Adams of Miss., Anderson of Me., Atkinson of Va., Bayly of Va., Bedinger of Va., Benton of N . Y.. Biggs of N. C, Black of S. C, Bowlin of Mo., Boyd of Ky., Briukerhoff of 0., Brockenbrough of Fla.. Brown of Va., Burt of S. C, Cathcart of Ind , Chapman of Va., Chapman of Ala.. Chase of Tenn.. Chipman of .Mich.. Clarke of N. C, Cobb of Ga.. Collin of X. Y., Cullom of Tenn.. Cunningham of 0., Daniel of N. C, Dargan of Ala., Davis of Miss., De Mott of N. Y.. Dobbin of X. C, Douglas of 111., Dromgoole of Va., Dunlap of Me.. Ellsworth of N. Y., Faran of 0., Ficklin of 111., Frits of 0.. Giles of Md., Goodyear of N. Y., Gordon of N. Y., Grover of N. Y.. Hamlin of Me., Haralson of Ga., Harmansou of La.. Henly of Ind., Hilliard of Ala.. Hoge of 111.. Holmes of S.CHopkins of Va.. Hough of N. Y., Houston of Ala., Hubard of Va., Hunt of Mich., Hunter of Va., Johnson of N. H., Johnson of Va., Andrew Johnson of Tenn., Jones of Tenn., Jones of Ga.. Kaufman of Texas, Kennedy of Ind., Preston King of X. Y., Lawrence of X. Y., Leake of Va., La Sere of La., Lumpkin of Ga., Maclay of X. Y., McClelland of Mich., McClernand of Ind., McConnellof Ala., McCrate of Me., Mc- Dowell of 0., McDowell of Va., McKay of X. C, Martin of Ky.. Martin of Tenn., Morris of O., Morse of La., Moulton of X. II., Xiven of X. Y., Xorris of X. H., Parish of 0., Payne of Ala.. Perrill of 0., Phelps of Mo., Pillsbury of Texas, Rath- bun of X. II.. Reid of Pa„ Relfe of Mo., Rhett of S. C, Rob- erts of Miss., Sawtelle of Me., Sawyer of 0., Simpson of S. C, Scammon of Me., Seddon of Va., Alexander D. Simms of S. C, Sims of Mo., Thomas Smith of Ind., Smith of 111., Stanton of Tenn., Starkweather of 0., St. John of 0., Strong of N. Y.. Thompson of Miss., Thurmau of 0., Tibatts of Ky. Towns of Ga., Tredway of Va., Wick of Ind., Williams of Me., Wihnot of Pa., Wood of X. Y., Woodward of S. C, Yan- cey of Ala. — 114. Nays. — Messrs. Abbott of Mass., Adams of Mass., Arnold of Tenn., Ashmun of Mass., Barringer of X. C, Bell of Ky., James Black of Pa., Blanchard of Pa., Brodhead of Pa., Mil- ton Brown of Tenn., Buffiugton of Pa., Campbell of N. Y., Campbell of Pa., Carroll of N. Y., Cocke of Tenn., Collamer of Vt., Cranston of R. I., Crozier of Tenn., Culver of X. Y., Darragh of Pa.. Davis of Ky., Delano of 0., Dixon of Conn., Dockery of X. C, Edsall of X. J.. Erdman of Pa., Ewing of Pa., ±:wing of Tenn., Foot of Vt., F'oster of Pa., Garvin of Pa.. Gentry of Tenn.. Giddings of 0., Graham of X. C, Gri- &er of Ky., Grinnell of Mass., Hampton of X. J.. Harper of 0., Holmes of X. Y„ Houston of Del.. Hubbard of Conn., Hudson of Mass.. Hungerford of X. Y., Hum of X. Y., Chas. J. Ingersoll of Pa.. Joseph R. Ingersoll of Pa., Jenkins of X. Y..~ King of Mass.. Leib of Pa., Lewis of N. Y., Levin of Pa.. Long of Md.. McClean of Pa., Mctiaunhey of Ind., Mo- Henry of Ky., Mellvaine of Pa., Marsh of Vt.. Miller of X. Y., Mosely of X. Y., Pendleton of Va., Perry of Md., Pollock of Pa., Ramsey of Pa., Hitter of Pa., Rockwell of Mass., Rock- well of Conn., Root of 0., Runk of X. J.. Russell of X. Y-, Schenck of 0., Seaman of X. Y., Severance of Me.. Smith of Conn., Smith of N. Y., Caleb B. Smith of Ind., Stephens of Ga.. Stewart of Pa.. Strohm of Pa.. Sy kes of X. J., Thibodeaux of La., Thomassou of Ky., Thompson of Mass., Thompson of Pa., Tilden of 0.. Toombs of Ga.. Trumbo of Ky.. Vance of 0., Vinton of 0., Wheatonof X. Y., White of X. Y., Winthrop of Mass., Woodruff of X. Y., Wright of X. J., Y'oung of Ky., Yost of Pa.— 95. The vote in the Senate was yeas 28, nays 28. Yeas. — Messrs. Allen of 0., Ashley of Ark., Atchison of Mo.. Atherton of X. H.. Bagby of Ala.. Benton of Mo., Breese of 111., Bright of Ind.. Calhoun of S. C , Cass of Mich.. Chal- mers of Miss.. Colquitt of Ga., Dickinson of X. Y., Dix of X. Y., Fairfield of Me., Hannegan of Ind.. Houston of Texas. Jarnagin of Tenn., Lewis of Ala., McDufiie of S. C. Pennybackerof Va.. Rusk of Texas. Seniple of HI., Sevier of Ark.. Speight of Miss., Turney of Tenn., Westcott of Fla., Yulee of Fla.— 28. NATS. — Messrs. Archer of Va., Berrien of Ga,, Barrow of La., Cameron of Pa., Cilley of X. H., J. M. Clayton of Del., T. Clay- ton of Del.. Corwin of 0., Crittenden of Ky., Davis of Mass., Dayton of X. J., Evans of Me., Greene of R. I., Huntington of Conn.. Johnson of La., Johnson of Md., Mangum of X. C, Miller of X. .7., Morehead of X. C, Xiles of Conn., Pearce of Md., Phelps of Vt.. Simmons of R. I., Sturgeon of Pa., Up- ham of Vt., Webster of Mass., Woodbridge of Mich.— 28. Thus making a tie, when the Vice-President of the United States (Mr. Dallas) voted in the affirmative, and the bill passed. 32. Entitled " An act reducing the duty on imports, and for other purposes." This act is exclusively ad valorem, paying from 4 tc 30 per centum, and a reduction TARIFFS.— TEMPORAL ALLEGIANCE DUE THE POPE. G41 upon the rates of the act of 1846 (No. 31). The free list is extended, and now embraces a great many articles heretofore subject to duty. As this is the present law, and goes into effect on the 1st July, 1857, the Editor should re- mark that this does not indicate the views of the House of Representatives or the Senate of the United States on the subject of the tariff; but is the result of a committee of conference on the disagreeing vote of the two Houses. It was approved on the 3d March, 1857. The vote in the House of Representatives, on agreeing to the report of the committee of con- ference, stood as follows : — Yeas 122 ; nays 72. Teas. — Messrs. Aiken, Allen, Barclay, Hendley S. Bennett, Benson, Bishop, Bocock, Bowie, Branch, Buffinton, Burliu- game, Burnett, Cadwalader, Lewis D. Campbell, Carlile, Caskie, Chaffee. Ezra Clarke, Clingman. Williamson R. W. Cobb, Comins, Craige, Crawford, Damrell, Davidson. Henry Winter Davis, Timothy Davis, Day, Dean, Denver, De Witt, Dickson, Dowdell. Edmundson, Elliott, English, Etheridqe, Eustis, Evans. Eaulkner, Flagler, Florence, Foster, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Garnett, Gootle, Greenwood, Augustus Hall. J. Morrison Harris, Sampson W. Harris. Thomas L. Harris, Haven, Herbert. Thomas R. Horton, Valentine B. Horton, Houston, Jewett. George W. Jones, Keitt, Kelly, Kidwell, Knapp, Knowlton, Lake, Letcher, Lumpkin, Mace, Alexander K. Marshall, Samuel S. Marshall, Maxwell, McMullin, McQueen, Killian Miller, Smith Miller, Milhon. Morrison, Mott, Murray, Nichols, Orr, Peck, Pelton, Perry, Pike, Powell, Puryear, Quitman. Ready, Puffin. Rust, Sage, Sandidge, Savage, Seward, Shorter, Samuel A. Smith, William Smith, William It. Smith, Spinner, Stewart, Stranahan, Talbott, Tappan, Taylor, Thurston, Trafton, Underwood, F«iJ,VALK,Wakeman, Walker, Israel Washburne. Welch. Wells, Wheeler, Whitney, Williams, Winslow, Wood, Woodruff, Daniel B. Wrigltt,John V. Wright, ZOLLICOFFER. — 123. Nays. — Messrs. Akers, Albright, Allison, Ball, Barbour, Henry Bennett, Billinghurst, Bingham, Bliss, Bradshaw, Brenton, Broom, James II. Campbell, Caruthers, Colfax, Covode, Cragin, Cullen, Cumback, Dodd, Ddnn, Durfee, Edie, Henry M. Fuller, Galloway, Granger, Harlan, Harrison, Hodges, Holloway, Howard, Kelsey, Kennett, King, Knight, Knox, Kunkel, Leiter, Humphrey Marshall, McCarty, Mill- ward, Moore, Morgan, Morrill, Norton, Andrew Oliver, Packer, Parker, Pennington, Pettit, Pringle, Purviance, Ricaud, Roberts, Robison, Sabin, Sapp, Scott, Sherman, Simmons, Stanton, Swope, Thorington, Todd, Tyson, Wade, Walbridge, Waldron, Cadwalader C. Washburne, Elihu B. Washburne, Watson, Woodworth. — 72. The vote in the Senate was yeas 33, nays 8. That is, upon agreeing to the report of the committee of conference. Yeas. — Messrs. Adams, Bell of Tenn., Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Butler, Clay, Douglas, Evans, Fish, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Foster, Green, Gwin, Houston, Hunter, Johnson, Mallory, Mason, Nourse, Pugh, Reid, Rusk, Sebastian, Seward, Stuart, Toombs, Toucey, Trumbull, Weller, Wilson, Yulee— 33. Nays. — Messrs. Allen, Brodhead, Collamer, Foot, Geyer, James, Wade, Wriglvt. — 8. Temporal Allegiance due the Pope. Extracts from the declarations and testi- monies of six of the principal universities of Europe, on the three following propositions, sul mitted to them, at the request of Mr. Pitt, by the Catholics of London, in 1789 : — The Propositions. 1. Has the Pope, or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence whatsoever, within the realm of England? 2. Can the Pope, or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, absolve or dispense with his Majesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance, upon any pretext whatsoever ? 3. Is there any principle in the tenets of the Catholic faith by which Catholics are jus- tified in not keeping faith with heretics, or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any transaction, either of a public or a private nature ? After an introduction, according to the usual forms, the Sacred Faculty of Divinity of Paris answer the first query by declaring : Neither the Pope, nor the Cardinals, nor any body of men, nor any other person of the Church of Rome, hath any civil authority, civil power, civil jurisdiction, or civil pre-emi- nence whatsoever in any kingdom ; and, con- sequently, none in the kingdom of England, by reason or virtue of any authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence by Divine insti- tution inherent in, or granted, or by any other means belonging to the Pope or the Church of Rome. This doctrine the Sacred Faculty of Divinity of Paris has always held, and upon every occasion maintained, and upon every occasion has rigidly proscribed the contrary doctrines from her schools. Answer to the Second Query. — Neither the Pope, nor the Cardinals, nor any body of men, nor any person of the Church of Rome, can, by virtue of the keys, absolve or release the subjects of the King of England from their oath of allegiance. This and the first query are so intimately connected, that the answer of the first imme- diately and naturally applied to the second, &c. Answer to the Third Query. — There is no tenet in the Catholic Church by which Catho- lics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or those who differ from them in matters of religion. The tenet, that it is law- ful to break faith with heretics, is so repug- nant to common honesty and the opinions of Catholics, that there is nothing of which those who have defended the Catholic faith against Protestants have complained more heavily, than the malice and calumny of their adversa- ries in imputing this tenet to them, &c, &c. Given at Paris, in the General Assembly of the Sorbonne, held on Thursday, the eleventh day before the calends of March, 1789. Signed in due form. University of Douay, January 5, 1789. — At a meeting of the Faculty of Divinity of the University of Douay, &c. To the first and second queries the Sacred Faculty answers: — That no power whatsoever, in civil or temporal concerns, was given by the Almighty, either to the Pope, the Cardi- nals, or the Church herself, and, consequently, that kings and sovereigns are not, in temporal concerns, subject, by the ordination of God, to any ecclesiastical power whatsoever ; neither can their subjects, by any authority granted, to the Pope or the Church, from above, be freed from their obedience, or absolved from their oath of allegiance. 642 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. This is the doctrine which the doctors and professors of divinity hold and teach in our schools, and this all the candidates for degrees in divinity maintain in their public theses, &c. To the third question, the Sacred Faculty answers: — That there is no principle of the Catholic faith, by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, who differ from them in religious opinions. On the con- trary, it is the unanimous doctrine of Catho- lics, that the respect due to the name of God so called to witness, requires that the oath be inviolably kept, to whomsoever it is pledged, whether Catholic, heretic, or infidels, &c. Signed and sealed in due form. University of Louvain. — The Faculty of Divinity at Louvain, having been requested to give her opinion upon the questions above stated, does it with readiness — but struck with astonishment that such questions should, at the end of this eighteenth century, be proposed to any learned body, by inhabitants of a king- dom that glories in the talents and discern- ment of its natives. The Faculty being as- sembled for the above purpose, it is agreed, with the unanimous assent of all voices, to answer the first and second queries absolutely in the negative. The Faculty does not think it incumbent upon her in this place to enter upon the proofs of her opinion, or to show how it is supported by passages in the Holy Scriptures, or the writings of antiquity. That has already been done by Bossuet, De Marca, the two Barclays, Goldastus, the Pithaeuses, Argentre Widring- ton, and his Majesty, King James the First, in his dissertation against Bellarmine and Du Perron, and by many others, &c. The Faculty then proceeds to declare that the sovereign power of the state is in no wise (not even indirectly, as it is termed) subject to, or dependent upon, any other power, though it be a spiritual power, or even though it be instituted for eternal salvation, &c. That no man, nor any assembly of men, however eminent in dignity and power, not even the whole body of the Catholic Church, though assembled in general council, can, upon any ground or pretence whatsoever, weaken the bond of union between the sove- reign and the people ; still less can they ab- solve or free the subjects from their oath of allegiance. Proceeding to the third question, the said Faculty of Divinity (in perfect wonder that such a question should be proposed to her) most positively and unequivocally answers : That there is not, and there never has been, among the Catholics, or in the doctrines of the Church of Rome, any law or principle which makes it lawful for Catholics to break their faith with heretics, or others of a differ- ent persuasion from themselves, in matters of religion, either in public or private concerns. The Faculty declares the doctrines of the Catholics to be, that the divine and natural law, which makes it a duty to keep faith and promises, is the same, and is neither shaken nor diminished, if those with whom the en- gagement is made, hold erroneous opinions in matters of religion, &c. Signed in due form, on the 18th of Novem ber, 1788. University of Alcala. — To the first question, it is answered : That none of the persons men- tioned in the proposed question, either indivi- dually or collectively, in counsel assembled, have any right in civil matters ; but that all civil power, jurisdiction, and pre-eminence, are derived from inheritance, election, the consent of the people, and other such titles of that nature. To the second, it is answered in like man- ner : That none of the persons above men- tioned have a power to absolve the subjects of his Britannic Majesty from their oaths of allegiance. To the third question, it is answered: That the doctrine which would exempt Catholics from the obligation of keeping faith with here- tics, or with any other persons who dissent from them in matters of religion, instead of being an article of Catholic faith, is entirely repugnant to its tenets. Signed in the usual form, March 17-, 1789. University of Salamanca. — To the first ques- tion, it is answered : That neither Pope nor Cardinals, nor any assembly or individual of the Catholic Church, have, as such, any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence in the kingdom of England. To the second, it is answered : That neither Pope nor Cardinals, nor any assembly or in- dividual of the Catholic Church, can, as such, absolve the subjects of Great Britain from their oaths of allegiance, or dispense with its obligations. To the third, it is answered : That it is no article of Catholic faith, not to keep faith with heretics, or with persons of any other descrip- tion, who dissent from them in matters of re- ligion. Signed in the usual form, March 7, 1789. University of Valadolid. — To the first ques- tion, it is answered : That neither Pope, Car- dinals, or even a general council, have any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre- eminence, directly or indirectly, in the king- dom of Great Britain, or over any other king- dom or province in which they possess no tem- poral dominion. To the second, it is answered: That neither Pope nor Cardinals, nor even a general coun- cil, can absolve the subjects of Great Britain from their oaths of allegiance or dispense with their obligation. To the third, it is answered : That the obli- gation of keeping faith is grounded on the law of nature, which binds all men equally, with- out respect to their religious opinions; and with regard to Catholics, it is still more cogent TEMPORAL ALLEGIANCE DUE THE POPE. 643 as it is confirmed by the principles of their religion. Signed in the usual form, February 17, 1789. _ " The Roman Catholic Archbishops of Ire- land, at their meeting in Dublin, in 1791, addressed a letter to the Pope, wherein they described the misrepresentations that had been recently published of their consecration oath, and the great injury to the Catholic body arising from them. " After due deliberation at Rome, the con- gregation of Cardinals appointed to superintend the ecclesiastical affairs of these kingdoms, returned an answer (of which the following is an extract), by the authority and command of his holiness : — " Most Illustrious and most Reverend Lords and Brothers : — " We perceive from your late letter, the great uneasiness you labor under since the publication of a pamphlet entitled ' The Pre- sent State of the Church of Ireland,^ from which our detractors have taken occasion to renew the old calumny against the Catholic religion with increased acrimony ; namely : that this religion is, by no means, compatible with the safety of kings and republics ; be- cause, as they say, the Roman Pontiff being the father and master of all Catholics, and invested with such great authority, that he can free the subjects of other kingdoms from their fidelity and oaths of allegiance to kings and princes ; he has it in his power, they con- tend, to cause disturbances and injure the public tranquillity of kingdoms, with ease. We wonder that you could be uneasy at these complaints, especially after your most excel- lent brother and apostolical fellow-laborer, the Archbishop of Cashel, and other strenuous defenders of the rights of the Holy See, had evidently refuted and explained away these slanderous reproaches in their celebrated writings. In this controversy, a most accu- rate discrimination should be made between the genuine rights of the Apostolical See, and those that are imputed to it by innovators of this age for the purpose of calumniating. The See of Rome never taught that faith is not to be kept with the heterodox : that an oath to kings separated from the Catholic communion, can be violated : that it is lawful for the Bishop of Rome to invade their temporal rights and dominions. We, too, consider an attempt or design against the life of kings and princes, even under the pretext of religion, as a horrid and detestable crime. " At the very commencement of the yet in- fant church, blessed Peter, prince of the apos- tles, instructing the faithful, exhorted them in these words : Be ye subject to every human creature for God's sake, whether it be to the king as excelling, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of the good : for so is the will of God, that by doing well you may silence the io-norance o* foolish men. The Catholic Church being directed by these precepts, the most re- nowned champions of the Christian name replied to the Gentiles, when raging against them, as enemies of the empire, with furious hatred : we are constantly praying (Tertullian in Apologet. chap, xxx.) that all the emperors may enjoy long life, quiet government, a loyal household, a brave army, a faithful senate, an honest people, and general tranquillity. The bishops of Rome, successors of Peter, have not ceased to inculcate this doctrine, especially to missionaries, lest any ill will should be ex- cited against the professors of the Catholic faith in the minds of those who are enemies of the Christian name. We pass over the illustrious proofs of this fact, preserved in the records of ancient Roman Pontiffs, of which yourselves are not ignorant. We think proper, notwithstanding, to remind you of a late ad- monition of the most wise Pope Benedict XIV., who, in his regulations for the English mis- sions, which are likewise applicable to you, speaks thus : The vicars Apostolic are to take diligent care that the missionaries behave on all occasions with integrity and decorum, and thus become good models to others ; and par- ticularly that they be always ready to cele- brate the sacred offices, to communicate proper instructions to the people, and to comfort the sick with their assistance ; that they, by all means, avoid public assemblies of idle men and taverns. * * * The vicars them- selves are particularly charged to punish, in such manner as they can, but severely, all those who do not speak of the public govern- ment with respect. "England herself can witness the deep- rooted impressions such admonitions have made on the minds of Catholics. It is well known that, in the late war, which had ex- tended to the greater part of America, when most flourishing provinces, inhabited almost by persons separated from the Catholic Church, had renounced the government of the king of Great Britain, the Province of Canada alone, idled, as it is, almost with innumerable Catho- lics, although artfully tempted, and not yet for- getful of the French government, remained most faithful in its allegiance to England. Do you, most excellent prelates, converse frequently on these principles ; often remind your suffra- gant prelates of them ; when preaching to your people, exhort them, again and again, to honor all men, to love the brotherhood, to fear God, to honor the king. "Those duties of a Christian are to be cherished in every kingdom and state, but particularly in your own, of Great Britain and Ireland, where, from the benevolence of a most wise king, and other most excellent rulers of those kingdoms, towards Catholics, no cruel and grievous burden is imposed, and Catholics themselves experience a mild and gentle government. If you pursue this line of conduct unanimously ; if you act in the spirit of charity ; if, while you direct the peoplo of the Lord, you have nothing in view but the salvation of souls, adversaries will be ashamed GU THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. (we repeat it) to calumniate, and will freely acknowledge that the Catholic faith is of heavenly descent, and calculated not only to procure a blessed life, but likewise, as St. Augn^tin observes, in his one hundred and thirty-eighth letter, addressed to Marcellinus, to promote the most lasting peace of this earthly city, inasmuch as it is the safest prop and shield of kingdom. Let those who say (the words are those of the holy doctor) that the doctrine of Christ is hostile to the republic, produce an army of such soldiers as the doctrine of Christ has required ; let them furnish such inhabitants of provinces, such husbands, such wives, such parents, such children, such masters, such servants, such kings, such judges, finally, such payers of debts and collectors of the revenue, as the doctrine of Christ enjoins, and then they may dare to assert that it is inimical to the repub- lic — rather let them not hesitate to acknow- ledge that it is, when practised, of great ad- vantage to the republic. The same holy doctor, and all the other fathers of the Church, with one voice, most clearly demonstrate, by invincible arguments, that the whole of this salutary doctrine cannot exist with permanent consistency and stability, or flourish except in the Catholic society, which is spread and pre- served all over the world, by communion with the See of Rome, as a sacred bond of union, divinely connecting both. From our very high esteem and affection for you, we earnestly wish that the great God may very long pre- serve you safe. Farewell. " As your lordship's most affectionate bro- ther, "L. Cardinal Antonelli, Prefect. " A. Archbishop of Aden, Secretary. " Rome, June 23, 1791." The following document was drawn up by the Roman Catholic committee in Dublin, and published by them on the 17th of March, 1792, after it had been submitted to the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland, and received their entire sanction. To give it greater weight, the same instrument was put into the form of an oath, retaining, as far as possible, the very words. It was then submitted to the Pope and Cardinals, who solemnly declared that it was consonant to, and expressive of, the Roman Catholic doctrine ; and then it was taken by the Catholic archbishops, bishops, priests, and laity of Ireland. " We the Catholics of Ireland, in deference to the opinion of many respectable bodies and individuals among our Protestant brethren, do hereby, in the face of our country, of all Europe, and before God, make this, our deliberate and solemn declaration. "We abjure, disavow, and condemn the opinion, that princes excommunicated by the Pope, and council, or by any ecclesiastical authority whatsoever, may, therefore, be de- posed or murdered by their subjects, or by any other persons. We hold such doctrine in de- testation, as wicked and impious; and we declare that we do not believe that either th« Pope, with or without the general council, or any prelate or priest, or any ecclesiastical power whatsoever, can absolve the subjects of this kingdom, or any of them, from their allegiance to his Majesty King George III., who is, by authority of Parliament, the lawful king of this realm. "2. We abjure, condemn, and detest as un- christian and impious, the principle that it is lawful to murder, or destroy, or anywise injure any person whatsoever, for or under the pre- tence of being heretics ; and we declare solemn- ly before God, that we believe no act in itself unjust, immoral, or wicked, can ever be justi- fied or excused by or under the pretence or color that it was done either for the good of the Church, or in obedience to any ecclesiasti- cal power whatsoever. " 3. We further declare, that we hold it aa unchristian and impious principle, that 'no faith is to be kept with heretics.' This doc- trine we detest and reprobate, not only as con- trary to our religion, but as destructive of morality, of society, and even of common honesty ; and it is our firm belief, that an oath made to any person not of the Catholic religion, is equally binding as if it were made to any Catholic whatsoever. " 4. We have been charged with holding, aa an article of our belief, that the Pope, with or without a general council, or that certain ecclesiastical powers, can acquit or absolve us before God from our oaths of allegiance, or even from the just oaths or contracts entered into between man and man. " Now we utterly renounce, abjure, and deny that we hold or maintain any such belief, as being contrary to the peace and happiness of society, inconsistent with morality, and above all, repugnant to the true spirit of the Catholic religion." Below we give an extract from an address of the Bishops of the Catholic Church recently assembled in council at Baltimore : — Beloved brethren of the laity, we embrace you all with paternal affection, and entreat you to walk circumspectly, for the days are evil. You know what manner of precepts we have given you in the name of the Lord Jesus ; for this is the will of God, your sanctification. Be peaceful, sober, just, and faithful in the performance of all duties towards all mankind. Practise patience, forbearance, charity to- wards all. In the exercise of your rights as free citizens, remember your responsibility to God, and act as freemen ; but not as having liberty as a cloak for malice, but as the ser- vants of God. Respect and obey the con- stituted authorities : for all power is from God, and they that resist the ordinances of God, purchase for themselves damnation. To the general and state governments you owe allegiance in all that regards the civil order ; the authorities of the Church challenge your obedience in the things of salvation. We have no need of pressing this distinction, which you TEMPORAL ALLEGIANCE DUE TIIE POPE. 645 fully understand and constantly observe. You know that we have uniformly taught you, both publicly and privately, to perform all the duties of good citizens, and that we have never exacted of you, as we ourselves have never made even to the highest ecclesiasti- cal authority, any engagement inconsistent with the duties we owe to the country and its laws. On every opportune occasion we have avowed these principles, and even in our com- munication to the late pontiff we rejected as a calumny the imputation that we were in civil matters subject to his authority. Be not disturbed at the misstatements of our tenets which are daily made, or at the efforts to deprive us of our civil rights and of the con- fidence and esteem of our fellow-citizens. Formidable as is the combination for this pur- pose, we do not despair that the justice and good sense of the nation will soon discover Jhe groundless character of the suspicion thrown on the fidelity of Catholics, whose religion teaches them to respect and maintain the established order of society, under whatsoever form or government they may be placed. Brethren, let the light of your example shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven. Pray for the conversion and salva- tion of all men, for this is the will of God, who desires that men may be saved and may come to the knowledge of the truth. Given under our hands in Provincial Coun- cil at Baltimore, the 13th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1855. f Francis Patrick, Archbishop of Baltimore. f Rich. Vincent, Bishop of Wheeling, f Michael, Bishop of Pittsburgh, f John, Bishop of Richmond, f John Nepomucene, Bishop of Philadelphia. f Josue, Bishop of Erie. John Berry, Adni'r of Savannah. P. X. Lynch, D. D., Adm'r of Charlestown. Richmond, April 18, 1855. Rev. Sir : Having heard and read much declamation against the Catholics, because of the alleged temporal power of the Pope, I take the liberty to inquire of you whether the Catholics in Virginia do acknowledge any temporal allegiance to the Pope ; and whe- ther, if this country could be and was assailed or invaded by the army of the Pope (if he had one), or by any other Catholic power, the Catholic citizens of this country, no matter where born, would not be as much bound to defend the flag of America, her rights and liberty, as any native-born citizen would be ; and whether the performance of that duty would conflict with any oath, or vow, or other obligation of the Catholics? My purpose is, with your leave, to make this note and your reply to it public. With high respect, your friend, &c, James Lyons. Richmond, Va., April 19, 1855. Dear Sir : The letter, which you have ad- dressed to me, contains three questions, to which you ask an answer, with a view to publication. First Question : " AVhether the Catholics in Virginia do acknowledge any temporal alle- giance to the Pope ?" To this I answer, that unless there be in Virginia some Italians who owe allegiance to the Pope as a temporal prince, because they were born in his states, and are not natural- ized citizens of this country, there are no Catholics in Virginia who owe or acknowledge any temporal allegiance to the Pope. Second Question : " Whether, if this country could be and was assailed and invaded by the army of the Pope (if he had one), or by any other Catholic power, the Catholic citizens of this country, no matter where born, would not be as much bound to defend the flag of Ame- rica, her rights and liberty, as any native-born citizens would be 1" Answer: To me, the hypothesis of an inva- sion of our country by the Pope, seems an ab- surdity ; but should he come with armies to establish temporal dominion here, or should any other Catholic power make such an at- tempt, it. is my conviction that all Catholic citizens, no matter where born, who enjoy the benefits and franchises of the Constitution, would be conscientiously bound, like native- born citizens, to defend the flag, rights and liberties of the republic, and repel such inva- sion. Third Question: " Whether the performance of that duty would conflict with any oath, or vow, or other obligation of the Catholic ?" Answer: Catholics, reared in the Church as such, have not the custom of taking any oaths or vows, except the baptismal vows, " to renounce the Devil, his works and pomps." Persons converted to the faith, or those receiv- ing degrees in theology, maybe required to take the oath contained in the creed of Pius IV. of obedience to the Pope, which, as far as I know, has always been understood and inter- preted to signify a spiritual obedience to him as head of the Church, and not obedience to him as a temporal prince. Bishops, on their consecration, also take an oath which, in our country, is different from the old form used in Europe. But none of these vows, oaths, and no other obligation of which I am aware, con- flicts with the duty of a citizen of the United States to defend the flag and liberties of his country. In conclusion, allow me to state that, as we have no article of faith teaching that the Pope, of divine right, enjoys temporal power as head of the Cliurch, whatever some theologians or writers may have said on this point, must, like my answers to your inquiries, be consi- dered as opinions for which the writers them- selves only can be held responsible. Yours, very truly, &c, J. McGill, Bishop of Richmond. 646 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Tennessee. The Act approved May 26, 1790, provided a government for the territory of the United States south of the river Ohio, the same as that for the government of the Northwest Ter- ritory, except so far as was otherwise provided in the conditions expressed in an act of Con- gress entitled An act to accept a cession of the claims of the state of North Carolina to a cer- tain district of western territory. Amongst the conditions referred to above, contained in the act of April 2, 1790, em- braced in the deed of cession from North Carolina to the United States, was the follow- ing:— " Provided, that no regulations made or to be made by Congress, shall tend to emanci- pate slaves." On the 8th of April, 1796, President Wash- ington communicated to Congress that, amongst the privileges, benefits, and advantages secured to the inhabitants of the territory south of the Ohio, by the act of May 26, 1790, appeared to be the right of forming a permanent constitu- tional and state government, and of admission as a state, &c. ; that Governor Blount had transmitted proofs of the several requisites to entitle the territory south of the Ohio to such admission, which, with the constitution there- of, and form of government on which they have agreed, &c, he now laid before Congress. The Senate instructed a committee to bring in a bill for laying out into one state the ter- ritory ceded by the state of North Carolina to the United States, and providing for the enu- meration of the inhabitants thereof. This in- struction was in pursuance of the report of the committee to whom was referred President Washington's message. That report opposed the immediate admis- sion of the state so formed out of said terri- tory, upon the ground — " That Congress must have previously en- acted that the whole of the territory coded by North Carolina, and which is only a part of the territory of the United States south of Ohio, should be laid out by Congress for one state before the inhabitants thereof (admitting them to amount to sixty thousand free per- sons) could claim to be admitted as a new state into the Union." The bill reported from the committee being before the Senate on the 26th of May, 1796, it was passed by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Bingham of Pa., Bradford of R. I., Brown of Ky., Foster of R. I., Gunn of Ga., Latimer of Del., Martin of N. C, Potts of Mil., Read of S. 0., Ross of Pa., Rutherford of N. J., Strong of Mass., Tatnall of Ga., Tazewell of Va., Trumbull of Conn.— 15. Nays— Messrs. Bloodworth of N. C, Burr of N. Y., Butler of S. C, Henry of Md., Langdon of N. H., Livermore of N. H., Marshall of Ky., Robinson of Vt.— 8. On the 28th of May, 1796, Mr. Giles, in the House of Representatives, made a report from the committee to whom was referred the bill from the Senate, recommending a change in the principles of the Senate bill. The re- port contended that the proceedings of these people had been so far Tegular as to authorize their immediate admission as a state, and op- posed the plan of the Senate to delay the same, and order a census to be taken, &c. The re- port was supported by Messrs. Giles, Nicho- las, Madison, Gallatin, Venable, W. Lyman, and Holland ; and opposed by Messrs. W. Smith, Sitgreaves, Thatcher, Coit, and Harper. The question was then taken on amending the Senate bill to conform to the report, when the amendment was carried by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Bailey of N. Y-. Baldwin of Ga., Burd of Pa., Benton, Blount of N. C., Brent of Va., Bryan of N. C, Cabell of Va., Claiborne of Va., Coles of Va., Crabh of Md., Earle of S. C. Findiey of Pa., Franklin of N. C. Gallatin of Pa., Giles of Va., Gillespie of N. C, Greenup of Ky., Grove of N. C, Hampton of S. C, Hancock of Va., Harrison of Va., Hathorn of N. Y., Havens of N. Y., Heath of Va., Heister of Pa., Holland of NT. C. Jackson of Va.. Locke of N. C, Lyman, Maclay of Pa., Macon of N. C, Madison of Va., Millcilge of Ga., Moore of Va., New of Va., NMcholas of Va., Preston of Va., Richards of Pa., Uutherford of Va., Smith of Vt., Sprigg of Md., Thos. Sprigg. Swanwick of Pa.. Tatam of N.C., Van- cortl^indt of N. Y., Venable of Va., Winn of S. C— 48. Nays.— Messrs. Bourne of R. I., Bradbury of Mass., Coit of Conn., Cooper of N. Y., Dent of Md., A. Foster of N. H., D. Foster of Mass., Gilbert of N. Y., Oilman of N. II., Glen of N. Y., Goodrich of Conn., Griswold of Conn., Harper of S. C, Ilindman of Md., Kittera of Pa.. Lyman of Maps., Mal- bone of R. I.. Murray of Md.. Sitgreaves of Pa., J. Smith of N. II.. N. Smith of Conn., J. Smith of N. J., W. Smith of S. C, Swift of Conn., Thatcher of Mass., Thompson of N. J., Tracy of Conn.. Van Allen of N. J., Wadsworth of Mass., Williams of N. Y.— SO. The House then provided that said state (Tennessee) should be entitled to one repre- sentative until the next general census. On the 30th of May, 1796, the bill was passed by the House. A conference was agreed on by the two Houses, which reported that the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House. The Senate receded, and the act, by the approval of the President, became a law on the 1st of June, 1796, and Tennessee was admitted into the Union upon a constitu- tion formed without the previous authority of Congress assenting to her doing so. Texas. Annexation of. The treaty negotiated with Texas for her annexation to the Union, by the administra- tion of Mr. Tyler, was rejected by the Senate by the following vote : — Yeas. — Messrs. Atchison of Mo., Bagby of Ala., Breese of 111., Buchanan of Pa., Colquitt of Ga., Fulton of Ark., Hay- wood of N. C, Henderson of Miss., Huger of S. C, Lewis of Ala., McDuffie of S. C, Semple of Miss., Sevier of Ark., Sturgeon of Pa., Walker of Miss., Woodbury of N. H.— 16. Nays.— Messrs. Allen of O., Archer of Va.. Atherton of N. H., Barrow of La., Bates of Mass., Bayard of Del., Benton of Mo., Berrien of Ga., Choate of Mass.. T. Clayton of Del., Crittenden of Ky., Dayton of N. J., Kvans of Me., Fairfield of Me., Foster of Tenn., Francis of R. I., Huntington of Conn., Jarnagin of Tenn.. Job nson of Md., Mangum of N. C, Merrick of Md., Miller of N. J., Morehead of Ky.. Niles of Conn.. Pearce of Md., Phelps of Vt.. Porter of Mich., Rives of Va.. Simmons of R. I., Tallmadge of N. Y., Tappan of O., Upham of Vt., White of lud., Woodbridge of Mich., Wright of N. Y.— 35. In the House of Representatives, 12th of Dec, 1844, Mr. C. J. Ingersoll of Pa., from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported joint resolutions for the annexation of Texas. TEXAS. 64? Messrs. Weller of Ohio, Douglas of 111., Tib- batts of Ky., Belser of Ala., Milton Brown of Tenn., Dromgoole of Va., McDowell of Ohio, Burke of N. H., Preston King of N. Y., and Robinson of N. Y., respectively introduced bills for the annexation of Texas. The reso'utions reported by Mr. Ingersoll, and those introduced by Messrs. Weller, Bel- - ser, as also the bills of Messrs. Dromgoole and McDowell, were silent on the subject of the Missouri compromise and slavery. Mr. Tibbatts' bill contained a prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30'. Mr. Douglas's resolutions embraced the fol- lowing provision : — " That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to affect, or in any way to interfere, with the 6th section of the act approved the 6th of March, 1820, admitting the state of Missouri into the Union, and commonly called the Missouri compromise ; that act having been passed and approved prior to the ratification of the treaty commonly called the Florida treaty, by which Texas was ceded to Spain." The propositions of Messrs. Brown and Burke contained the following provisions re- spectively : — "And such states as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of 36° 30' north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admit- ted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each state asking permission may desire " The bill of Mr. Preston King of N. Y., and that introduced by Mr. Robinson of N. Y., contained this provision respectively : — " That such constitution shall contain a pro- vision ceding to the United States.the jurisdic- tion of the residue of the territory of Texas, in which slavery shall not exist, unless Con- gress shall hereafter so determine by law ; and this act of admission shall not be construed to imply any assumption of, or intention on, the part of the United States ... to impair the right of said state to the soil, &c, . . . or the right of the state of Texas to determine whether slavery shall or shall not exist in said state." On the 28th of January, 1845, Mr. M. Brown of Tenn. moved his resolutions, containing the provision before referred to, as an amend- ment. Mr. Douglas of 111. asked the gentleman to accept the following as a modification of his amendment, to come in after the last clause : — " And in such states as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri com- promise line, slavery or involuntary servitude except for crime shall be prohibited." Mr. Brown accepted the modification. Mr. Brown's proposition as modified was adopted in the Committee of the Whole. The question in the House on the amend- ment of the Committee of the Whole, being the proposition of Mr. Brown as modified by Mr. Douglas, it was agreed to by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Arrington of N. C. Ashe of Tenn.. Atkinson of Va., Baylv of Va.. Belser of Ala., Bidlack of Pa., E. J. Black of Ga.. James Black of l'a., Jas. A. Black of S. C. Blackwell of Tenn., Bower of Mo., Bowlin of Mo., Boyd of Ky., Brod- head of Pa.. A. V. Brown of Tenn., M. Brown of Tenn., Wm. J. Brown of Ind., Burke of N. II., Burt of S. C. Caldwell of Ky., Campbell of S. C. Shepherd Cary of Me., II. Chapman of Ala., Chapman of Va., Chappell of Ga., Clinch of (l;i., Clinton of N. Y., Cobb of Ga., Coles of Va., Cross of Ark., Culloni of Tenn.. Daniel of N. C. J. W. Davis of Ind., Dawson of La., Dean of 0., Dellet of Ala., Douglas of 111., Dromgoole of Va., Duncan of 0., Ellis of N. Y., Farlee of N. J.. Ficklin of 111.. Foster of Pa.. French of Ky., Fuller of Pa., Hammett el Miss.. Haralson of Ga., Hays of Pa.. Heuly of Ind., Holmes of S. C, Hope of 111., nopkinsof Va., Houston of Ala.. Hubard of Va., Huhbell of N. Y., Hughes of Mo., Chas. J. Ingersoll of Pa., Jameson of Mo., Cave Johnson of Tenn., Andrew Johnson of Tenn., George W. Jones of Tenn., Andrew Ken- nedy of Ind.. Kirkpatrick of N. J., Labranche of La., Leonard of N. Y., Lucas of Va., Lumpkin of Ga., Lyon of Mich., Maclay of N. Y.. McCIernand of 111., McConnell of Ala., McDowell oft)., McKay of N. C, Mathews of 0., Morse of La., Murphy of N. Y.. Newton of Va., Norris of N. II., Owen of Ind., Par- menter of Mass., Payne of Ala., Pettitoflnd.. Peyton of Tenn.. E. D. Potter of Conn., Pratt of N. Y., D. S. Keid of N. C, Relfe of Mo.. Rhett of S. C, Bitter of Pa., Roberts of Miss., Russell of N. Y., Saunders of N. C, Senter of Tenn., Thomas H. Seymour of Conn., Simons of Conn., Simpson of S. C, Slidell of La.. John T. Smith of Pa., Thomas Smith of Ind., Robert Smith of III.. Steenrod of Va., Stephens of Ga.. Jno. Stewart of Conn., Stiles of Ga., Jas. W. Stone of Ky., Alfred P. Stone of 0., Strong of N. J., Sykes of N. J., Taylor of Va.. Thompson of Miss., Tibbatts of Ky., Tucker of Miss.. Weller of 0., Wentworth of 111., Woodward of S. C, Jos. A. Wright of Ind., Yancey of Ala., Yost of Pa. — 118. Nays. — Messrs. Abbot of Mass., Adams of Mass., Anderson of N. Y., Baker of Mass., Barringer of N. C, Barnard of N. Y., Benton of N. Y., Brangle of Md., Brinkerhoff of 0., J. Brown of Pa., Buffington of Pa., Carpenter of N. Y., J. E. Cary of N. Y., Carroll of N. Y., Catlin of Conn.. Causin of Md., Chilton of Va., Clingman of N. C, Collamer of Vt., Cranston of R. I., Dana of N. Y., Darragh of Pa., G. Davis of Ky., R. D. Davis of N. Y., Deberry of N. C, Dickev of Pa., Dillingham of Vt„ Dunlap of Me., Elmer of N. J., F"ish of N. Y., Florence of 0., Foot of Vt., Giddings of 0., Goggin of Va., Willis Green of Ky., B. Green of N. Y.. Grinnell of Mass., Grider of Ky., Hale of N. H., H. Hamlin of Me., E. S. Hamlin of 0.. Hardin of 111., Harper of 0.. Herrick of Me., Hudson of Mass., Wash. Hunt of N. Y., Jas. B. Hunt of Mich., Jos. R. Ingersoll of Pa., Irvin of Pa., Jenks of Pa., P. B.Johnson of 0., J. P. Kennedy of Md., P. King of N. Y., D. P. King of Mass., McCauslen of 0., McClelland of Mich., Mclllvaine of Pa.. Marsh of Vt., Edw. J. Morris of Pa., Jos. Morris of 0.. F. H. Morse of Me., Mosely of N. Y., Nes of Pa.. Patterson of N. Y., Phoenix of N. Y., Pollock of Pa., E. R. Potter of R. I., Preston of Md.. Purdy of N. Y., Ramsey of Pa., Rathbun of N. Y., Ravnor of N. C, Redding of N. H., Robinson of N. Y., Rockwell of Mass., Rodney of Del., Rogers of N. Y.. St. John of 0., Sample of Ind., Schenck of 0., Severance of Me., David L. Sevmour of N. Y., Albert Smith of N. Y., C. B. Smith of Ind.. Spence of Md.. Stetson of N. Y., Andrew Stewart of Pa., Summers of Va., Thomasson of Ky., Tilden of 0., Tyler of N. Y.. Vance of 0., Van Metre of 0., Vinton of 0., Wetbered of Md., Wheaton of Mass., John White of Ky., White of Me.. Williams of Mass., Winthrop of Mass., Wm. Wright of N. Y. —101. The vote on the passage of the resolution was the same as the above vote on the amend- ment, with the exception that Messrs. Mc- Causlen and Morris of Ohio, who voted against the amendment, voted for the resolution, and Mr. Spence of Md., wdio voted against the amendment, did not vote on the resolution at all, which made the vote on the passage of the resolution, yeas 120, nays 98. In the Senate, Feb. 27, 1845. The resolu- tions from the House, providing for the annex- ation of Texas, being before the body, Mr. Walker of Miss, offered as an amendment te the same sec. 3 of the resolution, as herein- after published in the form in which they be- came a law. 648 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Mr. Foster of Term, offered the following as an amendment to the amendment of Mr. Walker :— And provided further, That in fixing the terms and conditions of such admission, it shall be expressly stipulated and declared, that the state of Texas, and such other states as may be formed of that portion of the pre- sent territory of Texas lying south of 36° 30 / north latitude, commonly known as the Mis- souri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the peo- ple of each state so hereafter asking admis- sion may desire. Mr. Foster's amendment was rejected by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Archer of Va., Bayard of Del., Barrow of La., Berrien of Ga., Clayton of Del., Crittenden of Ky., Fos- ter of Tenn., Hannegau of Ind., Huger of S. C, Jarnagin of Tenn.. Johnson of Md.. Manguin of N. C, Merrick of Md., Morehead of Ky., Pearce of Md., Phelps of Vt., Hives of Va., Sevier of Ark. — 18. Nats. — Messrs. Allen of 0., Ashley of Ark., Atchison of Mo.. Athcrton of N. H., Bagby of Ala., Bates of Mass., Beu- U>n of Mo.. Breese of 111., Buchanan of Pa., Choate of Mass., Colquitt of Ga., Dayton of N. J., Dickinson of N. Y., Dix of N. Y., Evans of Me., Fairfield of Me., Frauds of R. I.. Hay- wood of N. C. Henderson of Miss.. Huntington of Conn., Lewis of Ala., McDuffie of S. C. Miller of N. J., Niles of Conn., Porter of Mich., Semple of Miss., Sturgeon of Pa.. Tappan of 0., Upham of Vt., Walker of Miss., White of Ind., Woodbridge of Mich., Woodbury of N. II.— 33. The amendment of Mr. "Walker was then agreed to by a vote of yeas 27, nays 25 ;. and the resolutions of the House, as amended, were passed. The yeas and nays, on the third reading, were as follows : — Yeas.— Messrs. Allen of 0., Ashley of Ark., Atchison of Mo., Atherton of N. H., Baghy of Ala., Benton of Mo.. Breese of 111.. Buchanau of Pa., Colquitt of Ga., Dickinson of N. Y., Dix of N. Y., Fairfield of Me., Ilanuegan of Iud., Haywood of N. C, Henderson of Miss., Huger of S. C, Johnson of Md.. Lewis of Ala., McDuffie of S. C, Merrick of Md., Niles of Conn.. Semple of Miss., Sevier of Ark., Sturgeon of Pa., Tappan of 0., Walker of Miss., Woodbury of N. H.— 27. Nays. — Messrs. Archer of Va., Barrow of La., Bates of Mass., Bayard of Del., Berrien of Ga., Choate of Mass., Clay- ton of Del., Crittenden of Kentucky, Dayton of N. J.. Evans of Me.. Foster of Tenn., Francis of R. I., Huntington of Conn., Jarnagin of Tenn., Mangum of N. C, Miller of N. J., More- head of Ky., Pearce of Md., Phelps of Vt., Porter of Mich., Rives of Va.. Simmons of R. I., Upham of Vt., White of Ind., Woodbridge of Mich. — 25. The amendment of the Senate was concur- red in by the House the 28th of Feb. 1845, by a vote of yeas 132, nays 76, and the resolu- tions became a law in the following shape: — Resolved by the Senate and House of Re- presentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth con- sent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the republic of Texas, may be erected into a new state, to be called the state of Texas, with a republican form of government, to be adopted by the peo- ple of said republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the states of this Union. 2. And be it further resolved, That the fore- going consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guarantees, to wit: First. Said state to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this go- vernment of all questions of boundary that may arise with other governments ; and the constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the Presi- dent of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hun- dred and forty-six. Second. Said state, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy- yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence belonging to said repub- lic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind, which may belong to or be due and owing said re- public; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharg- ing said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said state may direct ; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States. Third. New states, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addi- tion to said state of Texas, and having suffi- cient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said state, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitu- tion. And such states as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north lati- tude, commonly known as the Missouri com- promise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each state asking admission may desire. And in such state or states as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri compro- mise line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime), shall be prohibited. 3. And be it further resolved, That if the President of the United States shall in his judgment and discretion deem it most advisa- ble, instead of proceeding to submit the forego- ing resolution to the republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United Slates for admission, to negotiate with that republic; then, Be it resolved, That a state to be formed out of the present republic of Texas with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two represent- atives in Congress, until the next apportionment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal foot- ing with the existing states, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the ces- sion of the remaining Texan territory to the United States shall be agreed upon by the gov- ernments of Texas and the United Stales: And that the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be and the same is hereby appropriated to de- fray the expenses of missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two TEXAS— THOMPSON'S CLAIM. G49 Houses of Congress, as the President may di- rect. Approved March 1, 1845 John Tyler, President. President Tyler, in pursuance of the discre- tion vested in him by the resolutions, adopted the legislative clause thereof and sent a special messenger to Texas to procure its sanction by that republic. Texas having assented to and accepted the proposals, conditions, and guarantees con- tained in the resolutions providing for her an- nexation, Mr. Douglas of Illinois introduced and reported a joint resolution in the House of Representatives on the 10th of December, 1845, from the Committee on Territories, providing for her admission into the Union. The joint resolution of Mr. Douglas admit- ting Texas was passed in the House on the 16th of December, 1845, by yeas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Adams of Miss., Anderson of N. Y., Atkin- son of Va., Baker of 111., Barringer of N. C, Bayly and Bedinger of Va.. Biggs of N. C, Black of Pa., Black of S. C, Bowlin of Mo.,' Boyd of Ky., Brinkerhoff of 0., Brodbead of Pa., M ilton Brown of Tenn.. Brown of Va., Burt of S. C. Cabell of Fla., Campbell of Pa., Cathcart of Ind., Chapman of Va., Cbapman of Ala., Chase of Tenn.. Chipman of Mich., Clarke of N. C, Cobb of Ga., Cocke of Tenn., Colin of N. Y., Con- stable of Md., Crozier of Tenn., Cullom of Tenn., Cummins of 0., Cunningham of 0., Dauiel of N. C, Davis of Miss., De Mott of N. Y„ Dillingham of Vt, Dobbin and Dockery of N. C, Douglas of 111., Dromgoole of Va., Duulap of Me., Ells- worth of Ind., Erdman of Pa., Faran of 0., Ficklin of 111., Foster of Pa.. Fries of 0., Garvin of Pa., Gentry of Tenn., Giles of Md., Goodyear of N. Y., Gordon of N. Y., Graham of N. C, Grider of Ky., Grover of N. Y., Hamlin of Me., Haral- son of Ga., Henley of Ind., Hilliard of Ala., Hoge of 111., Hopkins of Va., Hough of N. Y., Houston of Ala., Uubard of Va., Hungerford of N. Y.. Hunt of Mich., Hunter of Va., Ingersoll of Pa., Jenkins of N. Y., Johnson of N. H., Johnson of Va., Johnson of Tenn., Jones of Tenn., Jones of Ga., King of Ga., Lawrence of N. Y., Leake of Va., Leib of Pa., Ligon of Md., Lumpkin of Ga., Maclay of N. Y., McLean of Pa., McClelland of Mich., McCleouand of 111., McConnell of Ala., McCrate of Me., McDowell of Va., McIIeury of Ky., McKay of N. C., Martin of Ky., Martin of Tenn.. Morris of 0., Morse of La., Moulton of N. H., Niven of N. Y., Norris of N. II., Owen of Ind., Parish of 0., Payne of Ala., Pendleton of Va., Perrill of 0., Perry of Md., Pettit of Ind., Price of Mo., Rath- bun of N. Y., Reid of N. C, Relfe of Mo., Ritter of Pa., Roberts of Miss., Russell of N. Y., Sawtelle of Me., Seddon of Va., Sims of S. C, Simins of Mo., Simpson of S. C, Smith of Ind., Smith of 111., Stanton of Tenn., Stephens of Ga., St. John of O., Strong of N. Y., Sykes of N. J., Thibodeaux of La., Thomasson of Ky., Thompson of Pa., Thompson of Miss., Thurman of 0., Tibbatts of Ky., Toombs of Ga., Tread- way of Va., Trumbo of Ky., Wentworth of 111., Williams of Me., Wick of Ind., Wilmot of Pa., Woodward of S. C, Wood- worth of N. Y., Yancey of Ala., Yell of Ark., Young of Ky. —141. Nays. — Messrs. Abbott of Mass., Ashmun of Mass., Adams of Mass., Arnold of R. I., Blanchard of Pa., Burlington of Pa., Campbell of N. Y., Chapman of Md., Collamer of Vt., Cranston of R. I., Culver of N. Y., Darragh of Pa., Delano of 0., Dixon of Conn., Ewing of Pa., Foot of Vt, Giddiugs of 0., Grinuell of Mass., Hampton of N. J., Harper of 0., Herrick of N. Y., Holmes of N. Y., Houston of Del., Hubbard of Conn.. Hud- son of Mass., Hunt of N. Y., J. R. Ingersoll of Pa., King of Mass., King of N. Y., Lewis of N. Y., Levin of Pa., MeGau- ghey of Ind., Mcllvaine of Pa., Marsh of Vt., Miller of N. Y., Pollock of Pa., Ramsey of Pa., Rockwell of Conn., Rockwell of Mass., Root of 0., Runk of N. J.. Schenck of 0., Seaman of N. Y., Severance of Me., Smith of Conn., Smith of N. Y., Smith of Ind., Stewart of Pa., Strohm of Pa.. Thompson of Pa.. Tilden of 0., Vance of 0., Vinton of 0., Wheaton of N. Y., White of N. Y., Winthrop of Mass., Wood of N. Y., Wood- ruff of N. Y.— 57. The resolution of the House was passed in the Senate on the 22d of December, 1845, by j'eas and nays as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Allen of 0., Archer of Va., Ashler of Ark., Atchison of Mo.. Atherton of N. H„ Bagby of Ala., Harrow of La., Benton of Mo., Berrien of Ga., Breese of III., Calhoun of S. C., Cass of Mich., Chalmers of Miss., Colquitt of Ga., Dickinson and Dix of N. Y., Fairfield of Me., Ilannegan of Ind., naywood of N. C, Jenness of N. II., Johnson of La., Levy of Fla.. Lewis of Ala., Mangum of N. C., Niles of Conn., Penuybacker of Va.. Sevier of Ark., Speight of Miss., Stur- geon of Pa., Turney of Tenn., Westcott of Fla. — 31. Nays.— Messrs. T. Clayton of Del., J. M. Clayton of Del., Corwin of 0., Davis of Mass., Dayton of N. J., Evans of Mc., Greene of R. I., Huntington of Conn., Miller of N. J., Phelps of Vt., Simmons of R. I., Upham of Vt., Webster of Mass., Woodbridge of Mich. — 14. So Texas was admitted into the Union. On the 26th of March, 1846, the Hon. Thomas J. Rusk took his seat in the Senate as a Senator from Texas, and on the 30th of March his colleague, the Hon. Samuel Hous- ton, took his seat. On the 1st of June Mr. David S. Kaufman, member elect from the state of Texas, took his seat in the House, and on the 10th of June his colleague, Mr. Timothy Pillsbury, also took his seat. Thompson's Claim. Opinion of Attorney'-General Black THEREON. Att, Gen. Office, March 24, 1857. Sir : I have received your letter relative to the claim of R. W. Thompson, together with Mr. Guthrie's letter calling your attention to it, and several other papers pertaining to the same matter. By the 27th section of the Civil and Diplo- matic Appropriation Bill, passed and ap- proved on the 3d of March, 1855, it is enacted that the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to R. W. Thompson, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, one-half of the amount stipulated for between him and the Menomonee Indians, in a memorial and an agreement, which are specified and de- scribed in the act. I have given, not the words, but the sub- stance of the act. It is so unambiguous, sim- ple, and plain, that no man can misunderstand it. I am not aware that any question has ever been raised about its meaning, or that any two persons in or out of the government have understood its mandate in different senses. Nor can there be any intrinsic diffi- culty in the way of rendering obedience to it. Wnat it commands to be done may easily be done, if the Secretary of the Treasury see proper to do it. It is but looking at the me- morial and agreement referred to in the law, and dividing the amount there stipulated for into halves, and one of the halves is the sum which you are commanded to pay out of any unappropriated funds in the Treasury. I re- peat, therefore, that on the face of the law there can be neither doubt of Mr. Thompson's right, nor difficulty about the performance of your duty. But it seems from the letter of Mr. Guthrie and the opinion of Mr. Cushing that soon after the passage of the act an allegation was made by some one that a proviso materially chang- ing its effect had been agreed to by both 650 THE TOLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Houses, but left out of the enrolled bill. What evidence this assertion was supported by I know not. I take it for granted that it must have been strong, since it was sufficient to convince the judgment of your predecessor and mine. You have not made the evidence on that point a part of the present case, and, for reasons which will be apparent hereafter, I have not sought it out. We cannot go be- hind the written law itself for the purpose of ascertaining what the law is. An act of Con- gress examined and compared by the proper officers, approved by the President, and en- rolled in the Department of State, cannot afterward be impugned by evidence to alter and contradict it. It imparts the absolute verity of a record, at least in so far that no intrinsic proof can be received to erase one thing from it, or to interpolate another into it. If there be an apparent conflict between the journals and the law as finally approved and enrolled, the journals have no claim to supe- rior authenticity. It certainly has happened very often, and may happen any day, that a clerk neglects to note down the result of a vote which strikes out a clause or section from a bill on its passage. On the strength of such a hiatus in the journal, who would say that the section stricken out should be considered part of the law after it is passed and enrolled ? If the law is to be looked for in the journals, the President ought to examine all the journals of both Houses before he approves a bill, for they may contain evidence of provisions which are not in the bill, and which he would not approve of. But this mode of finding laws in the journals would make enactments neither approved by the executive nor passed by the constitutional majority of two-thirds. This is not all. If the law may be changed by refer- ence to the journals, any other evidence, writ- ten or parol, may be received for the same purpose. An act of Congress which has gone through all the forms of the Constitution, and is authenticated according to law, may after- ward be mended or marred by the testimony of any spectator who happened to be present when it passed. What is in, or what is not in a statute, must then be a question as open to contradictory proof on both sides as the terms of a horse trade. And who shall decide such disputes when they arise ? The judi- ciary ? It would be a new service to the judges; but perhaps with the aid of juries and some enlargement of equity powers, to perpetuate testimony, a sort of justice might be accomplished in some cases with a great deal of trouble. But an executive or minis- terial officer wanting those aids for the inves- tigation of truth would often be obliged to decide at random. We must take the acts of Congress as we find ohem, without addition or diminution. This rule is so obviously neces- sary that no other has ever been seriously proposed. The clause which it is said Congress in- tended to insert, but did not, in the bill authorizing the payment to Mr. Thompson, is as follows : " Provided, That the same be paid with the consent of the Menomonees." If this had actually been part of the law it would have made his right to the money conditional. He would in that case have been obliged to get from the Indians a now assent in addition to that which they had previously given in their memorial and agreement. But this pro- viso being omitted, his right to the money waa absolute. I need not say that such an omis- sion cannot be supplied by construction, nor do I see how the omitted proviso can upon any ground whatever be treated as part of the law. On account of the supposed accident or design by which the proviso was omitted, the late Secretary of the Treasury, acting under advice of the Attorney-General, refused to pay Mr. Thompson the money which, by the terms of the act, he was entitled to, and the execution of the law as it stood was sus- pended by the President until Congress could be consulted on it. I do not presume to dis- cuss the propriety of this measure. That it was well meant, I am sure ; but, at all events, it is past and done. If it was right, the country has the benefit of a good example ; and if it was wrong it cannot now be recalled. But the object and purpose for which the Attorney-General advised the suppression of the law, has been fully carried out. Congress was consulted, and the facts communicated in a message of the President. There have been three sessions since that time, and the law stands yet unchanged in every letter. The lower House seems to have taken no notice of the subject. But the Senate, on the 8th of August, 1856. passed a resolution solemnly expressing its opinion that Richard W. Thomp- son was entitled to be paid the sum appro- priated by the 27th section of the civil and diplomatic appropriation bills of March 3, 1855. After such a response from the Senate, and the silent acquiescence of the House for three whole sessions, any postponement can hardly be thought necessary for the purpose of consulting Congress. The question must now be between obedience and disobedience to the admitted wills of the national legis- lature. After payment to Mr. Thompson had been refused at the Treasury, an agent was ap- pointed to take the sense of the Menomonees, and ascertain whether they would assent or not to the payment of his claim under the law. The agent reported their refusal to assent, and Mr. Thompson complained that they were pre- vented from giving their assent by the im- proper interference of the agent himself. Should these facts have any influence on the decision now to be made ? Congress declared that Mr. Thompson should be paid a cer- tain sum out of funds in their own treasury, which they had a right to appropriate to that object. From this determination of Congress no appeal lay to the Menomonee Indians. The payment of the money was not made depen- dent on any future expression of their wilL THOMPSON'S CLAIM.— TONNAGE DUTIES. G51 Their refusal to sanction the law could not re- peal it, or in anywise diminish the obligation the executive to carry it out. When Congress commands a thing to be done, and the Meno- monee Indians forbid it to be done, it is not very difficult to decide where obedience is due by an officer of the United States gov- ernment. To follow the act of Congress, and nut the decision of the Indians, would be a tolerably plain duty in any case, but here it is rendered plainer still by the consideration that it is a disputed and doubtful question of fact whether the unbiassed opinion of the Indians is opposed to the law or not ? But Mr. Thompson agreed to take the sense of the Indians, and to that end assented that an agent should be appointed. Did this bind him to stand or fall by the agent's report? If he had an absolute right under the law to be paid, I cannot say that I think he forfeited that right by an abortive attempt to comply with a condition which the law did not impose on him. He made a voluntary effort to strengthen himself with the Treasury Department by doing what he could not legally have been re- quired to do. This does not prevent him from falling back on the naked law, and standing there in defence of the rights which it gives him. These, I presume, are all the facts and cir- cumstances to which you refer as having transpired since the passage of the acts. There is but one point more to be noticed. That is raised by your inquiry " Whether the provision authorizing the payment of Mr. Thompson is rendered nugatory by the subse- quent provision requiring that amount to be deducted from the future payments to the Menomonee Indians V Congress has no authority to abrogate a treaty made by the executive, any more than the executive has to abrogate a law passed by Congress. But it is not to be presumed that such was the intent of the act under consider- ation ; Congress took the responsibility of pay- ing a debt due from the Indians to Mr. Thomp- son out of the United States Treasury. Their power to do this cannot be denied, and Mr. Thompson has no interest in any other part of the law. The other provision for deducting the amount from the future annuities to become due under the treaty was inserted, no doubt, upon satisfactory evidence that the Indians were agreed to it. We cannot act now upon the assumption that they will resist the deduction when the proper time comes for making it. But if we know that such would certainly be the fact, Mr. Thompson's rights could not be affected by it. Congress has chosen to say that he shall be paid at all events, and has taken upon the government all the risk (if there be any) of getting a deduction from the Indians. The United States have bound themselves by treaty with the Menomonees to pay them certain sums of money. At the stipulated times we must meet this responsibility either by payment of the money to the Indians, or else by proof that it is already paid, with then consent, to an individual who is their just creditor. The act of Congress awarding pay- ment to Mr. Thompson, and ordering the de- duction from the Indians, will not conclude them on the question of fact whether they did assent or not. But that is no reason why Mr. Thompson, who has the act of Congress in his favor, should not receive what it gives him. Not seeing any reason for resisting the will of Congress, as expressed in this law, I can only conclude by advising your literal obedi- ence to its provisions. That course is always the safest. I am, most respectfully, yours, &c, J. S. Black. The Hon. Howell Cobb, Secretary of the Treasury. Tonnage Duties to make River and Har- bor Improvements. Letter of Senator Douglas thereon. Washington, January 2, 1854. Sir : I learn from the public press that you have under consideration the proposition to convene the legislature in special session. In the event such a step shall be demanded by the public voice and necessities, I desire to in- vite your attention to a subject of great in- terest to our people, which may require legis- lative action. I refer to the establishment of some efficient and permanent system for river and harbor improvements. Those portions of the Union most deeply interested in internal navigation naturally feel that their interests have been neglected, if not paralyzed, by an uncertain, vacillating, and partial policy. Those who reside upon the banks of the Mis- sissippi, or on the shores of the great northern lakes, and whose lives and property are fre- quently exposed to the mercy of the elements for want of harbors of refuge and means of safety, have never been able to comprehend the force of that distinction between fresh and salt water, which affirms the power and duty of Congress, under the Constitution, to pro- vide security to navigation so far as the tide ebbs and flows, and denies the existence of the right beyond the tidal mark. Our lawyers may have read in English books that, by the common law, all waters were deemed naviga- ble so far as the tide extended and no further : but they should also have learned from the same authority that the law was founded upon reason, and where the reason failed the rule ceased to exist. In England, where they have neither lake nor river, nor other water which is, in fact, navigable, except where the tide rolls its briny wave, it was natural that the law should conform to the fact, and establish that as a rule which the experience of all men proved to be founded in truth and reason. But it may well be questioned whether, if the com- mon law had originated on the shores of Lake Michigan — a vast inland sea with an average depth of six hundred feet — it would have been deemed " not navigable," merely because the 652 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tide did not flow, and the water was fresh and well adapted to the uses and necessities of man. We therefore feel authorized to repudiate, as unreasonable and unjust, all injurious discri minations, predicated upon salt water and tidal arguments, and to insist that if the power of Congress to protect navigation has any exist- ence in the Constitution, it reaches every por- tion of this Union where the water is in fact navigable, and only ceases where the fact fails to exist. This power has been affirmed in some form and exercised to a greater or less extent by each successive Congress, and every administration since the adoption of the Fede- ral Constitution. All acts of Congress pro- viding for the erection of light-houses, the planting of buoys, the construction of piers, the removal of snags, the dredging of channels, the inspection of steamboat boilers, the carry- ing of life boats, in short, all enactments for the security of navigation and the safety of life and property within our navigable waters, assert the existence of this power and the pro- priety of its exercise in some form. The great and growing interest of naviga- tion is too important to be overlooked or dis- regarded. Mere negative action will not an- swer. The irregular and vacillating policy, which has marked our legislation upon this subject, is ruinous. Whenever appropriations have been proposed for river and harbor im- provements, and especially on the northern lakes and the western rivers, there has usually been a death struggle, and a doubtful issue. We have generally succeeded with an appro- priation once in four or five years ; in other words, we have, upon an average, been beaten about four times out of five in one House of Congress or the other, or both, or by the pre- sidential veto. When we did succeed, a large portion of the appropriation was expended in providing dredging machines and snag boats and other necessary machinery and imple- ments ; and by the time the work was fairly begun, the appropriation was exhausted, and further operations suspended. Failing to pro- cure an additional appropriation at the next session, and perhaps for two, three, or four successive sessions, the administration has construed the refusal of Congress to provide the funds for the prosecution of the works into an abandonment of the system, and has accordingly deemed it a duty to sell, at public auction, the dredging machines and snag boats, implements and materials on hand for whatever they would bring. Soon the country was again startled by the frightful accounts of wrecks and explosions, fires and snags upon the rivers, the lakes, and the sea coast. The responsibility of these appalling sacrifices of life and property were charged upon those who defeated the appropriations for the prose- cution of the works. Sympathy was excited, and a concerted plan of agitation and or- ganization formed by the interested sections and parties to bring their combined influence to bear upon Congress in favor of the re-esta- blishment of the system ou an enlarged scale, sufficiently comprehensive to embrace the local interests and influences in a majority of the Congressional districts of the Union. A legis- lative omnibus was formed, in which all sorts of works were crowded together, good and bad, wise and foolish, national and local, all cram- med into one bill, and forced through Congress by the power of an organized majority, after the fearful and exhausting struggle of a night session. The bill would receive the votes of a majority in each house, not because any one Senator or Representative approved all the items contained in it, but for the reason that humanity, as well as the stern demands of an injured and suffering constituency, required that they should make every needful sacrifice of money to diminish the terrible loss of hu- man life by the perils of navigation. The result was a simple re-enactment of the former scenes. Machinery, implements, and mate- rials purchased, the works recommenced — the money exhausted — subsequent appropriations withheld — and the operations suspended, with- out completing the improvements, or contribu- ting materially to the safety of navigation. In- deed, it may be well questioned whether, as a general rule, the money has been wisely and economically applied, and in many cases whether the expenditure has been productive of any useful results, beyond the mere distri- bution of so much money among contractors, laborers, and superintendents in the favored localities ; and in others, whether it has not been of positive detriment to the navigating interest. Far be it from my purpose to call in ques- tion the integrity, science, or skill of those whose professional duty it was to devise the plan and superintend the construction of the works. But I do insist that from the nature of their profession and their habits of life they could not be expected to possess that local knowledge — that knowledge of currents and tides — the effects of storms, floods, and ice, always different and ever changing — in each locality of this widely-extended country, which is essential in determining upon the proper site and plan for an improvement to the navigation. Without depreciating the value of science, or disregarding its precepts, I have no hesitation in saying that the opinion of an intelligent captain or pilot, who, for a long series of years, had sailed out of and into a. given port in fair weather and foul, and who had carefully and daily watched the changes produced in the channel by the currents and storms, wrecks and other obstructions, would inspire me with more confidence than that of the most eminent professional _ gentleman, whose knowledge and science in the line of his profession were only equalled by his profound ignorance of all those local and practical questions which ought to determine the site and plan of the proposed improve- ment. To me, therefore, it is no longer a matter of surprise that errors and blunders occur in the mode of constructing the works, and that follies and extravagance everywhere TONNAGE DUTIES. 653 appear in the expenditure of the money. These evils seem to be inherent in the system ; at least, they have thus far proven unavoida- ble, and have become so palpable and noto- rious that it is -worse than folly to close our eyes to their existence. * In addition to these facts it should be borne in mind that a large and intelligent portion of the American people, comprising, perhaps, a majority of the Democratic party, are in the habit of considering these works as consti- tuting a general system of internal improve- ments by the federal government, and there- fore in violation of the creed of the Democratic party and of the Constitution of the United States. These two-fold objections — the one denying the constitutional power and the other the expediency of appropriations from the national treasury — seem to acquire addi- tional strength and force in proportion as the importance of the subject is enhanced, and the necessity for more numerous and extensive improvements is created by the extension of our territory, the expansion of our settlements, and the development of the resources of the country. As a friend to the navigating inte- rest, and especially identified by all the ties of affection, gratitude, and interest -with that section of the republic -which is the most deeply interested in internal navigation, I see no hope for any more favorable results from national appropriations than we have hereto- fore realized. If then we are to judge the system by its results, taking the past as a fair indication of -what might reasonably be ex- pected in the future, those of us who have struggled hardest to render it efficient and useful, are compelled to confess that it has proven a miserable failure. It is even worse than a failure, because, while it has failed to accomplish the desired objects, it has had the effect to prevent local and private enterprise from making the improvements under state authority, by holding out the expectation that the federal government was about to make them. By way of illustration, let us suppose that twenty-five years ago, when we first began to talk about the construction of railroads in this country, the federal government had assumed to itself jurisdiction of all works of that de- scription to the exclusion of state authority and individual enterprise. In that event, does any one believe we would now have in the United States fourteen thousand miles of rail- road completed, and fifteen thousand miles in addition under contract? It is to be presumed, that if our own state had prostrated itself in humble supplication at the feet of the federal government, and, with folded arms, had waited for appropriations from the national treasury, instead of exerting state authority, and stimu- lating and combining individual enterprise, we should now have in Illinois three thousand miles of railroad in process of construction ? Let the history of internal improvements by the federal government be fairly written, and it will furnish conclusive answers to these in- terrogatories. For more than a quarter of a century the energies of the national govern- ment, together with all the spare funds in the treasury, were directed to the construction of a macadamized road from Cumberland, in the state of Maryland, to Jefferson City, in the state of Missouri, without being able to com- plete one-third of the work. If the govern- ment were unable to make three hundred miles of turnpike-road in twenty-five years, how long would it take to construct a railroad to the Pacific Ocean, and to make all the har- bor and river improvements necessary to pro- tect our widely extended and rapidly increas- ing commerce on a seacoast so extensive, that in forty years we have not been able to com- plete even the survey of one-half of it, and on a lake and river navigation more than four times as extensive as that seacoast? These questions are worthy of the serious considera- tion of those Avho think that improvements should be made for the benefit of the present generation as well as for our remote posterity ; for I am not aware that the federal govern- ment ever completed any work of internal im- provement commenced under its auspices. The operations of the government have not been sufficiently rapid to keep pace with the spirit of the age. The Cumberland Road, when commenced, may have been well adapted to the purposes for which it was designed ; but after the lapse of a quarter of a century, and before any considerable portion of it could be finished, the whole was superseded and ren- dered useless by the introduction of the rail- road system. One reason, and perhaps the principal cause, of the slow progress of all go- vernment improvements, consists in the fact that the appropriation for any one object is usually too small to be of material service. It may be sufficient for the commencement of the work, but before it can be completed, or even so far advanced as to withstand the effects of storms, and floods, and the elements, the ap- propriation is exhausted, and a large portion of the work swept away before funds can be obtained for finishing it or even protecting that which has been done. The ruinous con- sequences of these small appropriations are well understood and seriously deprecated, but they arise from the necessity of the case, and constitute some of the evils inseparable from the policy. All experience proves that the numberles's items of a river and harbor or internal improvement bill cannot pass, each by itself, and Upon its own merits, and that the friends of particular works will not allow appropriations to be made for the completion of others which are supposed to be of para- mount importance, unless theirs are embraced in the same bill. Each member seems to think the work in his own district to be of the sternest necessity and highest importance, and hence feels constrained to give his own the preference, or to defeat any bill which does not include it. The result is a legisla- tive omnibus, in which all manner of objects are crowded together indiscriminate'y ; and, 654 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. as there never is and never can be money enough in the treasury to make adequate ap- propriations for the whole, and as the bill cannot pass unless each has something, of course the amount for each item must be re- duced so low as to make it of little or no ser- vice, and thus render the whole bill almost a total loss. In this manner a large portion of our people have been kept in a state of sus- pense and anxiety for more than half a cen- tury, with their hopes always excited and their <-xjieotations never realized. I repeat that the policy heretofore pursued has proven worse than a failure. If we expect to provide facilities and securities for our navi- gating interests, we must adopt a system com- mensurate with our wants — one which will be just and equal in its operations upon lake, river, and ocean wherever the water is navi- ir;; 1 do, fresh or salt, tide or no tide — a system which will not depend for its success upon the dubious and fluctuating issues of political cam- paigns and Congressional combinations — one which will be certain, uniform, and unvarying in its results. I know of no system better cal- culated to accomplish these objects than that which commanded *the approbation of the founders of the republic, was successively adopted on various occasions since that period, and directly referred to in the message of the President. It is evidently the system contem- plated by the framers of the Constitution when they incorporated into that instrument the clause in relation to tonnage duties by the states with the assent of Congress. The de- bates show that this provision was inserted for the express purpose of enabling the states to levy duties of tonnage to make harbor and other imnrovements for the benefit of naviga- tion. It was objected that the power to regu- late commerce having already been vested ex- clusively in Congress, the jurisdiction of the states over harbor and river improvements, without the consent or supervision of the fede- ral government, might be so exercised as to conflict with the Congressional regulations in respect to commerce. In order to avoid this objection, and at the same time reserve to the states the power of making the necessary improvements, consistent with such rules as should be prescribed by Congress for the re- gulation of commerce, the provision was modi- fied and adopted in the form in which we now find it in the Constitution, to wit: "no state shall lay duties of tonnage except by the consent of Congress." It is evident from the debates that the framers of the Constitution looked to tonnage duties as the source from which funds were to be derived for improvements in navi- gation. The only diversity of opinion among them arose upon the point, whether those duties should be levied and the works con- structed by the federal government or under state authority. These doubts were solved by the clause quoted, providing, in effect, that while the power was reserved to the states, it should. not be exercised, except by the consent of Congress, in order that the local legislation for the improvement of navigation might not conflict with the general enactments for the regulation of commerce. Yet the first Con- gress, which assembled under the Constitu- tion, commenced that series of contradictory and partial enactments which has continued to the present time, and proven the fruitful source of conflict and dissension. The first of these acts provided that all ex- penses for the support of lighthouses, beacons, buoys, and public piers, should be paid out of the national treasury, on the condition that the states in which the same should be situ- ated respectively, should cede to the United States the said works, " together with the lands and tenements thereunto belonging, and together with the jurisdiction of the same." A few months afterwards the same Congress passed an act consenting that the states of Rhode Island, Maryland, and Georgia, might levy tonnage duties for the purpose of improv- ing certain harbors and rivers within their respective limits. This contradictory legisla- tion upon a subject of great national import- ance, although commenced by the first Con- gress, and frequently suspended and renewed at uncertain and irregular periods, seems never to have been entirely abandoned. While appropriations from the national treasury have been partial and irregular — sometimes granted and at others withheld — stimulating hopes only to be succeeded by disappointments, ton- nage duties have also been collected by the consent of Congress, at various times and for limited periods, in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and perhaps other states. Indeed there has never been a time, since the Decla- ration of Independence, when tonnage duties have not been collected under state authority for the improvement of rivers or harbors, or both. The last act giving the consent of Con- gress to the collection of these duties, was passed for the benefit of the port of Baltimore in 1850, and will not expire until 1861. Thus it will be seen that the proposition to pass a general law giving the consent of Con- gress to the imposition of tonnage duties ac- cording to a uniform rule, and upon equal terms in all the states and territories of the Union, does not contemplate the introduction of a new principle into our legislation upon this subject. It only proposes to convert a partial and fluctuating policy into a permanent and efficient system. If this proposition should receive the sanc- tion of Congress, and be carried into success- ful operation by the states, it would withdraw river and harbor improvements from the perils of the political arena, and commit them to the fostering care of the local authorities, with a steady and unceasing source of revenue for their prosecution. The system would be plain, direct, and simple, in respect to harbor im- provements. Each town and city would have charge of the improvement of its own harbor, and would be authorized to tax its own com- TONNAGE DUTIES. 655 nierce to the extent necessary for its construc- tion. The money could be applied to no other object than the improvement of the harbor ; and no higher duties could be levied than were necessary for that purpose. There would seem to be no danger of the power being abused, for in addition to the restrictions, limitations, and conditions, which should be embraced in the laws conferring the consent of Congress, eelf-interest will furnish adequate and ample assurances and motives for the faithful execu- tion of the trusts. If any town, whose harbor needs improvement, should fail to impose the duties and make the necessary works, such neglect would inevitably tend to drive the commerce to some rival port, which would use all the means in its power to render its harbor safe and commodious, and afford all necessary protection and facilities to navigation and trade. If, on the other hand, any place should attempt to impose higher duties than will be absolutely necessary for the construction of the requisite improvements, this line of policy, to the extent of the excess, would have the same deleterious effects upon its prosperity. The same injurious influences would result from errors and blunders in the plan of the work, or from extravagance and corruption in the expenditure of the money. Hence each locality, and every citizen and person inte- rested" therein, would have a direct and per- sonal interest in the adoption of a wise plan, and in securing strict economy and entire fidelity in the expenditure of the money. While upon the rivers the plan of operations would not be so direct and simple as in the improvement of harbors, yet even there it is not perceived that any serious inconvenience or obstacle would arise to the success of the system. It would be necessary that the law, which shall grant the consent of Congress to the imposition of the duties, shall also give a like consent in conformity with the same provision of the Constitution, that where the river to be improved shall form the boundary of, or be situated in, two or more states, such 6tates may enter into compacts with each other, by which they may, under their joint authority, levy the duties and improve the navigation. In this manner Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey, could enter into a compact for the improvement of the Delaware river, by which each would appoint one commissioner, and the three commissioners constitute a hoard, which would levy the duties, prescribe the mode of their collection, devise the plan of the improvement, and superintend the ex- penditure of the money. The six states bor- dering on the Ohio river, in like manner, could each appoint a commissioner, and the six con- stitute a board for the improvement of the navigation of that river from Pittsburgh to the Mississippi. The same plan could be applied to the Mississippi, by which the nine states bordering upon that stream could each appoint one commissioner, and the nine form a board for the removal of snags and other obstructions in the channel from the Falls of St. Anthony to the Gulf of Mexico. There seems to be no difficulty, therefore, in the execution of the plan where the watercourse lies in two or more states, or forms the boundary thereof in whole or in part ; and where the river is en- tirely within the limits of any one state, like the Illinois or Alabama, it may be improved in such manner as the legislature may pre- scribe, subject only to such conditions and limitations as may be contained in the act of Congress giving its consent. All the necessi- ties and difficulties upon this subject seem to have been foreseen and provided for in the same clause of the Constitution, wherein it is declared, in effect, that, with the consent of Con- gress, tonnage duties may be levied foi the improvement of rivers and harbors, and that the several states may enter into compacts with each other for that purpose whenever it shall become necessary, subject only to such rules as Congress shall prescribe for the regu- lation of commerce. It only remains for me to notice some of the objections which have been urged to this sys- tem. It has been said that tonnage duties are taxes upon the commerce of the country, which must be paid in the end by the con- sumers of the articles bearing the burden. I do not feel disposed to question the soundness of this proposition. I presume the same is true of all the duties, tolls, and charges upon all public works — whether constructed by go- vernment or individuals. The state of New York derives a revenue of more than two millions of dollars a year from her canals. Of course this is a tax upon the commerce of the country, and is borne by those who are in- terested in and benefited by it. This tax is a blessing or a burden, dependent upon the fact whether it has the effect to diminish or increase the cost of transportation. If we could not have enjoyed the benefit of the canal without the payment of the tolls, and if, by its construction and the payment, the cost of transportation has been reduced to one-tenth the sum which we would have been compelled to have paid without it, who would not be willing to make a still further contribu- tion to the security and facilities of naviga- tion, if thereby the price of freights are to be reduced in a still greater ratio? The tolls upon our own canal are a tax upon commerce, yet we cheerfully submit to the payment for the reason that they were indispensable to the construction of a great work, which has had the effect to reduce the cost of transportation between the lakes and the Mississippi, far below what it would have been if the canal had not been made. All the charges on the fourteen thousand miles of railroad now in operation in the different states of this Union, are just so many taxes upon commerce and travel, yet we do not repudiate the whole rail- road system on that account, nor object to the payment of such reasonable charges as are necessary to defray the expenses of construct- ing and operating them. But it may be said G56 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. that if all the railroads and canals were built with funds from the national treasury, and were then thrown open to the uses of com- merce and travel free of charge, the rates of transportation would be less than they now are. It may be that the rates of transporta- tion would be less, but would our taxes be re- duced thereby ? No matter who is intrusted with the construction of works, somebody must foot the bill. If the federal government undertake to make railroads and canals, and river and harbor improvements, somebody must pay the expenses. In order to meet this enlarged expenditure, it would be necessary to augment the revenue by increased taxes upon the commerce of the country. The whole volume of revenue which now fills and overflows the national treasury, with the ex- ception of the small item resulting from the sales of public lands, is derived from a system of taxes imposed upon commerce and collected through the machinery of the custom houses. No matter, therefore, whether these works are made by the federal government, or by stimu- lating and combining local and individual en- terprise under state authority : in any event they remain a tax upon commerce to the extent of the expenditure. That system which will insure the construc- tion of the improvements upon the best plan and at the smallest cost will prove the least oppressive to the tax-payer and the most use- ful to commerce. It requires no argument to prove — for every day's experience teaches us — that public works of every description can be made at a much smaller cost by private enter- prise, or by the local authorities directly in- terested in the improvement, than when con- structed by the federal government. Hence, inasmuch as the expenses of constructing river and harbor improvements must, under either plan, be defrayed by a tax upon com- merce in the first instance, and finally upon the whole people interested in that commerce, I am of the opinion that the burdens would be less under the system referred to in the message than by appropriations from the fed- eral treasury. Those who seem not to have understood the difference have attempted to excite prejudice against this plan for the^ im- provement of navigations by comparing it to the burdens imposed upon the navigation of the Rhine, the Elbe, the Oder, and other rivers running through the German states. The peo- ple residing upon those rivers did not com- plain that they were required to pay duties for the improvement of their navigation. Such was not the fact. No duties were imposed for any such purpose. No improvements in the navigation were ever made or contemplated by those who exacted the tolls. Taxes were extorted from the navigating interest by the petty sovereigns through whose dominions the rivers run, for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the pomp, and ceremonies, and follies of vicious and corrupt courts. The complaint was, that grievous and unnecessary burdens were imposed on navigation without expending any portion of the money for its protection and improvement. Their com- plaints were just. They should have pro- tested, if they had lived under a government where the voice of the people could be heard, against the payment of any more or higher tolls than were necessary for the improvement of the navigation, and have insisted that the funds collected should be applied to that pur- pose and none other. In short, a plan similar to the one now proposed would have been a full and complete redress of all their griev- ances upon this subject. In conclusion, I will state that my object m addressing you this communication is to invite your especial attention to so much of the President's message as relates to river and harbor improvements, with the view that when the legislature shall assemble, either in special or general session, the subject may be dis- tinctly submitted to their consideration for such action as the great interests of commerce may demand. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your friend and fellow-citizen, S. A. Douglas. Joel A. Matteson, Governor of the State of Illinois. Union, History of the.* A brief History of the Events and Cir- cumstances WHICH LED TO THE UNION OF the States, and the formation of thb Constitution. In the early history of the New England colonies, we find the first instance of the as- sociation of the people of America for mutual defence and protection, while they owed alle- giance to the British Crown. In ;1643, the colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connec- ticut, and New Haven, under the impression of danger from the surrounding tribes of In- dians, entered into a league, offensive and defensive, firm and perpetual, under the name of the United Colonies of New England. They vested in an annual congress of commission- ers, delegated from each colony, the authority to regulate their general concerns, and espe- cially to levy Avar and make requisitions ol men and money, upon the several members of the union in a ratio to their respective num- bers. This confederacy subsisted for upward of forty years, and, for part of the time, witt> the countenance of the government in Eng- land, and was dissolved under King James II., in the year 1686. This association is generally considered as the foundation of subsequent efforts for a more extensive and perfect union of the British North American colonies ; and the peopleof this country continued, after the dissolution of this league, to afford other instructive pre- cedents of associations for their safety. A con- gress of governors and commissioners from * This article is from the Statesman's Manual, by Edwin Williams, Esq. UNION, HISTORY OF THE. G57 other colonies, as well as from New England, was occasionally held, the better to make ar- rangements for the protection of their interior frontier, of which we have an instance at Al- banj T in the year 1722 ; and a much more in- teresting congress was held at the same place in the year 1754, which consisted of commis- sioners from the colonies of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. It was called at the instance of the British gov- ernment, to take into consideration the best means of defending America, as a war with France was then apprehended. The object of the British government, in calling this con- gress, was to effect treaties with the Indian tribes ; but the commissioners, among whom was Dr. Franklin and other distinguished men in the colonics, had more enlarged views. They asserted and promulgated some invalu- able truths, the proper reception of which in the minds of their countrymen prepared the way for their future independence and union. The commissioners unanimously resolved that a union of the colonies was absolutely neces- sary for their preservation. They likewise rejected all proposals for a division of the co- lonies into separate confederacies, and adopt- ed a plan of federal government, drawn up by Dr. Franklin, consisting of a general coun- cil of delegates, to be chosen by the provincial assemblies, and a president general to be ap- pointed by the crown. In this council were proposed to be vested, subject to the negative of the president, many of the rights of war and peace, and the right to lay and levy im- posts and taxes ; and the union was to em- brace all the colonies from New Hampshire to Georgia. But the times were not yet ripe, nor the minds of men sufficiently enlarged, for such a comprehensive proposition ; and this bold project for a continental union had the singular fate of being rejected, not only by the King, but by every provincial assem- bly. We were to remain some years longer separate and alien commonwealths, emulous of each other in obedience to the parent state, but jealous of each other's prosperity, and di- vided by policy, interest, prejudice, and man- ners. So strong was the force of these consi- derations, and so exasperated were the people of the colonies against each other in their dis- putes about boundaries, that Dr. Franklin, in the year 1761, observed that a union of the colonies was absolutely impossible, or at least without being forced by the most grievous tyranny and oppression. The seeds of union, however, had been sown, and its principles were to gather strength and advance toward maturity, when the season of common danger approached. When the first attempt upon our liberties was made by the British government, by the passage of the stamp act, in 1705, a congress of delegates from nine colonies assembled in New York, in October of that year, at the instance and re- commendation of Massachusetts. The colo- nies of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connec- ticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 42 Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina, were represented. This congress adopted a declaration of rights, in which the sole power of taxation was asserted to reside in the colo- nial legislatures, and they also declared, that the restrictions imposed by several late acts of Parliament on the colonies were burden- some, and would render them unable to pur- chase the manufactures of Great Britain. An address to the King, and a petition to each house of Parliament, were adopted. These state papers evince the talents, as well as firmness, tempered with wisdom and moderation, of this first American Congress ; composed, as it was, of some of the most dis- tinguished statesmen from the several colonies therein represented. The Congress of 1765 was only a prepara- tory step to a more extensive and permanent union, which took place at Philadelphia, in September, 1774, and thereby laid the founda- tions of this great republic. The more serious and impending oppressions of the British par- liament at this last critical era, induced the twelve colonies which spread over this vast continent, from Nova Scotia to Georgia, to an interchange of political opinions, and to concur in choosing and sending delegates to Philadel- phia, " with authority and direction to meet and consult together for the common welfare." The assembling of this Congress was first re- commended by a town-meeting of the people of Providence, Rhode Island, followed by the colonial assemblies of Massachusetts and Vir- ginia, and by other public bodies and meetings of the people. In some of the legislatures of the colonies, delegates were appointed by the popular or representative branch ; and in other cases, they were appointed by conventions of the people in the colonies. The Congress of delegates (calling; themselves, in their more formal acts, "the delegates appointed by the good people of these colonies") assembled on the 4th of September, 1774 ; and having chosen officers, they adopted certain fundamental rules for their proceedings. All the colonies were represented, except Georgia. Thus was organized, under the auspices, and with the consent, of the people, acting directly in their primary, sovereign capacity, and with- out the intervention of the functionaries to whom the ordinary powers of government were delegated in the colonies, the first general or national government, which has been very aptly called "the revolutionary government," since, in its origin and progress, it was wholly conducted upon revolutionary principles. The Congress, thus assembled, exercised, de facto and de jure, a sovereign authority ; not as the delegated agents of the governments de fado of the colonies, but in virtue of original powers derived from the people. The revolutionary government thus formed, terminated only when it was regularly superseded by the confederated government, under articles finally ratified, as we shall see, in 1781. The first and most important of their acts was a declaration, that in determining questions in this congress, each colony or province should 658 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. have one vote ; and this became the established course during the revolution. They proposed a general congress to be held at the same place in May, in the next year. They appointed committees to take into consideration their rights and grievances ; asserted by number of declaratory resolutions, what they deemed to be the unalienable rights of English free- men ; pointed out to their constituents the sys- tem of violence which was preparing against those rights ; and bound them by the most sacred of all ties, the ties of honor and their country, to renounce commerce with Great Britain, as being the most salutary means to avert the one, and to secure the blessings of the other. These resolutions were received with universal and prompt obedience ; and the union being thus auspiciously formed, it was continued by a succession of delegates in Con- gress ; and through every period of the war, and through every revolution of our govern- ment, it has been revered and cultivated as the tutelary guardian of our liberties. In May, 1775, the second continental con- gress of delegates from all the colonies (except Georgia) assembled at Philadelphia, and were invested by the colonies with very ample dis- cretionary powers. These delegates were cho- sen, as the preceding had been, partly by the popular branch of the legislatures when in session, but principally by conventions of the people in the various states. In July, Georgia acceded to, and completed the confederacy. Hostilities had already commenced in the pro- vince of Massachusetts Bay, and the uncondi- tional sovereignty of the British parliament over the colonies was to be asserted by an ap- peal to arms. Congress, charged with the general interests and superintending direction of the Union, and supported by the zeal and confidence of their constituents, prepared for defence. They published a declaration of the causes and necessity of taking up arms, and forthwith proceeded to levy and organize an army, to prescribe rules for the regulation of their land and naval forces, to emit a paper currency, contract debts, and exercise all the other prerogatives of an independent sovereign- ty, till at last, on the 4th day of July, 1776, they took a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, by declaring the united colonies to be free and independent states. This memorable declaration, in imitation of that published by the United Netherlands on a similar occasion, recapitulated the oppres- sions of the British king, asserted it to be the natural right of every people to withdraw from tyranny, and made a solemn appeal to man- kind, in vindication of the necessity of the measure. By this declaration, made in the name, and by the authority of the people, these United States were absolved from all alle- giance to the British crown, and all political connexion between them and the state of Great Britain was totally dissolved. The principles of self-preservation, and of social happiness, gave a clear sanction to this act of separation. When the government established over any people becomes incompetent, or destructive to the ends for which it was instituted, it is the right and the duty of such people, founded on the law of nature, and the reason and practice of mankind, to throw off such government, and provide new guards for their future security. The establishment of the republics of Hol- land and Switzerland bears a striking analogy to that of the United States, in the causes which produced them, and in the manner in which they were conducted. The United Ne- therlands were formerly a part of the immense dominions of the Spanish empire ; but the violent government of Philip the Second, and the unrelenting intolerance of the inquisition, drove those distant provinces to union and resistance. In 1579, by the celebrated treaty of Utrecht, they entered into a league for their mutual defence, and that treaty was always considered as the bond of their union, and the foundation of their republic. But although they had for some time made open resistance to the force of Spain, yet it was not till the 26th of July, 1581, after all hopes of reconcilia- tion were lost, and the authority of Philip had been for some time virtually renounced, that the confederated provinces, equally distin- guished for their forbearance and firmness, solemnly declared themselves independent states, and absolved from all allegiance to the Spanish crown. It is well known that Spain continued to make long and powerful efforts to reduce them to obedience, till at last, exhausted herself, she was reluctantly compelled to a per- manent recognition of their independence at the treaty of Westphalia. Similar to that of the Netherlands was the case of Switzerland, which formerly fell under the dominion of the German empire, acknowledging the counts of Hapsburg for her protectors, and faithfully preserving her allegiance after that family, under the well-known name of the house of Austria, succeeded to the imperial crown. The tyranny of the imperial bailiffs became insup portable, and three of the Swiss cantons threw off the Austrian yoke in the year 1308, and confederated together for their common defence The house of Austria carried on an implacable war against them for more than a century. That celebrated confederacy, which originally consisted of only the three cantons of Uri, Schweitz, and Underwalden, kept continually increasing in strength, by the accession of other cantons from conquest or alliance ; but the union of the thirteen cantons was not com- pleted for two centuries, nor was their inde- pendence fully and finally acknowledged by the house of Austria, till the treaty of West- phalia, in 1648. To return to the history of our own govern ment: the general sentiment of the importance of the union appears evident in all the early proceedings of Congress. In July, 1775, a year before the declaration of independence, Dr. Franklin submitted to the consideration of Congress, a sketch of articles of confederation between the colonies, to continue until their reconciliation with Great Britain, and in fail- ure of that event, to be perpetual. This plan appears to have never been discussod in Con- UNION, HISTORY OF THE. G59 gress. But during the time that the declara- tion of independence was under consideration, Congress took measures for the formation of a constitutional plan of union. On the 11th of June, 177G, it was resolved that a committee should be appointed to prepare and digest the form of a confederation to be entered into be- tween the colonies ; and the day following a committee, consisting of one member from each colony, was appointed, to perform that duty. Upon the report of this committee, which was laid aside on the 20th of August, 1776, and not resumed till the 7th of April, 1777, the subject was from time to time de- bated, until the 15th of November, 1777, when a copy of the articles of confederation being made out, the same was finally agreed to. Congress, at the same time, directed that the articles should be proposed to the legislatures of all the United States, to be considered, and, if approved of by them, they were advised to authorize their delegates to ratify the same in the Congress of the United States; which being done, the same should become conclusive. On the 29th of November ensuing, a committee of three was appointed, to procure a translation of the articles to be made into the French language, and to report an address to the in- habitants of Canada, &e. On the 26th of June, 1778, the form of a ratification of the articles of confederation was adopted, and it was ordered that the whole should be engrossed on parchment, with a view that the same should be signed by the delegates, in virtue of the powers furnished by the several states. On the 9th of July, 1778, the articles were signed by the delegates of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecti- cut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and South Carolina. The delegates from New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, informed Congress that they had not yet received powers to ratify and sign. North Carolina and Georgia were not represented — and the ratification of New York was conditional, that all the other states should ratify. The delegates from North Carolina signed the articles on the 21st of July, 1778 ; those of Georgia on the 24th of the same month ; those of New Jersey on the 26th of November, 1778 ; those of Delaware on the 22d of February, and 5th of May, 1779 ; but Maryland held out to the last, and positively refused the ratification, until the question of the conflicting claims of the Union and of the separate states, to the property of the crown-lands, should be ad- justed. This was finally accomplished by cessions from the claiming states to the United States, of the unsettled lands, for the benefit of the whole Union. The cessions of the claiming states of the crown-lands to the Union, originated the ter- ritorial system, and, eventually, in the ordi- nance for the government of the Northwestern territory (passed by Congress in July, 1786). It alno removed the insuperable objection of the state of Maryland to the articles of con- federation ; and her delegates signed them on the 1st of March, 1781, four years and four months after they had been submitted by Con- gress to the sovereign states, with a solemn averment that they could no longer be de- ferred ; that they seemed essential to the very existence of the Union as a free people ; and that, without them, they might be constrained to bid adieu to independence, to liberty, and safety. The confederation thus being finally com- plete, by the ratification of the delegates from Maryland, on the 1st of March, 1781, the event was joyfully announced by Congress, and, on the 2d of March, that body assembled under the new powers. It will be observed, that the term of the continental Congress is properly divided into two periods, namely : the first extending from the first meeting, on the 4th of September, 1774, until the ratification of the confedera- tion, on the 1st of March, 1781 ; the second, from the 1st of March, 1781, until the organi- zation of the government under the Constitu- tion, on the 4th of March, 1789. The first period may be called that of the " revolution- ary national government;" the second was that of " the confederation." The question naturally presents itself, if the declaration is to be considered as a national act, in what manner did the colonies become a nation, and in what manner did Congress become possessed of this national power? The true answer must be, that as soon as Con- gress assumed powers and passed measures, which were in their nature national, to that extent the people, from whose acquiescence and consent they took effect, must be consider- ed as agreeing to form a nation. The Con- gress of 1774, looking at the general terms of the commissions under which the delegates were appointed, seem to have possessed the power of concerting such measures as they deemed best to redress the grievances, and preserve the rights and liberties, of all the colonies. The Congress of 1775 and 1776 were clothed with more ample powers, and the lan- guage of their commissions generally was suffi- cienly broad to embrace the right to pass meas- ure of a national character and obligation. The Congress of 1775 accordingly assumed at once the exercise of some of the highest functions of sovereignty. They took measures for na- tional defence and resistance ; they followed up the prohibitions upon trade and intercourse with Great Britain ; they raised a national army and navy, and authorized limited na- tional hostilities against Great Britain ; they raised money, emitted bills of credit, and con- tracted debts upon national account ; they established a national postoffice ; and, finally, they authorized captures and condemnation of prizes in prize courts, with a reserve of appel- late jurisdiction to themselves. The same body, in 1776, took bolder steps, and exerted powers which could in no other manner be justified or accounted for, than upon the supposition that a national Union for na- tional purposes already existed, and that the Congress was invested with sovereign power over all the colonies, for the purpose of pre 660 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. serving the common rights and liberties of all. The validity of these acts was never doubted or denied by the people. On the contrary, they became the foundation upon which the superstructure of the liberties and independence of the United States has been erected From the moment of the declaration of in- dependence, if not for most purposes at an antecedent period, the united colonies must be considered as being a nation de facto, having a general government over it, created and act- ing by the general consent of the people of the colonies. The powers of that government were not, and indeed could not be, well defin- ed. But still its exclusive severeignty, in many cases, was firmly established ; and its con- trolling power over the states was in most, if not in all national measures, universally ad- mitted. The articles of confederation were not ratified so as to become obligatory upon all the states, until March, 1781. In the inter- mediate time, Congress continued to exercise the powers of a general government, whose acts were binding on all the states. In respect to foreign governments, we were politically known as the United States only ; and it was in our national capacity, as such, that we sent and received ambassadors, entered into trea- ties' and alliances, and were admitted into the general community of nations, who might ex- ercise the right of belligerents, and claim an equality of sovereign powers and preroga- tives. The continental Congress, upon trial, soon found that the powers derived from the arti- cles of confederation were inadequate to the legitimate objects of an effective national gov- ernment. Defects were more particularly manifest, whenever it became necessary to legislate upon the subject of commerce and that of taxes ; and it was at length indispen- sably necessary to amend the articles in such a way as to give authority and force to the na- tional will in matters of trade and revenue. This was from time to time attempted, until the present Constitution of the United States was adopted. The most important movements in Congress showing the progress of constitu- tional legislation, were on the 3d of February, 1781, April 18, 1783, April 26, 1783, April 30, 1784, March 3, 1786, September 29, 1786, and October 23, 1786. Peace came (in 1783.) The heroic leader of the revolutionary army surrendered his commission. The armies were disbanded, but they were not paid. Mutiny was suppressed ; but not until Congress had b<» en surrounded by armed men, demanding justice, and appealed in vain for protection to the sovereign state within whoso jurisdiction they were sitting. A single frigate, the remnant of a gallant navy, which had richly shared the glories, and deep- ly suffered the calamities of the war, was dis- mantled and sold. The expenses of the nation were reduced to the minimum of a peace establishment, and yet the nation was not re- lieved. The nation wanted a government founded on the principles of the Declaration of Independence — a government constituted by the people. In the Congress of the confederation, the master-minds of James Madison and Alexan- der Hamilton were constantly engaged through the closing years of the revolutionary war, and those of peace which immediately suc- ceeded. That of John Jay was associated with them shortly after the peace, in the capa- city of secretary to the Congress for foreign affairs. The incompetency of the articles of confederation for the management of the af- fairs of the Union at home and abroad, was demonstrated to them by the painful and mor- tifying experience of every day. Washing- ton, though in retirement, was brooding over the cruel injustice suffered by his associates in arms, the warriors of the revolution ; over the prostration of the public credit and the faith of the nation, in the neglect to provide for the payment even of the interest upon the public debt ; over the disappointed hopes of the friends of freedom ; in the language of the address ftom Congress to the states, of the 18th of April, 1783 — " the pride and boast of Ame- rica, that the rights for which she contended were the rights of human nature." Athis residence of Mount Vernon, in March, 1785, the first idea was started of a revisal of the articles of confederation, by an organiza- tion of means differing from that of a compact between the state legislatures and their own delegates in Congress. A convention of dele- gates from the state legislatures, independent of the Congress itself, was the expedient which presented itself for effecting the purpose, and an augmentation of the powers of Congress for the regulation of commerce, as the object for which this assembly was to be convened. In January, 1786, the proposal was made and adopted in the legislature of Virginia, and communicated to the other state legislatures. The convention was held at Annapolis, in September of that year. It was attended by delegates from only five of the central states, who, on comparing their restricted powers with the glaring and universally-acknowledg- ed defects of the confederation, reported only a recommendation for the assemblage of another convention of delegates, to meet at Philadel- phia in May, 1787, from all the states, and with enlarged powers. The Constitution of the United States was the work of this convention. But in its con- struction, the convention immediately per- ceived that they must retrace their steps, and fall back from a league of friendship between sovereign states, to the constituent sovereignty of the people — from power to right — from the irresponsible despotism of state sovereignty, to the self-evident truth of the Declaration of In- dependence. From the day of that declaration the constituent power of the people had never been called into action. A confederacy had been substituted in the place of a government, and state sovereignty had usurped the con- stituent sovereignty of the people. The convention assembled at Philadelphia had themselves no direct authority from the UNION, HISTORY OF THE. G61 people. T^eir authority was all derived from the state legislatures. But they had the arti- cles of confederation before them, and they 6aw and felt the wretched condition into which they had brought the whole people, and that the Union itself was in the agonies of death. They soon perceived that the indispensably- needed powers were such as no state govern- ment, no combination of them, was, by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, competent to bestow. They could emanate only from the people. A highly respectable portion of the assembly, still clinging to the confederacy of states, proposed, as a substitute for the constitution, a mere revival of the arti- cles of confederation, with a grant of addi- tional powers to the Congress. Their plan was respectfully and thoroughly discussed ; but the want of a government, and of the sanction of the people to the delegation of powers, happily prevailed. A constitution for the people, and the distribution of legislative, executive, and judicial powers, was prepared. It announced itself as the work of the people themselves ; and as this was unquestionably a power assumed by the convention, not dele- gated to them by the people, they religiously confined it to a simple power to propose, and carefully provided that it should be no more than a proposal, until sanctioned by the con- federation Congress, by the state legislatures, and by the people of the several states, in con- ventions specially assembled, by authority of their legislatures, for the single purpose of ex- amining and passing upon it. And thus was consummated the work, com- menced by the Declaration of Independence ; a work in which the people of the North Ame- rican Union, acting under the deepest sense of responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe, had achieved the most transcendent act of power that social man in his mortal condition, can perform ; even that of dissolving the ties of allegiance by which he is bound to his country — of renouncing that country it- self — of demolishing its government, of insti- tuting another government, and of making for himself another country in its stead. The revolution itself was a work of thirteen years — and had never been completed until that day (when Washington was inaugurated, on the 30th of April, 1789). The Declaration of-Independence and the Constitution of the United States are parts of one consistent whole, founded upon one and the same theory of government, then new, not as a theory, for it had been working itself into the mind of man for many ages, and been especially ex- pounded in the writings of Locke, but had never before been adopted by a great nation in practice. Proceedings of commissioners from certain states, assembled at Annapolis, in September, 1786, to consider on the best means of reme- dying the defects of the federal government. Annapolis, in the state of Maryland, Septem- ber 11, 178G. — At a meeting of commissioners from the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia: pre- sent, New York: Alexander Hamilton, Egbert Benson; New Jersey: Abraham Clark, Wil- liam C. Houston, James Schureman ; Penn- sylvania: Tench Coxe ; Delaware: George Read, John Dickinson, Richard Basset; Vir- ginia: Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Jr., Saint George Tucker. Mr. Dickinson was unanimously elected chairman. The commissioners produced their credentials from their respective states, which were read. After a full communication of sentiments, and deliberate consideration of what would be proper to be done by the com- missioners now assembled, it was unanimously agreed, that a committee be appointed to pre- pare a draught of a report to be made to the states having commissioners attending at this meeting. Adjourned till Wednesday morning. Wednesday, Sept. 13. — Met agreeable to ad- journment. The committee appointed for that purpose reported the draught of the re- port, which being read, the meeting proceeded to the consideration thereof, and after some time spent therein, adjourned till to-morrow morning. Thursday, Sept. 14. — Met agreeable to ad- journment. The meeting resumed the consi- deration of the draught of the report, and after some time spent therein, and amendments made, the same was unanimously agreed to, and is as follows, to wit : — To the honorable the legislatures of Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, the commissioners from the said stales, respectively, assembled at Annapolis, humbly beg leave to report : — That, pursuant to their several appoints ments, they met at Annapolis, in the state of Maryland, on the 11th day of September, in- stant, and having proceeded to a communica- tion of their powers, they found that the states of New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, had, in substance, and nearly in the same terms, authorized their respective commission- ers " to meet such commissioners as were or might be appointed by the other states in the Union, at such time and place as should be agreed upon by the said commissioners, to take into consideration the trade and commerce of the United States, to consider how far a uni- form system in their commercial intercourse and regulations, might be necessary to their common interest and permanent harmony, and to report to the several states such an act relative to this great object, as, when unanimously ratified by them, would enable the United States, in Congress assembled, effectually to provide for the same." That the state of Delaware had given simi- lar powers to their commissioners, with this difference only, that the act to be framed in virtue of these powers, is required to be re- ported " to the United States, in Congress as- sembled, to be agreed to by them, and con- firmed by the legislatures of every state." That the state of New Jersey had enlarged the object of their appointment, empowering 662 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. their commissioners " to consider how far a uniform system in their commercial regula- tions, and other important matters, might he necessary to the common interest and perma- nent harmony of the several states ;" and to report such an act on the subject, as, when ratified by them, " would enable the United States, in Congress assembled, effectually to provide for the exigencies of the Union." That appointments of commissioners have also been made by the states of New Hamp- shire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and North Carolina, none of whom, however, have at- tended ; but that no information has been re- ceived by your commissioners of any appoint- ment having been made by the states of Connecticut, Maryland, South Carolina, or Georgia. That the express terms of the powers to your commissioners supposing a deputation from all the states, and having for object the trade and commerce of the United States, your commissioners did not conceive it advisable to proceed on the business of their mission un- der the circumstances of so partial and defect- ive a representation. Deeply impressed, however, with the mag- nitude and importance of the object confided to them on this occasion, your commissioners cannot forbear to indulge an expression of their earnest and unanimous wish, that speedy mea- sures may be taken to effect a general meeting of the states, in a future convention, for the same and such other purposes as the situation of public affairs may be found to require. If, in expressing this wish, or in intimating any other sentiment, your commissioners should seem to exceed the strict bounds of their appointment, they entertain a full confi- dence that a conduct dictated by an anxiety for the welfare of the United States, will not fail to receive an indulgent construction. In this persuasion, your commissioners sub- mit an opinion, that the idea of extending the powers of their deputies to other objects than those of commerce, which has been adopted by the state of New Jersey, was an improve- ment on the original plan, and will deserve to be incorporated into that of a future conven- tion. They are the more naturally led to this conclusion, as, in the course of their reflec- tions on the subject, they have been induced to think that the power of regulating trade is of such comprehensive extent, and will enter so far into the general system of the federal government, that to give it efficacy, and to obviate questions and doubts concerning its precise nature and limits, may require a cor- responding adjustment of other parts of the federal system. That there are important defects in the sys- tem of the federal government, is acknow- ledged by the acts of all those states which have concurred in the present meeting ; that the defects, upon a closer examination, may be found greater and more numerous than even these acts imply, is at least so far proba- ble, from the embarrassments which charac- terize the present state of our national affairs, . foreign and domestic, as may reasonably be ! supposed to merit a deliberate and candid dis- cussion, in some mode which will unite the sen- timents and councils of all the states. In the choice of the mode, your commissioners are of opinion that a convention of deputies from the different states, for the special and sole purpose of entering into this investigation, and digesting a plan for supplying such de- fects as may be discovered to exist, will be entitled to a preference, from considerations which will occur without being particularized. Your commissioners decline an enumeration of these national circumstances on which their opinion respecting the propriety of a future convention, with more enlarged powers, is founded ; as it would be a useless intrusion of facts and observations, most of which have been frequently the subject of public discus- sion, and none of which can have escaped the penetration of those to whom they would, in this instance, be addressed. They are, how- ever, of a nature so serious, as, in the view of your commissioners, to render the situation of the United States delicate and critical, call- ing for an exertion of the united virtue and wisdom of all the members of the confede- racy. Under this impression, your commissioners, with the most respectful deference, beg leave to suggest their unanimous conviction, that it may essentially tend to advance the interests of the Union, if the states, by whom they have been respectively delegated, would them- selves concur, and use their endeavors to pro- cure the concurrence of the other states, in the appointment of commissioners, to meet at Philadelphia on the second Monday in May next, to take into consideration the situation of the United States, to devise such furthor provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the Constitution of the federal gov- ernment adequate to the exigencies of the Union ^ and to report such an act for that pur- pose, to the United States, in Congress as- sembed, as, when agreed to by them, and after ward confirmed by the legislatures of every state, will. effectually provide for the same. Though^i/our commissioners could not, with propriety, address these observations and sen timents to any but the states they have the honor to represent, they have nevertheless con eluded, from motives of respect, to transmi* copies of this report to the United States in Congress assembled, and to the executives of the other states. By order of the commissioners. Dated at Annapolis, September 14th, 1786. In Congress, Wednesday, February 21, 1787. — The report of a grand committee, con- sisting of Messrs. Dane, Varnum, S. M. Mitch- ell, Smith, Cadwallader, Irvine, N. Mitchell, Forrest, Grayson, Blount, Bull, and Few, to whom was referred a letter of the 14th Sep- tember, 1786, from J. Dickinson, written at the request of commissioners from the states of Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, assembled at the citv of Anna- UNION, HISTORY OF THE. 663 polis, together with a copy of the report of the said commissioners to the legislatures of the states by whom they were appointed, being an order of the day, was called up, and which is contained in the following resolution, viz.: — Congress having had under consideration the Litter of John Dickinson, Esq., chairman of the commissioners who assembled at Annapolis, during the last year ; also the proceedings of the said commissioners, and entirely coincid- ing with them, as to the inefficiency of the Fed3ral government, and the necessity of devis- ing such further provisions as shall render the fcaiue adequate to the exigencies of the Union, &' V-ongly recommend to the different legisla- tures to send forward delegates, to meet the proposed convention, on the second Monday in May nest, at the city of Philadelphia. The delegates for the state of New York thereupon laid before Congress instructions which they had received from their constitu- ents, and in pursuance of the said instructions, moved to postpone the further consideration of the report, in order to take up the following proposition, viz. : — " That it be recommended to the states com- posing the Union, that a convention of repre- sentatives from the said states respectively, be held at , on , for the purpose of re- vising the articles of confederation and per- petual union between the United States of America, and reporting to the United States in Congress assembled, and to the states respec- tively, such alterations and amendments of the said articles of confederation, as the represen- tatives, met in such convention, shall judge proper and necessary to render them adequate to the preservation and support of the Union.-" On the question to postpone, for the purpose above mentioned, the yeas and nays being re- quired by the delegates for New York, the question was lost by the following vote, three states only voting in the affirmative. The names of the members who voted in the affirma- tive are in italic. Massachusetts : Messrs. King, Dane ; Connecticut : Messrs. Johnson, S. Mitchell; New York: Messrs. Smith, Benson; New Jersey : Messrs. CadwaUader, Clark, Schureman ; Penn- sylvania: Messrs. Irvine. Meredith, Bingham; Delaware: Mr. N. Mitchell; Maryland: Mr. Forrest; Virginia: Messrs. Grayson. Madison; North Carolina: Messrs. Blount, Haw- kins: South Carolina: Messrs. Bull, Kean, Huger, I'arker ; Georgia: Messrs. Few, fierce. A motion was then made by the delegates for Massachusetts, to postpone the further con- sideration of the report, in order to take into consideration a motion which they read in their place ; this being agreed to, the motion of the delegates for Massachusetts was taken up, and being amended was agreed to, as fol- low i : — " Whereas, there is provision in the articles of confederation and perpetual union, for mak- ing alterations therein, by the assent of a Con- gress of the United States, and of the legisla- tures of the several states ; and whereas, ex- perience hath evinced that there are defects in the present confederation, as a mean to reme- dy which, several of the states, and particu- larly the state of New York, by express in- structions to their delegates in Congress have suggested a convention for the purposes expressed in the following resolution ; and such convention appearing to be the most probable means of establishing, in these states, a firm national government: " Resolved, That, in the opinion of Congress, it is expedient that, on the second Monday in May next, a convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the articles of confedera- tion, and reporting to Congress, and the seve- ral legislatures, such alteration and provisions therein, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the states, render the Fede- ral Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the government, and the preservation of the Union." In compliance with the recommendation of Congress, delegates were chosen in the several states, for the purpose of revising the articles of confederation, who assembled in Philadel- phia, on the second Monday in May, 1787. General Washington was chosen president of the convention. On the 17th of September, 1787, the convention having agreed upon the several articles of the Federal Constitution, it was adopted and signed by all the members present. On Friday, the 28th of September, 1787, the Congress having received the report of the con- vention, with the constitution, recommended for ratification by the several states, and by Congress, adopted the following resolution : — " Resolved, unanimously, That the said re- port, with the resolutions and letters accompa- nying the same, be transmitted to the several legislatures, in order to be submitted to a con- vention of delegates chosen in each state by the people thereof, in conformity to the re- solves of the convention, made and provided in that case." The Constitution having been ratified by the number of states required, the following pro- ceedings took place in the old Congress, pre- paratory to organizing the new government. Saturday, September 13, 1788. — On the ques- tion to agree to the following proposition, it was resolved in the affirmative, by the unani- mous votes of nine states, viz., of New Hamp- shire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia. " Whereas, the convention assembled in Phi- ladelphia, pursuant to the resolution of Con- gress, of the 21st of February, 1787, did, on the 17th of September, in the same year, re- port to the United States, in Congi ess assembled, a Constitution for the people of the United States ; whereupon, Congress, on the 28th of the same September, did resolve unanimously, ' that the said report, with the resolutions and letter accompanying the same, be transmitted to the several legislatures, in order to be sub- mitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, in conformity to the resolves of the convention, made and 664 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. provided in that case ;' and whereas the Con- stitution so reported by the eonveution, and by Congress transmitted to the several legislatures, has been ratified in the manner therein declared to be sufficient for the establishment of the same, and such ratifications, duly authentica- ted, have been received by Congress, and are filed in the office of the secretary, therefore — " Resolved, That the first Wednesday in January next be the day for appointing elec- tors in the several states which before the said day shall have ratified the said Constitution ; ftiat the first Wednesday in February next be the day for the electors to assemble in their respective states, and vote for a President ; and that the first Wednesday in March next be the time, and the present seat of Congress [New York] the place, fur commencing proceedings under the said constitution." Vermont. On the 9th of February, 1791, a message was received by Congress from the President of the United States, informing the House that he had received documents expressing the consent of the legislature of New York and the territory of Vermont that the said terri- tory be admitted into the Union as a distinct member thereof. A bill immediately passed both Houses and became a law by the approval of the Presi- dent on the 18th of February. 1791, admitting Vermont as a state into the Union. Another law was passed and approved Feb- ruary 25, 1791, giving her two representatives in Congress. Act approved March 2, 1791, gave effect to all the laws of the United States over said state which were not locally inapplicable. Virginia Resolutions of 1798. Pronouncing the Alien and Sedition Laws to be unconstitutional, and de- fining the Rights of the States. — Drawn by Mr. Madison. In r rnE Virginia House of Delegates, . Friday, Dec. 21, 1798. Resolved, That the General Assembly of Virginia doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Consti- tution of the United States, and the constitu- tion of this state, against every aggression either foreign or domestic ; and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former. That this Assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the states, co maintain which it pledges its powers ; and, that for this end, it is their duty to watch oyer and oppose every infraction of those prin- ciples which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them can alone secure its existence and the public happiness. That this Assembly doth explicitly and po- remr torily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no farther valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact ; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not grant- ed by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining with- in their respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them. That the General Assembly doth also ex- press its deep regret, that a spirit has, in sun- dry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them ; and, that indications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which, having been copied from the very limited grant of powers in the former Articles of Confederation, were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumera- tion which necessarily explains, and limits the general phrases, and so as to consolidate the states by degrees into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable result of which would be, to transform the present re- publican system of the United States into art absolute, or at best, a mixed monarchy. That the General Assembly doth particu- larly protest against the palpable and alarm- ing infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress ; the first of which exercises a power nowhere delegated to the federal government, and which, by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government, as well as the particular organization and positive provisions of the Federal Constitution ; and the other of which acts exercises, in like man- ner, a power not delegated by the Constitu- tion, but on the contrary, expressly and posi- tively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto ; a power which, more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against the right of freely examin- ing public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right. That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the Federal Constitution, ex- pressly declared, that among other essential rights, "the liberty of conscience and the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States," and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry and ambition, having with other states recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution, it would mark a VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798. 665 reproachful inconsistency, and criminal de- generacy, if an indifference were now shown to the most palpable violation of one of the rights, thus declared and secured ; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other. That the good people of this commonwealth, having ever felt, and continuing to feel the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states ; the truest anxiety for establish- ing and perpetuating the Union of all ; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that Constitu- tion, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness ; the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions in the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth, in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid are unconsti- tutional ; and, that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each for co-opera- ting with this state, in maintaining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties, reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people. That the governor be desired to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to the execu- tive authority of each of-the other states, with a request that the same may be communicated to the legislature thereof ; and that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and Repre- sentatives representing this state in the Con- gress of the United States. Attest, John Stewart. Agreed to by the H. Brooke. 1798, December 24th. Senate. A true copy from the original deposited in the office of the General Assembly. John Stewart, Keeper of Rolls. Extracts from the Address to the People, which accompanied the foregoing resolu- tions : — Fellow-Citizens : Unwilling to shrink from our representative responsibility, conscious of the purity of our motives, but acknowledging your right to supervise our conduct, we invite your serious attention to the emergency which dictated the subjoined resolutions. Whilst we disdain to alarm you by ill-founded jealousies, we recommend an investigation, guided by the coolness of wisdom, and a decision bot- tomed on firmness but tempered with modera- tion. It would be perfidious in those intrusted with the guardianship of the state sovereignty, and acting under the solemn obligation of the following oath : " I do swear, that I will sup- port the Constitution of the United States," not to warn you of encroachments, which, though clothed with the pretext of necessity, or disguised by arguments of expediency, may yet establish precedents, which may ultimately devote a generous and unsuspicious people to all the consequences of usurped power. Encroachments springing from a govern- tained without the co-operation of the states, furnish the. strongest incitements upon the state legislatures to watchfulness, and impose upon them the strongest obligation to pre- serve unimpaired the line of partition. The acquiescence of the states under infrac- tions of the federal compact, would either beget a speedy consolidation, by precipitating the state governments into impoteucy and contempt ; or prepare the way for a revolution, by a repetition of these infractions, until the people are aroused to appear in the majesty of their strength. It is to avoid these calami- ties, that we exhibit to the people the momen- tous question, whether the Constitution of the United States shall yield to a construction which defies every restraint, and overwhelms the best hopes of republicanism. Exhortations to disregard domestic usurpa- tions until foreign danger shall have passed, is an artifice which may be for ever used ; be- cause the possessors of power, who are the advocates for its extension, can ever create national embarrassments, to be successively employed to soothe the people into sleep, whilst that power is swelling silently, secretly, and fatally. Of the same character are insinua- tions of a foreign influence, which seize upon a laudable enthusiasm against danger from abroad, and distort it by an unnatural appli- cation, so as to blind your eyes against danger at home. The sedition act presents a scene which was never expected by the early friends of the Constitution. It was then admitted that the state sovereignties were only diminished by powers specifically enumerated, or necessary to carry the specified powers into effect. Now federal authority is deduced from implication, and from the existence of state law it is inferred that Congress possesses a similar power of legislation ; whence Congress will be endowed with a power of legislation in all cases whatsoever, and the states will be stript of every right reserved by the concurrent claims of a paramount legislature. The sedition act is the offspring of these tremendous pretensions, which inflict a death wound on the sovereignty of the states. For the honor of American understand- ing, we will not believe that the people have been allured into the adoption of the Constitu- tion by an affectation of defining powers, whilst the preamble would admit a construction which world erect the will of Congress into a power paramount in all cases, and therefore limited in none. On the contrary, it is evident that the objects for which the Constitution was formed were deemed attainable only by a particular enumeration and specification of each power granted to the federal government ; reserving all others to the people, or to the states. And yet it is in vain we search for any specified power, embracing the right of legislation against the freedom of the press. Had the states been despoiled of their sove- reignty by the generality of the preamble, and ment whose organization cannot be main- : had the federal government been endowed with 66(5 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. whatever they should judge to be instrumental towards union, justice, tranquillity, common defence, general welfare, and the preservation of liberty, nothing could have been more frivo- lous than an enumeration of powers. All the preceding arguments rising from a deficiency of constitutional power in Congress, apply to the alien act, and this act is liable to other objections peculiar to itself. If a sus- picion that aliens are dangerous constitute the justification of that power exercised over them by Congress, then a similar suspicion will jus- tify the exercise of a similar power over na- tives. Because there is nothing in the Consti- tution distinguishing between the power of a state to permit the residence of natives and aliens. It is therefore a right originally pos- sessed, and never surrendered by the respect- ive states, and which is rendered dear and valuable to Virginia, because it is assailed through the bosom of the Constitution, and because her peculiar situation renders the easy admission of artisans and laborers an interest of vast importance. But this bill contains other features, still more alarming and dangerous. It dispenses with the trial by jury ; it violates the judicial system ; it confounds legislative, executive, and judicial powers ; it punishes without trial ; and it bestows upon the President des- potic power over a numerous class of men. Are such measures consistent with our consti- tutional principles ? And will an accumula- tion of power so extensive, in the hands of the executive, over aliens, securp to natives the blessings of republican liberty ? If measures can mould governments, and if an uncontrolled power of construction is surrendered to those who administer them, their progress may be easily foreseen and their end easily foretold. A lover of mon- archy, who opens the treasures of corruption, by distributing emolument among devoted partisans, may at the same time be approach- ing his object, and deluding the people with professions of republicanism. He may con- found monarchy and republicanism, by the art of definition. He may varnish over the dexterity which ambition never fails to dis- play, with the pliancy of language, the seduc- tion of expediency, or the prejudices of the times. And he may come at length to avow that so extensive a territory as that of the United States can only be governed by the energies of monarchy ; that it cannot be de- fended, except by standing armies ; and that it cannot be united, except by consolidation. Measures have already been adopted which may lead to these consequences. They con- sist : In fiscal systems and arrangements, which keep an host of commercial and wealthy indi- viduals, embodied and obedient to the man- dates of the treasury. In armies and navies, which will, on the one hand, enlist the tendency of man to pay homage to his fellow-creature who can feed or honor him ; and on the other, employ the principle of fear,, by punishing imaginary in- surrections, under the pretext of preventive justice. In swarms of officers, civil and military, who can inculcate political tenets tending to consolidation and monarchy, both by indul- gences and severities ; and can act as spies over the free exercise of human reason. In restraining the freedom of the press, and investing the executive with legislative, ex- ecutive, and judicial powers, over a numerous body of men. And, that we may shorten the catalogue, in establishing by successive precedents such a mode of construing the Constitution as will rapidly remove every restraint upon federal power. Let history be consulted ; let the man of experience reflect; nay, let the artificers of monarchy be asked what farther materials they can need for building up their favorite system ? These are solemn, but painful truths ; and yet we recommend it to you not to forget the possibility of danger from without, although danger threatens us from within. Usurpation is indeed dreadful, but against foreign inva- sion, if that should happen, let us rise with hearts and hands united, and repel the attack with the zeal of freemen, who will strengthen their title to examine and correct domestic measures by having defended their country against foreign aggression. Pledged as we are, fellow-citizens, to these sacred engagements, we yet humbly and fer- vently implore the Almighty Disposer of events to avert from our land war and usurpa- tion, the scourges of mankind ; to permitour fields to be cultivated in peace ; to instil into nations the love of friendly intercourse ; to suffer our youth to be educated in virtue ; and to preserve our morality from the pollution invariably incident to habits of war ; to pre- vent the laborer and husbandman from being harassed by taxes and imposts; to remove from ambition the means of disturbing the commonweath ; to annihilate all pretexts for power afforded by war ; to maintain the Con- stitution ; and to bless our nation with tran- quillity, under whose benign influence we may reach the summit of happiness and glory, to which we are destined by Nature and Nature's God. Attest, John Stewart, C. II. D. 1799, Jan. 23. Agreed to by the Senate. II. Brooke, C. S. A true copy from the original, deposited in the office of the General Assembly. John Stewart, Keeper of Rolls. Answers of the several State Legisla- tures. State of Delaware. — In the House of Re- presentatives, Feb. 1, 1799. Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives of the state of Delaware, in General Assembly met, that they consider the resolutions from the state of Virginia as a very unjustifiable inter- VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798. 00" ference with the general government and con- stituted authorities of the United States, and of dangerous tendency, and therefore not tit subject for the further consideration of the General Assembly. Isaac Davis, Speaker of the Senate. Stee-iien Lewis, Speaker of the II. of It's. Test— John Fisher, C. S. John Caldwell, 0. II. R. State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. — In General Assembly, Febru- ary, a. d. 1799. Certain resolutions of the legis- lature of Virginia, passed on 21st of December last, being communicated to this Assembly, 1. Resolved, That in the opinion of this legislature, the second section of third article of the Constitution of the United States in these words, to wit: The judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the laws of the United States, vests in the federal courts, exclusively, and in the Supreme Court of the United States ultimately, the authority of deciding on the constitutionality of any act or law of the Congress of the United States. 2. Resolved, That for any state legislature to assume that authority, would be, 1st. Blending together legislative and judi- cial powers. 2d. Hazarding an interruption of the peace of the states by civil discord, in case of a diversity of opinions among the state legisla- tures ; each state having, in that case, no resort for vindicating its own opinions, but to the strength of its own arm. 3d. Submitting most important questions of law to less competent tribunals ; and 4th. An infraction of the Constitution of the United States, expressed in plain terms. 3. Resolved, That although for the above reasons, this legislature, in their public capa- city, do not feel themselves authorized to con- sider and decide on the constitutionality of the sedition and alien laws (so called) ; yet they are called upon by the exigency of this occasion, to declare, that in their private opinions, these laws are within the powers delegated to Congress, and promotive of the welfare of the United States. 4. Resolved, That the governor communi- cate these resolutions to the supreme executive of the state of Virginia, and at the same time express to him that this legislature cannot contemplate, without extreme concern and regret, the many evil and fatal consequences which may flow from the very unwarrantable resolutions aforesaid, of the legislature of Vir- ginia, passed on the twenty -first day of Decem- ber last. A true copy, Samuel Eddy, Sec. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. — In Senate, Feb. 9, 1799. The legislature of Mas- sachusetts having taken into serious con- sideration the resolutions of the state of Vir- ginia, passed the 21st day of December last, and communicated by his excellency the governor, relative to certain supposed infrac- tions of the Constitution of the United States, by the government thereof, and being con- vinced that the Federal Constitution is cal- culated to promote the happiness, prosperity, and safety of the people of these United States, and to maintain that union of the several states, so essential to the welfare of the whole ; and being bound by solemn oath to support and defend that Constitution, feel it unneces- sary to make any professions of their attach- ment to it, or of their firm determination to support it against every aggression, foreign or domestic. But they deem it their duty solemnly to de- clare, that while they hold sacred the princi- ple, that consent of the people is the only pure source of just and legitimate power, they can- not admit the right of the state legislatures to denounce the administration of that govern- ment to which the people themselves, by a solemn compact, have exclusively committed their national concerns : That, although a liberal and enlightened vigilance among the people is always to be cherished, yet an un- reasonable jealousy of the men of their choice, and a recurrence to measures of extremity, upon groundless or trivial pretexts, have a strong tendency to destroy all rational liberty at home, and to deprive the United States of the most essential advantages in their relations abroad : That this legislature are persuaded, that the decision of all cases in law and equity, arising under the Constitution of the United States, and the construction of all laws made in pursuance thereof, are exclusively vested by the people in the judicial courts of the United States. That the people in that solemn compact, which is declared to be the supreme law of the land, have not constituted the state legis- latures the judges of the acts or measures of the federal government, but have confided to them the power of proposing such amend- ments of the Constitution, as shall appear to them necessary to the interests, or conforma- ble to the wishes of the people whom they re- present. That by this construction of the Constitu- tion, an amicable and dispassionate remedy is pointed out for any evil which experience may prove to exist, and the peace and prosperity of the United States may be preserved without interruption. But, should the respectable state of Virginia persist in the assumption of the right to declare the acts of the national government unconsti- tutional, and should she oppose successfully her force and will to those of the nation, the Constitution would be reduced to a mere ci- pher, to the form and pageantry of authority, without the energy of power. Every act of the federal government which thwarted the views or checked the ambitious projects of a particular state, or of its leading and influen- tial members, would be the object of opposi- tion and of remonstrance ; while the people, convulsed and confused by the conflict betweer two hostile jurisdictions, enjoying the protec- tion of neither, would be wearied into a sub- 668 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. mission to some bold leader, who would estab- lish himself on the ruins of both. The legislature of Massachusetts, although they do not themselves claim the right, nor admit the authority of any of the state govern- ments, to decide upon the constitutionality of the acts of the federal government, still, least their silence should be construed into disap- probation, or at best into a doubt of the con- stitutionality of the acts referred to by the state of Virginia ; and, as the General Assem- bly of Virginia has called for an expression of their sentiments, do explicitly declare, that they consider the acts of Congress, commonly called " the alien and sedition acts," not only constitutional, but expedient and necessary : That the former act respects a description of persons whose rights were not particularly contemplated in the Constitution of the United States, who are entitled only to a temporary protection, while they yield a temporary alle- giance ; a protection which ought to be with- drawn whenever they become " dangerous to the public safety," or are found guilty of " treasonable machination" against the gov- ernment : That Congress having been especial- ly intrusted by the people with the general defence of the nation, had not only the right, but were bound to protect it against internal as well as external foes. That the United States, at the time of passing the act concern- ing aliens, were threatened with actual inva- sion, had been driven by the unjust and am- bitious conduct of the French government into warlike preparations, expensive and burthen- some, and had then, within the bosom of the country, thousands of aliens, who, we doubt not, were ready to co-operate in any external attack. It cannot be seriously believed, that the United States should have waited till the poignard had in fact been plunged. The re- moval of aliens is the usual preliminary of hostility, and is justified by the invariable usages of nations. Actual hostility had un- happily long been experienced, and a formal declaration of it the government had reason daily to expect. The law, therefore, was just and salutary, and no officer could, with so much propriety, be intrusted with the execu- tion of it, as the one in whom the Constitution has reposed the executive power of the United States. The sedition act, so called, is, in the opinion of this legislature, equally defensible. The General Assembly of Virginia, in their resolve under consideration, observe, that when that state by its convention ratified the Federal Constitution, it expressly declared, " That, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be can- celled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States," and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, Avith other states, recommend an amendment for that purpose : which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; but they did not surely expect that the proceed ings of their state convention were to explain the amendment adopted by the Union. The words of that amendment, on this subject, are, " Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press." The act complained of is no abridgment of the freedom of either. The genuine liberty of speech and the press, is the liberty to utter and publish the truth ; but the constitutional right of the citizen to utter and publish the truth, is not to be confounded with the licen- tiousness in speaking and writing, that is only employed in propagating falsehood and slan- der. This freedom of the press has been ex- plicitly secured by most, if not all the state constitutions ; and of this provision there has been generally but one construction among enlightened men ; that it is a security for the rational use and not the abuse of the press ; of which the courts of law, the juries, and people will judge ; this right is not infringed, but confirmed and established by the late act of Congress. By the Constitution, the legislative, execu- tive, and judicial departments of government are ordained and established ; and general enumerated powers vested in them respective- ly, including those which are prohibited to the several states. Certain powers are granted in general terms by the people to their general government, for the purposes of their safety and protection. The government is not only empowered, but it is made their duty to repel invasions and suppress insurrections ; to gua- ranty to the several states a republican form of government ; to protect each state against invasion, and, when applied to, against do- mestic violence ; to hear and decide all cases in law and equity, arising under the Constitu- tion, and under any treaty or law made in pursuance thereof; and all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and relating to the law of nations. Whenever, therefore, it be- comes necessary to effect any of the objects designated, it is perfectly consonant to all just rules of construction, to infer, that the usual means and powers necessary to the attainment of that object, are also granted: But the Con- stitution has left no occasion to resort to im- plication for these powers; it has made an express grant of them, in the 8th section of the first article, which ordains, " That Con- gress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof." This Constitution has established a Supreme Court of the United States, but hasmade no provision for its protection, even against such improper conduct in its presence, as might disturb its proceedings, unless expressed in the section before recited. But as no statute has been passed on this subject, this protec- tion is, and has been for nine years past, uni- formly found in the application of the princi- VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798. 669 pies and usages of the common law. The same protection may unquestionably be afford- ed by a statute passed in virtue of the before- mentioned section, as necessary and proper, for carrying into execution the powers vested in that department. A construction of the different parts of the Constitution, perfectly just and fair, will, on analogous principles, extend protection and security against the offences in question, to the other departments of government, in discharge of their respec- tive trusts. The President of the United States is bound by his oath " to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution," and it is expressly made his duty " to take care that the laws be faith- fully executed ;" but this would be impractica- ble by any created being, if there could be no legal restraint of those scandalous misrepre- sentations of his measures and motives, which directly tend to rob him of the public confi- dence. And equally impotent would be every other public officer, if thus left to the mercy of the seditious. It is holden to be a truth most clear, that the important trusts before enumerated cannot be discharged by the government to which they are committed, without the power to re- strain seditious practices and unlawful com- binations against itself, and to protect the officers thereof from abusive misrepresenta- tions. Had the Constitution withheld this power, it would have made the government responsible for the effects without any control over the causes which naturally produce them, and would have essentially failed of answering the great ends for which the people of the United States declare, in the first clause of that instrument, that they establish the same, viz : " To form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity." Seditious practices and unlawful combina- tions against the federal government, or any officer thereof, in the performance of his duty, as well as licentiousness of speech and of the press, were punishable on the principles of common law in the courts of the United States,. before the act in question was passed. This act then is an amelioration of that law in favor of the party accused, as it mitigates the pun- ishment which that authorizes, and admits of any investigation of public men and measures which is regulated by truth. It is not in- tended to protect men in office, only as they are agents of the people. Its object is to afford legal security to public offices and trusts cre- ated for the safety and happiness of the people, and therefore the security derived from it is for the benefit of the people, and is their right. This construction of the Constitution and of the existing law of the land, as well as the act complained of, the legislature of Massa- chusetts most deliberately and firmly believe results from a just and full view of the several parts of the Constitution : and they consider that act to be wise and necessary, as an auda- eious and unprincipled spirit of falsehood and abuse had been too long unremittingly exerted for the purpose of perverting public opinion, and threatened to undermine and destroy the whole fabric of government. The legislature further declare, that in the foregoing sentiments they have expressed the general opinion of their constituents, who have not only acquiesced without complaint in those particular measures of the federal government, but have given their explicit approbation by re-electing those men who voted for the adop- tion of them. Nor is it apprehended, that the citizens of this state will be accused of supine- ness or of an indifference to their constitu- tional rights; for while, on the one hand, they regard with due vigilance the conduct of the government, on the other, their freedom, safety and happiness require, that they should de- fend that government and its constitutional measures against the open or insidious attacks of any foe, whether foreign or domestic. And, lastly, that the legislature of Massa- chusetts feel a strong conviction, that the sev- eral United States are connected by a common interest which ought to render their union indissoluble, and that this state will always co-operate with its confederate states in. ren- dering that union productive of mutual secu- rity, freedom, and happiness. Sent down for concurrence. Samuel Philips, President. In the House of Representatives, Feb. 13, 1799, Read and concurred. Edward H. Robbixs, Speaker. A true copy. Attest, John Avery, Secretary. State of New York. — In Senate, March 5, 1799. — Whereas, the people of the United States have established for themselves a free and independent national government : And whereas it is essential to the existence of every government, that it have authority to defend and preserve its constitutional powers invio- late, inasmuch as every infringement thereof tends to its subversion: And whereas the judicial power extends expressly to all cases of law and equity arising under the Constitu- tion and the laws of the United States whereby the interference of the legislatures of the par- ticular states in those cases is manifestly ex- cluded : And whereas our peace, prosperity, and happiness, eminently depend on the pres- ervation of the Union, in order to which, a reasonable confidence in the constituted au- thorities and chosen representatives of the people is indispensable : And whereas every measure calculated to weaken that confidence has a tendency to destroy the usefulness of our public functionaries, and to excite jeal- ousies equally hostile to rational liberty, and the principles of a good republican govern- ment : And whereas the Senate, not per- ceiving that the rights of the particular states have been violated, nor any uncoustitutional 670 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. powers assumed by the general government, cannot forbear to express the anxiety and re- gret with which they observe the inflamma- tory and pernicious sentiments and doctrines which are contained in the resolutions of the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky — senti- ments and doctrines, no less repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and the principles of their union, than destructive to the federal government, and unjust to those whom the people have elected to administer it: wherefore, Resolved, That while the Senate feel themselves constrained to bear unequivo- cal testimony against such sentiments and doctrines, they deem it a duty no less indis- pensable, explicitly to declare their incompe- tency, as a branch of the legislature of this state, to supervise the acts of the general gov- ernment. Resolved, That his Excellency, the Governor, be, and he is hereby requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolution to the execu- tives of the states of Virginia and Kentucky, to the end that the same may be communi- cated to the legislatures thereof. A true copy. Abm. B. Baucker, Clerk. State of Connecticut. — At a General As- sembly of the state of Connecticut, holden at Hartford, in the said state, on the second Thursday of May, Anno Domini 1799, his ex- cellency the governor having communicated to this assembly sundry resolutions of the le- gislature of Virginia, adopted in December, 1798, which relate to the measures of the general government; and the said resolutions having been considered, it is Resolved, That this Assembly views with deep regret, and explicitly disavows, the prin- ciples contained in the aforesaid resolutions ; and particularly the opposition to the " Alien and Sedition Acts" — acts which the Constitu- tion authorized ; which the exigency of the country rendered necessary ; which the con- stituted authorities have enacted, and which merit the entire approbation of this Assembly. They, therefore, decidedly refuse to concur with the legislature of Virginia, in promoting any of the objects attempted in the aforesaid resolutions. And it is further resolved, That his excel- lency the governor be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolution to the go- vernor of Virginia, that it may be communi- cated to the legislature of that state. Passed in the House of Representatives unanimously. Attest, John C. Smith, Clerk. Concurred, unanimously, in the upper House. Teste, Sam. Wyllvs, Sec'ry. State of New Hampshire. — In the House of Representatives, June 14, 1799. — The com- mittee to take into consideration the resolu- tions of the General Assembly of Virginia, dated December 21, 1798 ; also certain reso- lutions of the legislature of Kentucky, of tho 10th of November, 1798; report as follows: — The legislature of New Hampshire, having taken into consideration certain resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia, dated De- cember 21, 1798 ; also certain resolutions of the legislature of Kentucky, of the 10th of November, 1798, — Resolved, That the legislature of New Hampshire unequivocally express a firm reso- lution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the constitution of this state, against every aggression, either foreign or domestic, and that they will sup- port the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former. That the state legislatures are not the pro- per tribunals to determine the constitution- ality of the laws of the general government ; that the duty of such decision is properly and exclusively confided to the judicial depart- ment. That if the legislature of New Hampshire, for mere speculative purposes, were to express an opinion on the acts of the general govern- ment, commonly called "the Alien and Sedi- tion Bills," that opinion would unreservedly be, that those acts are constitutional and, in the present critical situation of our country, highly expedient. That the constitutionality and expediency of the acts aforesaid have been very ably ad- vocated and clearly demonstrated by many citizens of the United States, more especially by the minority of the General Assembly of Virginia. The legislature of New Hamp- shire, therefore, deem it unnecessary, by any train of arguments, to attempt further illus- tration of the propositions, the truth of which, it is confidently believed, at this day, is very generally seen and acknowledged. Which report, being read and considered, was unanimously received and accepted, one hundred and thirty-seven members being present. Sent up for concurrence. John Prentice, Speaker. In Senate, same day, read and concurred in unanimously. Amos Shepard, President. Approved June 15, 1799. J. T. Gilman, Governor. A true copy. Attest, Joseph Pearson, Sec'ry. State of Vermont. — In the House of Repre- sentatives, October 30, a. d. 1799. — The House proceeded to take under their conside- ration the resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia, relative to certain measures of the general government, transmitted to the legis- lature of this state for their consideration ; whereupon, Resolved, That the General Assembly of the state of Vermont do highly disapprove of the resolutions of the General Assembly of the state of Virginia, as being unconstitutional VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 — WALKER AMENDMENT. G71 in their nature and dangerous in their ten- dency. It belongs not to state legislatures t > decide on the constitutionality of laws made by the general government ; this power being exclusively vested in the judiciary courts of the Union. That his excellency the governor be re- quested to transmit a copy of this resolution to the executive of Virginia, to be communi- cated to the General Assembly of that state ; and that the same be sent to the Governor and Council for their concurrence. Samuel C. Crafts, Clerk. In Council, October 30, 1799. — Read and concurred in unanimously. Richard Whitney, Sec'ry. Walker Amendment. Ox the 26th of February, 1849, the Civil and Diplomatic bill being under considera- tion, Mr. Isaac P. Walker, a Senator from Wisconsin, having moved to that portion of the bill proposing to provide governments for the new territories, the following amend- ment: — "That the Constitution of the United States, in so far as the provisions of the same may be applicable to the condition of a territory of the United States, and all and singular the several acts of Congress respecting the regis- tering, recording, enrolling, or licensing ships or vessels, and the entry and clearance thereof, and the foreign and coasting trade and fish- eries, and all the acts respecting the imposing and collecting of duties on imports, and all acts respecting trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and all acts respecting the pub- lic lands or the survey or sale thereof, and all and singular the other acts of Congress of a public and general character, and the pro- visions whereof are suitable and proper to be applied to the territory west of the Rio del Norte, acquired from Mexico by the treaty of the 2d of February, 1848, be, and the same are hereby, extended over and given full force and efficacy in all said territory ; and the Pre- sident of the United States be, and he is here- by, authorized to prescribe and establish all proper and needful rules and regulations, in conformity with the Constitution of the United States, for the enforcement of the provisions of the Constitution herein before referred to, and of said laws in said territory, and for the preservation of order and tranquillity, and to the establishment of justice therein, and from time to time to modify or change the said rules and regulations in such a manner as may seem to him discreet and proper, and to establish temporarily such divisions, districts, ports, offices, and all arrangements for the execution of said laws, and appoint and commission such officers as may be necessary to administer such laws in said territory for such term or terms *s he may prescribe, whose authority shall continue until otherwise provided by Con- gress ; said officers to receive such compensa- tion as the President may prescribe, not ex- ceeding double the compensation heretofore paid to similar officers of the United States or its territories for like services ; and to enable the same to be done, the sum of $200,000 be appropriated out of any money in the trea- sury not otherwise appropriated." It was adopted by yeas and nays as fol- lows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Atchison of Mo., Bell of Tenn, Berrien of Ga., Borland of Ark., Butler of S. C, Davis of Miss.. Dick- inson of N. Y, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas of 111.. Downs of La,, Fitzgerald of Mich., Fitzpatrick of Ala., Foote of Miss, Hannegan of Ind., Houston of Texas, Hunter of Va.. Johnson of La., Johnson of Ga., King of Ala.. Mangum of N.C., Mason of Va., Rusk of Texas. Sebastian of Ark., Sturgeon of Pa., TurneyofTenn., Underwood of Ky., Walker of Wis., Westcott of Fla., Yulee of Fla.— 29. Nats. — Messrs. Allen of O., Atherton of N. H., Badger of N. 0., Baldwin of Conn.. Bradbury of Me., Bright of Ind., Cameron of Pa., Clarke of R. I., Corwin of O., Davis of Mass, Dayton of X. Y, Dix of N. Y.. Dodge of Wis., Feleb of Mich., Greene of R. I., Hale of N. H.. Hamlin of Me., Johnson of Md.. .Jones of la.. Miller of N. J , Nilea of Conn., I'earce of Md., Phelps of Vt., Spruauee o- Del., Uphani of Vt., Wales of Del., Webster of Mass. — 27. The bill having passed as amended, and being before the House, the amendment of Mr. Walker was disagreed to by yeas and nays, as follows : — Yeas. — Messrs. Adams of Ky., Atkinson of Va., Barringer of N. C. Barrow of Tenn.. Bayly of Va., Beale of Va.. Bed- inger of A'a.. Birdsall of N. Y.. Iioeock of Va.. Botts of Va., Bowdon of Ala.. Bowlin of Mo., Boyd of Ky.. Boyden of N. C , Bridges of Pa.. Brodhead of Pa., Chas. Brown of Pa., Albert G. Brown of Miss, Buckner of Ky., Burt of S. C, Cabell of Fla., Chapman of Md., B. L. Clarke of Ky., Clingman of N. C. Howell Cobb of Ga., Cobb of Ala., Cocke of Tenn., Crisfiold of Md . Crozier of Tenn.. Daniel of N. C, Donnell of N. C, Garnett Duncan of Ky., Alex. Evans of Md.. Featherston of Miss., Ficklin of 111., Flournoy of Va., French of Ky., Full on of Va.. Gaines of Ky.,Gayles of Ala., Gentry of Tenn.. Goggin of Va., Green of Mo., Willard P. Hall of Mo., Haralson of Ga.. Ilarmanson of La.. Harris of Ala.. Haskell of Tenn.. Hi.l of Tenn., Ilillard of Ala., Isaac E. Holmes of S. C. Geo. S. Houston of Ala., Jno. W. Houston of Del., Inge of, Ala.. C. J. Ingersoll of Pa., Iverson of Ga., Jameson of Mo., Andrew Johuson of Tenn., R. W. Johnson of Ark.. Geo. W. Jones of Tenn., Jno. W. Jones of Ga.. Kaufman of Texas, Kennon of 0., Thos. B. King of Ga., La Sere of La., Lefller of la.. Lei in of Pa., Ligon of Md., Lumpkin of Ga., McClernand of Mich, McDowell of Va., McKay of N. C, McLane of Md.. McQueen of S. C, Meade of Va., Morehead of Ky, Morse of La, Outlaw of N. C. Pendleton of Va, Peyton of Ky., Phelps of Mo, Pilsbury of Texas. Preston of Va, Bhett of S. C, Richardson of 111., Roman of Md, Sawyerof 0, Shepperd of N.C.. Simpson of S. C, Stanton of Tenn., Stephen? of Ga.,Thibodeaux of La., Thomas of Tenn.. Jacob Thompson of Miss.. Jno. 1!. Thompson of Ky, Kobt. A. Thompson of Va, Tompkins of Miss., Toombs of Ga, Venable of N. C, Williams of Me, Woodward of S. C. —100. Nats. — Messrs. Abbott of Mass, Ashmun of Mass., Belcher of Me.. Bingham of Mich, Blackmar of N. Y.. Brailv of Pa, Butler of Pa, Canby of O, Cathcart of Ind., Oollamei of Vt., Collins of N. Y, Conger of N. Y, Cranston of K. I., Crowell of O.. Cummins of O., Darling of Wis, Dickey ot Pa.. Dixon of Conn , Duer of X. Y.. Dunn of Ind., Eckert of Pa., FMsall of N. J, Edwards of ()., Embree of Ind.. Na- than Evans of O, Faran of O., Family of Pa., Fisher of O., Freedley of Pa, Fries of 0.. Giddings of 0, Cott of N. V, Greeley of N. Y.. Gregory of N. J.. Grinnell of Mass.. Ihile of Mass, N. K. Hall of X. Y.. Gammons of Me., Janu- (1. Hampton of X. J.. Henley of Ind., Henry of Vt.. Eli.-s B. Holmes of X. Y, Hubbard of Conn.. Hudson of Mass.. Hunt of X. Y, Jenkins of X. Y.. James II. Johnson of X. 11.. Kel- logg of X. V.. Daniel P. King of Mass.. Lahm of 0.. Mm. T. Lawrence of X. Y.. Sidney Lawrence of X. Y.. Lincoln of 111., Lord of N. Y., Lynde of Wis., McClelland of Mich.. Mc- II vain of Pa., Job Mann of Pa., Horace Mann of Mass., Marsh of Vt., Marvin of X. Y, Miller of 0, Morris of 0, Muliin. .Murphy of X. Y.. Xelson of X T . Y.. Xes of Pa.. New- ell of X. J.. Xicoll of X. Y.. Palfrey of Mass.. Pea-Ice ot N. II., Peck of Vt.. Petrie of X. Y, Petti t of Ind., Pollock of Pa.. Putnam of N. Y, Reynolds of N. v.. Richey of <>.. l'o- binson of Ind., Julius Rockwell of Mass.. John A. Rockwell of Conn., Rose of X. Y, Root of 0., Rumsey of X. Y . St. John of X. Y.. Schenck of 0.. Sherrill of X. Y.. Silvester of X. Y, Slingerland of X. Y., Smart of Me., C.'ileb ]i. Sp.'n'n of Ind.. Robert Smith of 111.. Truman Smith of Conn., stark- weather of X. Y, Andrew Stewart of Pa.. Charles E. Stew G72 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. art of Mich., Strohm of Pa., Strong of Pa., Tallmadge of N. Y., Taylor nf 0., James Thompson of Pa., Richard W. Thompson of Ind., William Thompson of la., Thurston of K. I., Tuck of N. H., Turner of 111., Van Dyke of N. J., Viuton of U, Warren of N. Y., Wentworth of 111., White of N. Y.. Wick of Ind., Wiley of Me., Wilmot of Pa., Wilson of N. H.-1U. The Senate receded from their amendment, and the bill became a law without it. Washington, George. Farewell Address of, to the People of the United States, SeptI 17, 1796. Friends and Fellow-citizens : — The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made. I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the con- siderations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country ; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence, in my situation, might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interests ; no deficiency of grate- ful respect of your past kindness ; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both. The acceptance of, and continuance hither- to in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. 1 constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disre- gard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you ; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea. I rejoice that the state of your concerns, ex- ternal as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety ; and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be re- tained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire. The impressions with which I first under- took the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say, that I have with good intentions contributed towards the organiza- tion and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judg- ment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience, in my own eyes — perhaps still more in the eyes of others — has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admon- ishes me, more and more, that the abode of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to be- lieve that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it. In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of grati- tude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me ; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me ; and for the opportuni- ties I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these s'ervices, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instruct- ive example in our annals, that, under cir- cumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead ; amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging ; in situations in which, not unfrequently, want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, — the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans, by which they were effected. Pro- foundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong in- citement to unceasing vows, that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its be- neficence ; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual ; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained ; that its admin- istration, in every department, may be stamped with wisdom and virtue ; that, in fine, the hap- piness of the people of these states, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and the adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. Here, perhaps, I ought to stop ; but a soli- citude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an oc- casion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your fre- quent review, some sentiments, which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-im- portant to the permanency of your felicity as WASHINGTON, GEORGE. 673 a people. These will be afforded to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel ; nor can I forget, as an en- couragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimi- lar occasion. Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommend- ation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment. The unity of government which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so ; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence — the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth ; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidi- ously) directed, — it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness ; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity ; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety ; dis- countenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can, in any event, be aban- doned ; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to en- feeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts. For this you have every inducement of sym- pathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism, more than appella- tions derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political prin- ciples. You have, in a common cause, fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes. But these conside- rations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are generally outweighed by those which apply more imme- diately to your interest ; here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole. The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds, in the pro- 43 ductions of the latter, great additional re- sources of maritime and commercial enterprise* and precious materials of manufacturing in- dustry. The South, in the same intercourse benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow, and its commerce expanded. Turning partly into its own channels the sea- men of the North, it finds its particular navi- gation invigorated; and while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improve- ment of interior communication, by land and water, will more and more find, a valuable vent for the commodities which each brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth or comfort, and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must, of neces- sity, owe the secure enjoyment of indispen- sable outlets for its own productions, to the weight, influence, and the maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interests as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connexion with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious. While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular iuterest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find, in the united mass of means and'efforts, greater strength, greater resource, proportion- ably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations ; and what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemp- tion from those broils and wars between them- semselves, which so frequently afflict neigh- boring countr'es, not tied together by the same government ; which their own rivalship alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues, would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are in- auspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty ; in this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of one ought to en- dear to you the preservation of the other. These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt, whether a common govern- ment can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere specu- lation, in such a case, were criminal. We are authorized to hope, that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of 674 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to Union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who, in any quarter, may endeavor to weaken its bands. In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as a matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by §eographical discriminations — Northern and outhern — Atlantic and Western : whence de- signing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart- burnings which spring from these misrepre- sentations ; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by paternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful les- son on this head ; they have seen in the nego- tiation by the executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspi- cions propagated among them, of a policy in the general government, and in the Atlantic States, unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi — that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those ad- visers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren, and connect them with aliens? To the efficacy and permanency of your Union a government of the whole is indispens- able. No alliance, however strict between the parties, can be an adequate substitute ; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances, in all time, have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a Consti- tution of government, better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed — adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers — uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your sup- port. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of government ; but the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, ia sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and right of the people to estab- lish government, presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established govern- ment. All obstructions to the execution of laws, all combinations and associations under what- ever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regu- lar deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive to this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force, to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterpris- ing minority of the community ; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of fashion, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying, afterwards, the very engines which had lifted them to un- just dominion. Towards the preservation of your govern- ment, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged .authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be direetly over- thrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institu- tions ; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the ex- isting constitution of a country ; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion ; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common in- terests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indis- WASHINGTON, GEORGE. 676 pensable. Liberty itself will find in such a ■ government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the gov- j ernment is too feeble to withstand the enter- prise of faction, to confine each member of j the society within the limits prescribed by the {aws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state with particular refer- ence to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you, in the most solemn manner, against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root_ in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all govern- ments, more or less stifled, controlled, or re- pressed ; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissensions, which, in differ- ent ages and countries, has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads, at length, to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual : and sooner or later, the chief of some prevail- ing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which, nevertheless, ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and con- tinual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public coun- cils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms ; kindles the ani- mosity of one part against another ; foments, occasionally, riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the govern- ment itselff through the channels of party pas- sions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will <>f another. There is an opinion that parties, in free countries, are useful checks upon the adminis- tration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This, within cer- tain limits, is probably true ; and_ in govern- ments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popu- lar character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary pur- pose. And there being constant danger of ex- cess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, in- stead of warming, it should consume. It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking, in a free country, should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administra- tion, to confine themselves within their re- spective constitutional spheres, avoiding, in the exercise of the powers of "one department, to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal, against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments, ancient and modern; some of them in our own country, and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribu- tion or modification of the constitutional powers be, in any particular, wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation ; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance, in perma- nent evil, any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriot- ism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with pri- vate and public felicity. _ Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of jus- tice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious prin- ciples. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to G76 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote then, as an object of primary im- portance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened. As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cul- tivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disburse- ments to repel it ; avoiding, likewise, the accu- mulation of debt, not only by shunning occa- sions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned ; not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payments of debts there must be revenues ; that to have revenue there must be taxes ; that no taxes can be devised, which are not more or less inconve- nient and unpleasant ; that the intrinsic em- barrassment inseparable from the selectionof the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties) ought to be a decisive moment for a candid construction of the conduct _ of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measure for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate. Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all ; religion and morality enjoin this conduct: and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the per- manent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas ! is it rendered impossible by its vices ? In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, invete- rate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded : and that in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges to- wards another an habitual hatred, or an ha- bitual fondness, is, in some degree, a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection ; either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another, disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and untraceable, when accidental or trilling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes parti- cipates in the national propensity, and adopts, through passion, what reason would reject ; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinis- ter and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations haa been the victim. So likewise a passionate attachment of one nation to another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without ade- quate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the con- cessions ; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld ; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray, or sac- rifice the interest of their own country, with- out odium ; sometimes even with popularity ; gilding with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for pub- lic good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innu- merable ways, such attachments are particu- larly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportuni- ties do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the art of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils ? Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nations, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles ol foreign influ- ence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citi- zens), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake.; since history and expe- rience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican govern- ment. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial ; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for WASHINGTON, GEORGE. 677 one foreign nation, and excessive dislike for another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil, and even second, the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious ; while its toils and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commer- cial relations, to have with them as little politi- cal connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be ful- filled with perfect good faith. There let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent con- troversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external an- noyance ; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulous^ respect- ed ; when belligerent nations, under the im- possibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provoca- tion ; when we may choose peace or war, as sur interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation ? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground ? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, en- tangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, hu- mor, or caprice ? It is our true policy to steer clear of perma- nent alliances with any portion of the foreign world ; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it ; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less ap- plicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary, and would be unwise to ex- tend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable de- fensive posture, we may safely trust to tempo- rary alliances for extraordinaiy emergencies. Harmony, and a liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, hu- manity, and interest. But even our com- mercial policy should hold an equal and im- partial hand ; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences ; consulting the natural cause of things ; diffusing and diversifying, by gentle means, the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing ; establishing, with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of inter- course, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinions will permit, but tempo- rary, and liable to be, from time to time, abandoned or varied, as experience and cir- cumstances shall dictate ; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another ; that it must pay, with a portion of its independence, for whatever it may accept under that charac- ter ; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equiva- lents for nominal favors, and yet of being re- proached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be' no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon, real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish ; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from runnitig the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of na- tions ; but if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial bene- fit, some occasional good ; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigues, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism ; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated. How far, in the discharge of my official duties, I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public re- cords, and other evidences of my conduct, must witness to you and the world. To my- self, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them. In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the 2od of April, 1793, is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both Houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it. After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the cir- cumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take a neutral position. Having taken it, I deter- mined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it with moderation, perseverance, and firmness. The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe, that, according to my understanding of the matter. 678 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all. The duty of holding neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity im- pose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and unity towards other nations. The inducements of interests, for observing that conduct, will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me, a pre- dominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress, with- out interruption, to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, hnmanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes. Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of inten- tional error ; I am, nevertheless, too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope, that my country will never come to view them with indulgence ; and that, after forty- five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as my- self must soon be to the mansions of rest. Relying on its kindness in this, as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it which is so natural to a man who views it in the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I antici- pate, with pleasing expectation, that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign in- fluence of good laws under a free government — the ever favorite object of my heart — and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers. George Washington. United States, 17th of Sept., 1796. Webster, Daniel. Memorial to Congress on the Increase of Slavery, prepared by. The following memorial, from the pen of Mr. Webster, on the subject of restraining the increase of slavery in new states to be admit- ted into the Union, was prepared in pursuance of a vote of the inhabitants uf Boston and its vicinity, assembled at the State House, on the 3d of December, 1819. It is signed by Daniel Webster, George Blake, Josiah Quincy, James S. Austin, and John Gallison. Memorial to the Senate and House of Rep- resentatives of the United States, in Con- gress assembled : — The undersigned, inhabitants of Boston and its vicinity, beg leave most respectfully and humbly to represent: That the question of the introduction of slavery into the new states to be formed on the west side of the Mississippi river, appears to them to be a question of the last importance to the future welfare of the United States. If the progress of this great evil is ever to be arrested, it seems to the undersigned that this is the time to arrest it. A false step taken now cannot be retraced ; and it appears to us that the happiness of unborn millions rests on the measure which Congress on this occasion may adopt. Considering this as no local question, nor a question to be decided by a temporary expediency, but as involving great interests of the whole United States, and affecting deeply and essentially those objects of com- mon defence, general warfare, and the perpetu- ation of the blessings of liberty, for which the Constitution itself was formed, we have pre- sumed, in this way, to offer our sentiments and express our wishes to the national legisla- ture. And as various reasons have been suggested against prohibiting slavery in the new states, it may perhaps be permitted to us to state our reasons both for believing that Congress possesses the constitutional power to make such prohibition a condition on the admission of a new state into the Union, and that it is just and proper that they should ex- ercise that power. And in the first place as to the constitu- tional authority of Congress. The Constitution of the United States has declared that " Con- gress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States ; and nothing in this Con- stitution shall be so construed as to prejudice the claims of the United States or of any par- ticular state." It is very well known that the saving in this clause of the claims of any par- ticular state, was designed to apply to claims by the then existing states of territory which was also claimed by the United States as their own property. It has, therefore, no bearing on the present question. The power, then, of Con- gress over its own territories is, by the very terms of the Constitution, unlimited. It may make all " needful rules and regulations," which of course include all such regulations as its own views of policy or expediency shall from time to time dictate. If, therefore, in its judgment it be needful for the benefit of a territory to enact a prohibition of slavery, it would seem to be as much within its power of legislation as any other act of local policy. Its sovereignty being complete and universal as to the territory, it may exercise over it the most ample jurisdiction in every respect. _ It possesses in this view all the authority which any state legislature possesses over its own territory ; and if any state legislature may, in its discretion, abolish or prohibit slavery with- in its own limits, in virtue of its general legis- lative authority, for the same reason Congress also may exercise the like authority over its own territories. And that a state legislature, WEBSTER, DANIEL. 679 unless restrained by some constitutional pro- vision, may so do, is unquestionable, and has been established by general practice. * * * The creation of a new state is, in effect, a compact between Congress and the inhabi- tants of the proposed state. Congress would not probably claim the power of compelling the inhabitants of Missouri to form a consti- tution of their own, and come into the Union as a state. It is as plain that the inhabitants of that territory have no right of admission into the Union as a state without the consent of Congress. Neither party is bound to form this connexion. It can be formed only by the consent of both. What, then, prevents Congress, as one of the stipulating parties, to propose its terms ? And if the other party assents to these terms, why do they not effect- ually bind both parties? Or if the inhabi- tants of the territory do not choose to accept the proposed terms, but prefer to remain under a territorial government, has Congress deprived them of any right, or subjected them to any restraint, which, in its discretion, it had not authority to do? If the admission of new states be not the discretionary exercise of a constitutional power, but in all cases an imperative duty, how is it to be performed ? If the Constitution means that Congress shall admit new states, does it mean that Congress shall do this on every application and under all circumstances ? Or if this construction cannot be admitted, and if it must be conceded that Congress must in some respects exercise its discretion on the admission of new states, how is it to be shown that that discretion may not be exercised in regard to this subject as well as in regard to others ? The Constitution declares, " that the migra- tion or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress, prior to the year 1808." It is most manifest that the Constitution does contemplate, in the very terms of this clause, that Congress pos- sesses the authority to prohibit the migration or importation of slaves ; for it limits the ex- ercise of this authority for a specific period of time, leaving it to its full operation ever after- wards. And this power seems necessarily in- cluded in the authority which belongs to Con- gress, " to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states." No person has ever doubted that the prohibition of the foreign slave trade was completely within the authority of Congress since the vear 1808. And why? Certainly only be- cause it is embraced in the regulation of foreign commerce ; and if so, it may for the like reason be prohibited since that period be- tween the states. Commerce in slaves, since the year 1808, being as much subject to the regulation of Congress as any other commerce, if it should see fit to enact that no slave should ever be sold from one state to another, it is not perceived how its constitutional right to make euch provision could be questioned. It would seem to be too plain to be questioned, that Con- gress did possess the power, before the yes>r 1808, to prohibit the migration or importation of slaves into the territories (and in point of fact it exercied that power) as well as into any new states ; and that its authority, after than year, might be as fully exercised to prevent the migration or importation of slaves into any of the old states. And if it may prohibit new states from importing slaves, it may surely, as we humbly submit, make it a condition of the admission of such states into the Union, that they shall never import them. In relation, too, to its own territories, Congress possesses a more extensive authority, and may, in vari- ous other ways, effect the object. It might, for example, make it an express condition of its grauts of the soil, that its owners shall never hold slaves ; and thus prevent the pos- session of slaves from ever being connected with the ownership of the soil. As corroborative of the views which have been already suggested, the memorialists would respectfully call the attention of Con- gress to the history of the national legislation, under the Confederation as well as under the present Constitution, on this interfering sub- ject. Unless the memorialists greatly mis- take, it will demonstrate the sense of the na- tion at every period of its legislation to have been, that the prohibition of slavery was no infringement of any just rights belonging to free states, and was not incompatible'with the enjoyments of all the rights and immunities which an admission into the Union was sup- posed to confer. The memorialists, after this general survey, would respectfully ask the attention of Con- gress to the state of the question of the right of Congress to prohibit slavery in that part of the former territory of Louisiana, which now forms the Missouri territory. Louisiana was purchased of France by the treaty of the 30th April, 1803. The third article of that treaty is as follows : " The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the employment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States ; and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess." Although the language of this article is not very precise or accurate, the memorialists con- ceive that its real import and intent cannot be mistaken. The first clause provides for the admission of the ceded territory into the Union, and the succeeding clause shows this must be according to the principles of the Federal Constitution ; and this very qualifica- tion necessarily excludes the idea that Con- gress were not to be at liberty to impose any conditions upon such admission which were consistent with the principles of that Consti- tution, and which had been or might justly be applied, to other new states. The language is not by any means so pointed as that of the 680 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Resolve of 1780 ; and yet it has been seen that that Resolve was never supposed to inhibit the authority of Congress, as to the introduc- tion of slavery. And it is clear, upon the plainest rule of construction, that in the ab- sence of all restrictive language, a clause, merely providing for the admission of a terri- tory into the Union, must be construed to authorize an admission in the manner and upon the terms which the Constitution itself would justify. This construction derives ad- ditional support from the next clause. The inhabitants " shall be admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citi- zens of the United- States." The rights, ad- vantages, and immunities here spoken of must, from the very force of the terms of the clause, be such as are recognised or commu- nicated by the Constitution of the United States ; such as are common to all citizens, and are uniform throughout the United States. The clause cannot be referred to rights, ad- vantages, and immunities derived exclusively from the state government, for these do not depend upon the Federal Constitution. Be- sides, it would be impossible that all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the different states could be at the same time enjoyed by the same persons. These rights are different in different states ; a right exists in one state which is denied in others, or is repugnant to other rights enjoyed in others. In some of the states a freeholder alone is entitled to vote in elections ; in some a qualification of personal property is suffi- cient ; and in others age and freedom are the sole qualifications of electors. In some states, no citizen is permitted to hold slaves : in others he possesses that power absolutely ; in others it is limited. The obvious meaning, therefore, of the clause is, that the rights de- rived under the Federal Constitution shall be enjoyed by the inhabitants of Louisiana in the same manner as by the citizens of other states. The United States, by the Constitution, are bound to guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government ; and the inhabitants of Louisiana are entitled, when a state, to this guarantee. Each state has a right to two senators, and to represen- tatives according to a certain enumeration of population, pointed out in the Constitution. The inhabitants of Louisiana, upon their ad- mission into the Union, are also entitled to these privileges. The Constitution further de- clares, " that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." It would seem as if the meaning of this clause could not well be misinterpreted. It obviously ap- plies to the case of the removal of a citizen of me state to another state ; and in such a case it secures to the migrating citizen all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the state to which he removes. It cannot surely be contended, upon any rational interpreta- [ tion, that it gives to the citizens of each state all the privileges and immunities of the citi- zens of every other state, at the same time, and under all circumstances. Such a con- struction would lead to the most extraordinary consequences. It would at once destroy all the fundamental limitations of the state con- stitutions upon the rights of their own citi- zens ; and leave all those rights to the mercy of the citizens of any other state, which should adopt different limitations. According to this construction, if all the state constitutions, save one, prohibited slavery, it would be in the power of that single state, by the admission of the right of its citizens to hold slaves, to communicate the same right to the citizens of all the other states within their own exclusive limits, in defiance of their own constitutional prohibitions; and to render the absurdity still more apparent, the same construction would communicate the most opposite and irrecon- cilable rights to the citizens of different states at the same time. It seems, therefore, to be undeniable, upon any rational interpretation, that this clause of the Constitution communi- cated no rights in any state which its own citizens do not enjoy ; and that the citizens of Louisiana, upon their admission into the Union, in receiving the benefit of this clause, would not enjoy higher or more extensive rights than the citizens of Ohio. It would communicate to the former no right of hold- ing slaves except in states where the citizens already possessed the same right under their own state constitutions and laws. * * * Upon the whole, the memorialists would most respectfully submit that the terms of the Con- stitution, as well as the practice of the govern- ments under it, must, as they humbly conceive, entirely justify the conclusion that Congress may prohibit the further introduction of sla- very into its own territories, and also make such prohibition a condition of the admission of any new state into the Union. If the constitutional power of Congress to make the proposed prohibition be satisfactorily shown, the justice and policy of such prohibi- tion seem to the undersigned to be supported by plain and strong reasons. The permission of slavery in a new state necessarily draws after it an extension of that inequality of rep- resentation, which already exists in regard to the original states. It cannot be expected that those of the original states, which do not hold slaves, can look on such an extension as being politically just. As between the origi- nal states the representation rests on compact and plighted faith ; and your memorialists have no wish that that compact should be dis- turbed, or that plighted faith in the slightest degree violated. But the subject assumes an entirely different character, when a new state proposes to be admitted. With her there is no compact, and no faith plighted ; and where is the reason that she should come into the Union with more than an equal share of politi- cal importance and political power ? Already the ratio of representation, established by the VEBSTER, DANIEL.— WIIIGS, ADDRESS TO. 681 Constitution, has given to the states holding slaves twenty members of the House of Rep- resentatives more than they would have been entitled to, except under the particular pro- vision of the Constitution. In all probability this number will be doubled in thirty years. Under these circumstances we deem it not an unreasonable expectation that the inhabitants of Missouri should propose to come into the Union, renouncing the right in question, and establishing a constitution prohibiting it for ever. Without dwelling on this topic we have still thought it our duty to present it to the consideration of Congress. We present it with a deep and earnest feeling of its importance, and we respectfully solicit for it the full con- sideration of the national legislature. Your memorialists were not without the hope that the time had at length arrived when the inconvenience and the danger of this de- scription of population had become apparent in all parts of this country, and in all parts of the civilized world. It might have been hoped that the new states themselves would have had such a view of their own permanent interests and prosperity as would have led them to prohibit its extension and increase. The wonderful increase and prosperity of the states north of the Ohio is unquestionably to be ascribed in a great measure to the conse- quences of the ordinance of 1787 ; and few, indeed, are the occasions, in the history of nations in which so much can be done, by a Bingle act, for the benefit of future generations, as was done by that ordinance, and as may now be done by the Congress of the United States. We appeal to the justice and to the wisdom of the National Councils to prevent the further progress of a great and serious evil. We appeal to those who look forward to the remote consequences of their measures, and who cannot balance a temporary or trifling convenience, if there were such, against a per- manent, growing, and desolating evil. We cannot forbear to remind the two Houses of Congress that the early and decisive measures adopted by the American government for the abolition of the slave trade are among the proudest memorials of our nation's glory. That slavery was ever tolerated in the republic is, as yet, to be attributed to the policy of another government. No imputation, thus far, rests on any portion of the American confederacy. The Missouri territory is a new country. If its extensive and fertile field shall be opened as a market for slaves, the government will seem to become a party to a traffic which, in so many acts through so many years, it has denounced as impolitic, unchristian, inhuman. To enact laws to punish the traffic, and at the same time to tempt cupidity and avarice by the allurements of an insatiable market, is in- consistent and irreconcilable. Government by such a course would only defeat its own pur- poses, and render nugatory its own measures. Nor can the laws derive support from the manners of the people, if the power of moral sentiment be weakened by enjoying, under the permission of government, great facilities to commit offences. The laws of the United States have denounced heavy penalties against the traffic in slaves, because such traffic is deemed unjust and inhuman. We appeal to the spirit of these laws : We appeal to this justice and humanity: We ask whether they ought not to operate, on the present occasion, with all their force? We have a strong feel- ing of the injustice of any toleration of sla- very. Circumstances have entailed it on a portion of our community, which cannot be immediately relieved from it without conse- quences more injurious than the suffering of the evil. But to permit it in a new country, where yet no habits are formed which render it indispensable, what is it, but to encourage that rapacity, and fraud, and violence, against which we have so long pointed the denuncia- tions of our penal code ? What is it, but to tarnish the proud fame of the country ? What is it, but to throw suspicion on its good faith, and to render questionable all its professions of regard for the rights of humanity and the liberties of mankind? As inhabitants of a free country — as citi- zens of a great and rising republic — as mem- bers of a Christian community — as living in a liberal and enlightened age, and as feeling ourselves called upon by the dictates of reli- gion and humanity, we have presumed to offer our sentiments to Congress on this question, with a solicitude for the event far beyond what a common occasion could inspire. Whigs, Address to. The following address, taken from the Na- tional Intelligencer of the 27th of Oct., 1840, was issued by the State Whig Central Com- mittee to the Whig party in Maryland, and shows the doctrine of the Whig party, both as to the naturalization and the Catholic question. To the Whigs of Maryland. The undersigned, as members of the Whig Central Committee of the state, have deemed it their duty to present this statement of their views. The Whigs of Maryland will, we have no doubt, sustain this proceeding, and ac- quiesce in its propriety. General Duff Green, as editor of the Pilot, has discussed in his paper subjects which, in the opinion of the undersigned, have no pro- per connexion with the Presidential election. Within a few days this gentleman has pub- lished a prospectus for a newspaper, in which he expresses his determination to continue, after the election, discussions on questions with which the Whig party has not been, and will not be identified. As an individual, Gen. Green has an undoubted right to take such a course as his own judgment may approve. As an editor of a party paper he has thought proper to persevere in conduct which he knew was disapproved of by the Whig party of 682 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Maryland. He has repeatedly been requested to avoid all discussions in reference to religious sects, but such requests have always been dis- regarded. He has ever assumed the position that he alone is responsible for what may ap- pear in his editorial columns. This is un- doubtedly true ; and our object now is to make this manifest beyond all dispute to the people of Maryland. We now emphatically declare that the Whig party is not in any way, or to any extent, responsible for what has hereto- fore been published in the Pilot on the subject of Catholicism and naturalized voters, and will not be responsible for what Gen. Green may be pleased hereafter to do. It is our decided conviction that the election contests in this country are already sufficiently exciting and absorbing in their character. _ If the differences of opinion between the religious denominations are to be appealed to, and to be used as incentives to party action, no man can foresee how terrible may be the result. Heretofore, after the elections have been settled by the ballot box, a calm has succeeded the political storm. With the close of the con- test have subsided the excited and often angry feelings which prevailed during its continu- ance. Those who were alienated one from the other by political discussions have generally returned to their friendly relations after^ the settlement of the questions which divided them. But if, in addition to the causes of discussion which ordinarily exist, a religious controversy is to take place, who can allay the excitement which these combined causes may produce, and when will such a contest be finally settled ? In this country every man is permitted to worship his Maker in such way as his con- science may approve. Our laws and consti- tutions were framed to secure to all this glo- rious privilege. The native and naturalized citizens are equally entitled to the blessings of our government. All are equal ; and when a stranger takes up his abode here, and has remained among us during the time prescribed by the naturalization laws, he has a right to become a citizen, and will be entitled to the privileges of citizenship. Such being the views of the committee and, as they believe, of their constituents, the great Whig party of the state of Maryland, they hereby declare their disavowal of any concurrence in the present or prospective edi- torial course of General Green, and devolve upon him alone the entire responsibility of his course. N. F. Williams, Chairman. Geo. R. Richardson, John P. Kennedy, W r m. II. Gatchell Sam'l McLellan, James Grieves, A. G. Cole, Samuel Harden, Hugh Birckhead, Geo. W. Krebs, Jas. L. Ridgely, Asa Needham, Gustav W. Lurman, Chas. II. Pitts, Jas. Frazier, Neilson Por, Wm. R. Jones, Geo. M. Gill, James Harwood, Wm. Chesnut, T. Yates Walsh. Whigs or Louisville on the same Sub- ject. At a mass meeting of the Whigs of Louis- ville, convened at the Whig Pavilion, on the evening of the 27th inst., for the purpose of taking into consideration the propriety of making public expression of their opinions in relation to the course of the Louisville Tribune, recently established in this city, professing to be a Whig newspaper, — on motion of Natha- niel Wolfe, President of the Louisville Clay Club, William J. Graves was called to the chair. Thereupon Mr. Wolfe, after some ex- planatory remarks, offered the following pre- amble and resolutions, which were unani- mously adopted: — Whereas, A newspaper called the Louisville Tribune, recently established in this city, pro- fessing to be a Whig paper, has published editorials and communications, one of which was signed " A Native American," of a most anti-republican character, reflecting upon the Catholic persuasion, and especially the Catho- lic priesthood, charging them with hostility to American liberty : Be it, therefore, Resolved, That the Whigs, as a party, ut- terly repudiate and denounce the anti-repub- lican and unjust strictures indulged by the Louisville Tribune towards the Catholic Church of this country. Resolved, That the Whigs of this city re- gard the continued separation of Church and State as essential to the perpetuity of our free institutions ; and we hereby denounce the ef- forts of the Locofoco party to array against each other the different religious persuasions, and to create a line of political demarkation between the Protestants and the Catholics, as subversive of the best interests of religion and inimical to the perpetuity of civil and religious liberty. Resolved, That the Louisville Tribune, in the opinion of this meeting, is not a correct exponent of Whig principles ; and we hereby rescind a resolution adopted by us upon the establishment of that paper, that we should subscribe for and recommend it to the support of the Whig party. Wm. J. Graves, Chairman. Whigs. Address of certain Whig Representa tives in Congress against the NoMiNa- tion of Gen. Scott in 1852. Washington, July 3, 1852. To prevent all mistakes and misapprehen- sion, we, the undersigned, members of Con- gress, adopt this method of making a Joint statement to our constituents, respectively, and to all who may take an interest in the subject, that we cannot and will not support General Scott for the Presidency, as he now stands before the American people, for the following, amongst other reasons : — He obstinately refused, up to the time of his nomination, to give any public opinion in favor of that series of measures of the last WHIGS.— WniG CONVENTION AND PLATFORM OF 1856. 6S3 Congress known as the compromise ; the per- manent maintenance of which, with us, is a question of paramount importance. Nor has he since his nomination made any declaration of his approval of those measures as a final adjustment of the issues in controversy. It is true the resolutions of the convention that nominated him are as clear and as explicit upon this question as need be ; but General Scott, in his letter of acceptance, which con- tains all that we have from him on that matter, docs not give them the approval of his judg- ment. This he seems studiously to have avoided. He accepts the nomination, " with the resolutions annexed." This is, he takes the nomination cum onere, as an individual takes an estate, with whatever encumbrances it may be loaded with. And the only pledge and guarantee he offers for his " adherence to the principles of the resolutions," are " the known incidents of a long public life," &c. Amongst these " known incidents" of his life there is not one, so far as we are aware of, in favor of the principles of the compromise. In one, at least, of his public letters, he has ex- pressed sentiments inimical to the institutions of fifteen states of the Union. Since the pas- sageof the compromisehe has suffered hisname to be held up before the people of several of the states as a candidate for the Presidency by the open and avowed enemies of those meas- ures. And in the convention that conferred this nomination upon him he permitted himself be used by the Free Soilers in that body to de- feat Mr. Fillmore and Mr. Webster, because of their advocacy of these measures and their firm adherence to the policy that sustained them. To join such men, and aid them in complet- ing their triumph over and sacrifice of the true and tried friends of the Constitution, and the faithful discharge of all its obligations, is what we can never do. The dictates of duty and patriotism sternly forbid it. We consider General Scott as the favorite candidate of the Free Soil wing of the Whig rjarty. That his policy, if he should be elect- ed, would be warped and shaped to conform to their views, and to elevate them to power in the administration of the government, can but be considered as a legitimate and probable re- sult. And believing, as we do, that the views of that faction of mischievous men are danger- ous not only to the just and constitutional rights of the southern states (which we repre- sent in part), but to the peace and quiet of the whole country, and to the permanent union of the states, we regard it as the highest duty of the well-wishers of the country every- where, whatever else they may do, to at least withhold from him their support. This we intend to do. Alexander H. Stephens of Ga., Charles Jas. Faulkner of Va., W. Brooke of Miss., Alex. White of Ala., James Abercrombie of Ala., R. Toombs of Ga., James Johnson of Ga. For reasons to some extent indicated in speeches and addresses heretofore made by the undersigned, they deem it to be their duty to withhold their support from General Scott as a candidate for the Presidency. If it should seem to be necessary, we will hereafter, in some form, exhibit more fully to our consti- tuents the facts and reasons which have brought us to this determination. M. P. Gentry of Tenn., C. H. Williams of Tenn. Whig Convention and Platform of 185C. President : Hon. Edward Bates of Mo. Vice Presidents : Col. Jos. Paxton of Pa. ; Luther V. Bell of Mass.; Dr. James W. Thompson of Del. ; Charles P. Krevals of Conn. ; James A. Hamilton of N. Y. ; Ex-Gov. Charles Stratton of N. J. ; Ezekiel F. Cham- bers of Md. ; Wyndham Robertson of Va. ; Gov. Win. A. Graham of N. C. ; Elbert A. Holt of Ala. ; A. M. Fonte of Miss. ; Dr. Geo. W. Campbell of La. ; Gov. Allen Trimble of 0. ; Henry T. Duncan of Ky. ; John Shanklin of Ind. ; Walter Coleman of Tenn. ; James H. Matheny of 111. ; Gov. Wm. C. Lane of Mo. ; John Finney of Fla. ; Col. E. A. Holbrook of Ark. ; G. T. Dortie of Ga. Secretaries : Laz. Anderson of 0. ; James M. Townsend of Conn. ; Hon. Thomas Jones York of N. J. ; E. V. Machette of Pa. ; S. H. Kennedy of La. ; James H. Charless of Mo. ; Col. Huntingdon of N. Y. The Convention adopted the following plat- form : — Resolved, That the Whigs of the United States now here assembled, hereby declare their reverence for the Constitution of the United States ; their unalterable attachment to the National Union ; and a fixed determi- nation to do all in their power to preserve them for themselves and their posterity. They have no new principles to announce ; no new platform to • establish ; but are content to broadly rest — where their forefathers rested — upon the Constitution of the United States, wishing no safer guide, no higher law. Resolved, That we regard with the deepest interest and anxiety the present disordered condition of our national affairs — a portion of the country ravaged by civil war, large sec- tions of our population embittered by mutual recriminations ; and we distinctly trace the-e calamities to the culpable neglect of duty by the present national administration. Resolved, That the government of the United States was formed by the conjunction in poli- tical unity of wide-spread geographical sec- tions, materially differing, not only in climate and products, but in social and domestic insti- tutions ; and that any cause which shall per- manently array these sections in political hostility and organized parties, founded only on geographical distinctions, must inevitably prove fatal to a continuance of the National Union. Resolved, That the Whigs of the United 684 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. States declare as a fundamental article of political faith, an absolute necessity for avoid- ing geographical parties. The danger so clearly discerned by the Father of his country, hap now become fearfully apparent in the agitation now convulsing the nation, and must be arrested at once if we would preserve our Constitution and our Union from dismember- ment, and the name of America from being blotted out from the family of civilized na- tions. _ Resolved, That all who revere the Constitu- tion and the Union must look with alarm at the parties in the field in the present Presi- lential campaign — one claiming only to re- present sixteen northern states, and the other appealing mainly to the passions and preju- dices of the southern states ; that the success of either faction must add fuel to the flame which now threatens to wrap our dearest in- terests in a common ruin. Resolved, That the only remedy for an evil 80 appalling is to support? a candidate pledged to neither of the geographical sections now arrayed in political antagonism, but holding both in a just and equal regard. We congra- tulate the friends of the Union that such a candidate exists in Millard Fillmore. _ Resolved, That, without adopting or refer- ring to the peculiar doctrines of the party which has already selected Mr. Fillmore as a candidate, we look to him as a well-tried and faithful friend of the Constitution and the Union, eminent alike for his wisdom and firmness — fur his justice and moderation in our foreign relations — for his calm and pacific temperament so well becoming the head of a great nation — for his devotion to the Constitu- tion in its true spirit— his inflexibility in exe- cuting the laws ; but, beyond all these attri- butes, in possessing the one transcendent merit of being a representative of neither of the_ two sectional parties now struggling for political supremacy. Resolved, That in the present exigency of political affairs, we are not called upon to dis- cuss the subordinate questions of the adminis- tration in the exercising of the constitutional powers of the government. It is enough to know that civil war is raging, and that the Union is in peril ; and proclaim the conviction that the restoration of Mr. Fillmore to the Presidency will furnish the best if not the only means of restoring peace. Resolved, That we cordially approve the nomination of Andrew J. Donelson for the Vice Presidency ; regarding him as a national conservative patriot, faithfully devoted to the Constitution and the Union. Resolved, That a spontaneous rising of the Whigs throughout the country and their prompt rally to the support of the highest national interests, and the spirit here dis- played, sufficiently attest the national impor- tance of preserving and reinvigorating their party organization — that a National Whig Committee of one from each of the states, be appointed by the president, with authority to call any future convention, and generally r re- mote any effective organization of their party throughout the United States. Resolved, That these resolutions be pub- lished and respectfully submitted by the Con- vention as an address to the people of the United States. previous meeting Whig Members of Congress. Proceedings of Meeting of. An adjourned meeting of the Whig mem- bers of Congress was held in the Senate Chamber on Tuesday evening, April 20, 1852. At a quarter before eight o'clock Mr. Man- gum took the chair. The proceedings of the were read. Mr. Stanly of N. C. offered the following resolution : — Resolved, That it be recommended that the Whig National Convention be held in the city of Baltimore, in the state of Maryland, on Wednesday, the 16th day of June next, for the purpose of nominating candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the United States. Mr. Marshall of Ky. then offered the follow- ing as a substitute for that by Mr. Stanly : — Whereas, the determination of the time and place for holding a National Whig Convention has been referred to the Whigs of Congress the Whig members of the Senate and House of Representatives, having assembled in con- vention, with the explicit understanding that they regard the series of acts known as the adjustment measures as forming, in their mu- tual dependence and connexion, a system of compromise the most conciliatory, and the best for the entire country that could be obtained from conflicting sectional interests and opin- ions : and that therefore they ought to be ad- hered to and carried into faithful execution, as a final settlement in principle and substance, of the dangerous and exciting subjects which they embrace, and do unite on this basis, as well as upon the long-established principles of the Whig party, do hereby recommend the day of , and the city of as the time and place for holding the National Whig Convention, for the choice of Whig candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency re- spectively. The Chair decided that the resolution was out of order, and contrary to the established usage of the party. But as a substantive re- solution, it was to be considered and decided by the meeting whether it would be acted on after the transaction of business, upon which alone the meeting had assembled, viz. : that of recommending the time and place of hold- ing the Whig National Convention. From this decision Mr. Marshall took an appeal, and after considerable debate, in which great latitude was allowed, the motion was put, " Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the meeting?" and WHIG MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.— WHIG PLATFORM OF 1852. Wt> the question was decided in the affirmative by ayes 46, nays 21, as follows : — Ayes and nays on the appeal of Honorable Humphrey Marshall from the decision of the Chair:— Senate. — Ayes — Messrs. J. II. Clarke, John Davis, H. Fish, J. W. Miller, Truman Smith, P. Spruance, J. R. Underwood, and B. F. Wade. Nays — Messrs. Brooke, James Cooper, and Jackson Morton. House. — Ayes — Messrs. Allison, Barrere, Bowne, Brenton, Briggs, Campbell, Chandler, Cullom, Fowler, Goodenow, Goodrich, Grey, Hascall, Ilebard, Hosford, Howe, T. W. Howe, Hunter, King, Kuhns, Meacham, Moore, More- head, Parker, Penniman, Porter, Sackett, Schoolcraft, Scudder, Stanly, Stanton, Ste- vens, Taylor, Walbridge, Ward, Washburn, Wells, White of Ky., Williams. Noes — Appleton, James Brooks, E. C. Ca- bell, Clingman, Dockery, Ewing, Gentry, Haws, Haven, Landry, H. Marshall, Martin, Moore, Outlaw, Schermerhorn, Strother, Wil- liams. Mr. Gentry of Tenn. then offered the fol- lowing, in addition or amendment to the reso- lution of Mr. Stanly : — Resolved, That the Whig members of Con- gress, in thus recommending a time and place for the National Whig Convention to assem- ble, are not to be understood as pledging themselves to support the nominees of said convention, except upon the condition that the persons then and there nominated as can- didates for the President and Alee President, shall be publicly and unequivocally pledged to regard the series of measures known as the compromise measures, as a final settlement of the dangerous questions which they embraced, and to maintain that settlement inviolate. The Chair decided the resolution or amend- ment of Mr. Gentry to be out of order, unless as a substantive proposition. As such the Chair would receive it. From this decision of the Chair an appeal was taken ; and the opinion of the Chair was sustained without division. The resolution of Mr. Stanly then coming up, Mr. Campbell of Ohio moved to strike out Baltimore and insert Cincinnati, which was negatived. A motion by the same gentleman, to insert Louisville, was also lost. A motion was then made to strike out Bal- timore and insert Pittsburgh, which was nega- tived. Mr. Chandler of Pa. moved to strike out Baltimore and insert Philadelphia ; which motion was negatived. Gen. Cullom of Tenn. then gave notice that, after Mr. Stanly's resolution should have been disposed of, he would renew the resolu- tions offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Marshall], and the gentleman from Ten- nessee [Mr. Gentry], if they would remain. The question on Mr. Stanly's resolution vras then put, and decided in the affirmative without a division. meeting cause the Gen. Cullom of Tenn. then gave notice that as the particular friends of the resolutions which had been ruled out of order, in connex- ion with the resolution of Mr. Stanly, were not present, he did not feel called on to pre- sent the resolution of which he had given pre- vious notice. It was resolved that the Chairman of the meeting have authority to re-convene this meeting, should circumstances, in his opinion, render necessary such a step. It was ordered that the Chairman of the the resolutions recommending time and place for holding the Whig National Convention, to be inserted in the Whig newspapers of this District, signed by himself, and countersigned by the secretaries ; and then, at a quarter before twelve, the meet- ing adjourned. A true copy of the journal of the meeting, Joseph R. Chandler, ) o , . Alfred Dockert, } Secretary. Senate Chamber, May 19, 1852. To the Editors of the Globe : In casting my eye cursorily over a part of the debate in the House, in the Daily Globe of this date, in relation to the Congressional caucus, I find many discrepancies and some errors. The journal of the proceedings, re- published in the National Intelligencer, is correct and exact upon every material point that was raised. The Chair ruled both Mr. Marshall's and Mr. Gentry's resolutions out of order, as amendments to the resolution offered by Mr. Stanly. The Chair, however, decided to receive Mr. Gentry's resolutions as a substantive proposition, if it should be so offered — not Mr. Marshall's, which could be received only by the assent of the majority of the meeting. The reason of the discrimination in the mind of the Chairman was, that Mr. Gentry's purported to construct no platform for others, but simply to define the position of those sup- porting it. Mr. Marshall's went further, -and, in the opening of the Chair, wa3 inadmissible, on the ground of assuming to construct, in part, a political platform, which the Chair deemed as in no extent warrantable by the usages of the Whig party, but a naked usur- pation of power properly exercisable only by the people, or their representatives in the National Convention. Mr. Chandler's statement, as sustained by Mr. Stanly and others, is entirely accurate. Your obedient servant, Willie P. Mangum. Whig Platform of 1852. The Whigs of the United States, in con- vention assembled, firmly adhering to the great conservative republican principle by which they are controlled and governed, and now, as ever, relying upon the intelligence of the American people, with an abiding confidence in their capacity for self-government, and 686 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. T.heir continued devotion to the Constitution and the Union, do proclaim the following as the political sentiments and determination, for the establishment and maintenance of which their national organization, as a party, is effected : — 1. That the government of the United States is of a limited character, and it is con- fined to the exercise of powers expressly granted by the Constitution, and such as may be necessary and proper for carrying the granted powers into full execution ; and that all powers not thus granted or necessarily im- plied are expressly reserved to the states re- spectively, and to the people. 2. That the state governments should be held secure in their reserved rights, and the general government sustained in its constitu- tional powers, and the Union should be revered and watched over as the palladium of our liberties. 3. That, while struggling freedom every- where enlists the warmest sympathy of the Whig party, we still adhere to the doctrines of the Father of his Country, as announced in his Farewell Address, of keeping ourselves free from all entangling alliances with foreign countries, and of never quitting our own to stand upon foreign ground ; that our mission as a republic is not to propagate our opinions, or impose on other countries our form of government by artifice or force, but to teach by example, and show by our success, modera- tion and justice, the blessings of self-govern- ment, and the advantages of free institutions. 4. That where the people make and con- trol the government they should obey its Con- stitution, laws, and treaties, as they would retain their self-respect, and the respect which they claim and will enforce from foreign powers. 5. That the government should be con- ducted upon principles of the strictest economy, and that revenue sufficient for the expenses of its economical administration in time of peace ought to be mainly derived from a duty on imports, and not from direct taxes ; and, in levying such duties, sound policy requires a just discrimination, whereby suitable encou- ragement may be afforded to American in- dustry, equally to classes, and to all portions of the country. 6. That the Constitution vests in Congress the power to open and repair harbors, and re- move obstructions from navigable rivers ; and it is expedient that Congress should exercise that power whenever such improvements are necessary for the common defence, or for the protection and facility of commerce with foreign nations or among the states — such improvements in every instance being national and general in their character. 7. That the federal and state governments are parts of one system, alike necessary for the common prosperity, peace, and security, and ought to be regarded alike with a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment. Respect for the authority of each, and the acquiescence in just constitutional measures of each, are duties required by the plainest considerations of ■national, of state, and of individual welfare. 8. That the series of acts of the thirty-first Congress, the act known as the fugitive slave law included, are received and acquiesced in by the Whig party of the United States as a settlement, in principle and substance, of the dangerous and exciting questions which they embrace, and, so far as they are concerned, we will maintain them, and insist upon their enforcement until time and experience shall demonstrate the necessity of further legisla- tion to guard against the evasion of the laws on the one hand, and the abuse of their powers on the other, not impairing their present effi- ciency ; and we deprecate all further agitation of th rt questions thus settled as dangerous to our peace, and will discountenance all efforts to continue or renew such agitation, whenever, wherever, or however, the attempt may be made ; and we will maintain this system as essential to the nationality of the Whig party, and the integrity of the Union. Williams, Captain James, of Nashville, Tenn. Extract from the Speech of, on tiie Bar- gain and Intrigue Slander, delivered at Nashville, August 18, 1856. For the purpose of presenting at one view to the true friends of Henry Clay the record of the noble and manly course of Mr. Buchanan in reference to the question of " bargain and corruption," I will group together with the evidence furnished by Mr. Buchanan the universal recognition, by all Mr. Clay's bio- graphers and historians, of the importance of that testimony to his defence. Superadded to this positive proof — inviting scrutiny, and defying contradiction — I assert, that from the day this charge was first preferred against Mr. Clay, up to the good hour when the Cin- cinnati Convention made its nomination for the Presidency, no friend of Henry Clay ever alluded to Mr. Buchanan's connexion with that charge, or his testimony in reference thereto, who did not declare, that he fully and unequivocally established Mr. Clay's inno- cence ! During a period of thirty long years, the friends of Mr. Clay have triumphantly pointed to this testimony, as of itself ample and conclusive, in his vindication, and never was the honorable character of his conduct towards Mr. Clay called in question, until those who claim to be, nar excellence, the per- petuators of Mr. Clay's party under a new name, adopted as their candidate for the Vice Presidency, the man of all others most thor- oughly identified with this charge in its in- ception and perpetuation ! And now to the documentary testimony. I read from the Nashville Banner of the 15th of August, 1856 : — General Jackson's Statement. "In January, 1825. a member of Congress ot nrjh re- spectability [Mr. Buchanan] visited me one morning, and observed — ■ He had been informed by the friends of Mr WILLIAMS, CAPTAIN JAMES. G87 Clay, that the friends of Mr. Adams had made overtures to them saying if Mr. Clay and his friends would unite in aid of the election .. Payne of Ala.. Pendleton of Va., Perry ofMd., Phelps of Mo.. Piilsbury of Texas, Reid of N. C, Rel'fe of Mo., Rhett of S. ('.. Roberts of Miss., Sawyer of 0., Seddon of Va., A. D. Sims of S. C, Leonard II. Sims of Mo., Simpson of S. C., Stanton of Tenn.. Stephens of Ga., St. John of 0., Strong of N. Y., Thihodeaux of La., Thomasson of Ky., Jacob Thompson of Miss., Tibbatts of Ky., Toombs of Ga., Towns of Ga., Tredway of Va., Trumbo of Ky., Wick of Ind., Woodward of S. C, Young of Ky. — 106. The Senate having passed a similar bill, which came before the House on the 3d of March, 1847, Mr. Wilmot moved to amend the same by adding his proviso thereto. The motion was rejected by yeas and nays as follows :— - Yeas. — Messrs. Abbott of Mass., John Quincy Adams of Mass., Anderson of N. Y., Arnold of R. I.. Ashmun of Mass., Benton of N. Y.. Brinkerhoff of 0., William W. Campbell of N. Y., John H. Campbell of Pa.. Carroll of N. Y., Catheart of Ind., Collamer of Vt . Collin of N. Y., Cranston of R. I., Cummins of 0., Darragh of Pa., Delano of 0., De Mott of N. Y., Dillingham of Vt., Dixon of Conn., Dunlap of Me., Ellsworth of N. Y., John II. Ewing of Pa.. Foot of Vt., Fries of O., Giddings of O., Gordon of N. Y.. Grinnell of Mass., Grover of N. Y„ Hale of Mass.. Hamlin of Me.. Hampton of N. J., Harper of 0.. Henry of 111., Elias B. Holmes of N. Y., Hough of N. Y., John W. Houston of Del., Samuel D. Hub- bard of Conn., Hudson of Mass.. Hungerford of N. Y., Wash- ington Hunt of N. Y., James B. Hunt of Mich., Joseph R. Ingersoll of Pa., Jenkins of N. Y.. James II. Johnson of N. II., Kennedy of Ind.. D. P. King of Mass., Preston King of N. Y., Lawrence of N. Y., Levin of Pa., Lewis of N. Y., McClelland of Mich., Jos. J. McDowell of 0.. McGaughey of Ind,. Mcllvaine of Pa., Marsh of Vt., Miller of N. Y., Mosely of N. Y., Moulton of N. II., Niven of N. Y., Norris of N. H., Perrill of 0., Pettit of Ind., Pollock of Pa., Ramsey of Pa., Rathbun of N. Y., Kipley of N. Y., Ritter of Pa., Julius Rockwell of Mass.. John A. Rockwell of Conn.. Root of 0., Runk of N. J., Sawtelle of Me., Scammond of Me., Schenek of 0., Seaman of N. Y., Severance of Me., Truman Smith of Conn., Caleb B. Smith of Ind., Starkweather of 0., Stewart of Pa., Strohm of Pa., Sykes of N. J., Benjamin Thompson of Mass., Thurman of 0., Vance of 0., Vinton of 0., Went- worth of 111., Wheaton of N, Y., White of N. Y., Williams of Me., Wilmot of Pa., Winthrop of Mass., Wood of N. Y., Wright of N. J., Yost of Pa.— 97. N ATS .— Messrs. Stephen Adams of Miss., Atkinson of Va., Barringer of N. C, Bayly of Va., Bedinger of Va., Bell of Ky., James Black of Pa.. James A. Black of S. C, Bowdon of Ala., Bowlin of Mo., Boyd of Ky., Brockenbrough of Pla., Brodhead of Pa.. M. Brown of Tenn., William G. Brown of Va., Burt of S. C, John G. Chapman of Md., Augustus A. Chapman of Va., Reuben Chapman of Ala., Chase of Tenn., Chipman of Mich., Cobb of Ga., Cocke of Tenn., Cottrell of Ala., Crozier of Tenn.. Cullom of Tenn.. Cunningham of 0., Daniel of N. C, Dargan of Ala., Garrett Davis of Ky.. Dockery of N. C, Douglas of HI., Edsall of N. J., Ellett of Miss., Erdman of Pa., Edwin H. Ewing of Tenn., Foster of Pa.. Garvin of Pa.. WILMuT L'ROYISO.— WISE. HENRY A. B93 Gentry of IVnn., Giles of Md.. Graham of N. C, Ilarmanson of La.. Henley of Ind.. Hilliard of Ala., Isaac E. Holmes >>f S. C. Hopkins of Va.. George S. Houston of Ala.. Edmund W. Hubard of Va.. Hunter of Va.. Charles J. Ingetaoll of Pa., Joseph Johnson of Va., Andrew Johnson of Trim.. George W. Jones of Tenn., Seaborn Jones of Ga„ Kaufman of Texas, Thomas 15. King of Ga., Leake of Va.. Leftier of la.. La Sere of La., Ligon of Md.. Long of Md., Lumpkin of Qa., McClean of Pa., Mi-Daniel of Mo.. McHenry of Ky.. McKay of N. C, John P. Martin of Ky„ Barclay Alartin of Tenn., Morris of O., Morse of La.. Newton of Ark., Owen of Ind., Parriah of 0., Payne of Ala.. Pendleton of Va., Perrv of Md., I'illsbury of Texas. Reid of N. C, Kelt'e of Mo.. Rhett of S. C, Roberts of Miss., Russell of N. Y.. Sawyer of 0., Seddon of Va., Alexander D. Sims of S. C, Leonard II. Sims of Mo.. Simpson of S. C, Robert Smith of 111., Stanton of Tenn.. Strong of N. Y„ Thomasson of Ky., James Thompson of Pa., Jacob Thompson of Miss., Tibbatts of Ky., Towns of Ga.. Tredway of Va.. Trumbo of Ky., Wick of Ind.. Woodward of S. C, Woodworth of N. Y., Young of Ky.— 102. The Senate bill without the amendment of Mr. Wilmot became a law. This celebrated proviso has been moved by different Senators and Representatives to vari- ous bills since. The votes on it are seen under the caption of the various measures to amend which it has been moved. Wisconsin. By the act of April 20, 1836, this territory was constituted out of that remaining after de- ducting the state of Michigan from that which the government of the territory, as Michigan, had exercised jurisdiction over. The bill as it became a law embraced a sec- tion subjecting it " to all the conditions and restrictions and prohibitions," imposed upon the people of the Northwestern Territory by the ordinance of 1787. By act passed August 6, 1846, the people of Wisconsin territory were authorized to form a constitution and state government. By act of March 3, 1847, the constitution was recognised by Congress, and she was declared to be a state upon the express funda- mental condition, that the said constitution be assented to by the qualified electors thereof, in the manner and at the times prescribed in the 20th article of said constitution. The act of May 29, 1848, admitted Wis- consin into the Union, and gave the assent of Congress to certain resolutions of the conven- tion of said state, relative to the proceeds of the public lands therein. Wise, Henry A. Letter of, ox Know-Nothingism. Only, near Onancock, Va., I Sept. 18, 1854. j To : Dear Sir : I now proceed to give you the reasons for the opinions I expressed in my letter of the 2d inst., as fully as my leisure will permit. I said that I did not " think that the present state of affairs in this country is such as to justify the formation, by the people, of any secret political society." The laws of the United States — federal and 6tate laws — declare and defend the liberties of our people. They are free in every sense — free in the sense of Magna Charta and beyond Magna Charta ; free by the surpassing fran- chise of American charters, which makes them sovereign and their wills the sources of constitutions and laws. If the Archbishop might say to King John, "Let every Briton, as his mind, be free; His person safe; his property secure; His house as sacred as the fane of Heaven; Watching, unseen, his ever open door, Watching the realm, the spirit of the laws; His fate determined by the rules of right, His voice enacted in the common voice And general suffrage of the assembled realm, No hand invisible to write his doom; No demon starting at the midnight hour, To draw his curtain, or to drag him down To mansious of despair. Wide to the world Disclose the secrets of the prison walls, And bid the groanings of the dungeon strike The public ear — Inviolable preserve The sacred shield that covers all the land. The Heaven-conferr'd palladium of the isle, To Britain's sous, the judgment of their peers, On these great pillars : freedom of the mind, Freedom of speech, and freedom of the pen, For ever changing, yet for ever sure, The base of Britains rests." — we may say that our American charters have more than confirmed these laws of the confessor, and our people have given to them "as free, as full, and as sovereign a consent" as was ever given by John to the bishops and the barons " at Runnimede, the field of free- dom," to which it was said — " Britain's sons shall come, Shall tread where heroes and where patriots trod, To worship as they walk ■ " In this country, at this time, does any man think anything? AVould he think aloud? Would he speak anything ? Would he write anything? His mind is free; his person is safe ; his property is secure ; his house is his castle ; the spirit of the laws is his body-guard and bis house-guard ; the fate of one is the fate of all measured by the same common rule of right ; his voice is heard and felt in the general suffrage of freemen ; his trial is in open court, confronted by witnesses and ac- cusers ; his prison house has no secrets, and he has the judgment of his peers ; and there is nought to make him afraid, so long as he respects the rights of his equals in the eye of the law. Would he propagate truth ? Truth is free to combat error. Would he propagate error ? Error itself may stalk abroad and do her mischief, and make night itself grow darker, provided truth is left free to follow, however slowly, with her torches to light up the wreck ! Why, then, should any portion of the people desire to retire in secret, and by secret means to propagate a political thought, or word, or deed, by stealth ? Why band to- gether, exclusive of others, to do something which all may not know of, towards some po- litical end ? If it be good, why not make the good known ? Why not think it, speak it, write it, act it out openly and aloud ? Or, is it evil, which loveth darkness rather than light? When there is no necessity to justify a secret association for political ends, what else can justify it? A caucus may sit in se- cret to consult on the general policy of a great public party. That may be necessary or con- venient ; but that even is reprehensible, if carried too far. But here is proposed a great primary, national organization, in its incerr- tion — What ? Nobody knows. To do what I 694 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Nobody knows. How organized? Nobody- knows. Governed by whom ? Nobody knows. How bound ? By what rites ? By what test oaths? With what limitations and restraints ? Nobody, nobody knows ! All we know is that persons of foreign birth and of Catholic faith are proscribed ; and so are all others who don't proscribe them at the polls. This is certainly against the spirit of Magna Charta. Such is our condition of freedom at home, showing no necessity for such a secret organ- ization and its antagonism to the very basis of American rights. And our comparative native and Protestant strength at home repels the plea of such necessity still more. The Btatistics of immigration show that from 1820 to 1st January, 1853, inclusive, for 32 years and more, 3,204,848 foreigners arrived in the United States, at the average rate of 100,151 per annum ; that the number of persons of foreign birth now in the United States is 2,210,839 ; that the number of natives, whites, is 17,735,578, and of persons whose nativity is "unknown," is 39,154. (Quere, by the by: What will "Know-Nothings" do with the " unknown ?") The number of natives to persons of foreign birth in the United States, is as 8 to 1, and the most of the latter, of course, are naturalized. In Virginia the whole number of white natives is 813,891, of persons born out of the state and in the United States, 57,502, making a total of na- tives of 871,393 ; and the number of persons born in foreign countries, 22,953. So that in Virginia the number of natives is to the num- ber of persons born in foreign countries, nearly as 38 to 1. Again : The churches of the United States provide accommodations for 14,234,825 vota- ries ; the Roman Catholics for but 667,823 ; number of votaries in the Protestant to the r.umber in the Roman Catholic in the United States, as 21 to 1. In Virginia the whole number is 856,436, the Roman Catholics 7930, or 108 to 1. The number of churches in the United States is 38,061, of Catholic churches 1221 ; more than 31 to 1 are Protestant. In Vir- ginia the number of churches is 2383, of Ca- tholic churches is 17 ; more than 140 to 1. The whole value of church property in the United States is $87,328,801, of Catholic church property is $9,256,758, or 9 to 1. In Virginia the whole value of church property is $2,856,076 ; of Catholic church property, $126,100, or 22 to 1. In the United States there are four Protest- ant sects, either of which is larger than the Catholics : — The Baptists provide accommodations for • 3,247,029 The Methodists for 4,343.579 The Presbyterians for 2,079,690 The Congregatioualists for .... 801, S35 Aggregate of four Protestant sects, ... 10,472.073 The Catholics lor 667,823 Majority of only four Protestant sects, • • 9,804,250 Add the Episcopalians for 643,598 Majority of only five Protestant sects, - - 10,447,S48 In Virginia there are five Protestant sects, either of which is larger than the number of Catholics in the state : — Baptist, 247,589 Episcopal, 79,68-; Lutheran, 18,760 Methodist, 323.708 Presbyterian, 103,625 773.356 Catholics, 7,930 Majority of free Protestant sects in Virginia, - 765,426 Or nearly 98 to 1 Thus natives are to persons of foreign birth In the United States, as 8 to 1 In Virginia, as - - 38 to 1 The Protestant church accommodations ore to the Catholic In the United States, as 21tol In Virginia, as-------- 108 to 1 The number of Protestant churches is to the number of Catholic In the United States, as - - - - - 31 to 1 In Virginia, as ------.. 140 to 1 The value of Protestant church property is to the value of Catholic In the United States, as- - - - - - 9tol In Virginia, as - - 22 to 1 There are four Protestant sects, each of which is larger than the Catholic, in the United States, and the aggregate of which ex- ceeds the Catholic by a majority of 9,804,250 votaries, and, adding one sect smaller, by a majority of 10,447«,848. In Virginia there are five Protestant sects, each larger than the number of Catholics in the state, and the aggregate of which exceeds the Catholics by a majority of 765,426 votaries. Now, what has such a majority of numbers and of wealth, of natives and of Protestants, to fear from such minorities of Catholics and naturalized citizens ? What is the necessity for this master majority to resort to secret organization against such a minority ? I put it fairly : Would they organize at all against the Catholics and naturalized citizens, if the Catholics and naturalized citizens were in the like majority of numbers and of wealth, or if majorities and minorities were reversed? To retire in secret with such a majority, does it not confess to something which dares not subject itself to the scrutiny of knowledge, and would have discussion Know-Nothing of its designs and operations and ends? Cannot the Know- Nothings trust to the leading Protestant churches to defend themselves and the souls of all the saints, and sinners too, against the influence of Catholics? Can't they trust to the patriotism and fraternity of natives to guard the land against immigrants? In defence of the great American Protestant churches, I venture to say in their behalf, that the Pope, and all his priests combined, are not more zealous and watchful in their master's work, or in the work for the mastery, than are our Episcopal, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, and Congregational clergy. They are, as a whole church mili- tant, with their armor bright : they are zeal- ous, they are jealous, they are watchful, they are organized, embodied, however divided by sectarianism, yet banded together against Papacy, and learned and active, and politic too as any brotherhood of monks. They need WISE, HENRY A. 695 jo such political organization to defend the faith. Are they united in it ? Do they favor or countenance it among their flocks ? To what end ? In the name of their religion, I ask them — Why not rely on God? And do the Knotr-Nothings imagine that the pride and love of country are so dead in native hearts, that secret organizations are necessary to beget a new-born patriotism to protect us from foreign influence? Now, iu defence of- our people, I say for them that no people upon earth are more possessed with nationality as a strong passion than the freemen of the United States of North America. Nowhere is the filial and domestic tie stronger, nowhere is the tie of kinship more binding, nowhere is there more amor loci — the love of home, which is the surest foundation of the love of country — nowhere is any country's romance of history more felt, nowhere are the social relations on a better moral foundation, nowhere is there as clear identity of parentage and offspring, no- where are sons and daughters so " educated to liberty," nowhere have any people such cer- tainty of the knowledge of the reward of vigilance, nowhere have they such freedom of self-government, nowhere is there such trained hatred of kings, lords, and aristocra- cies, nowhere is there more self-independence, or more independence of the Old World or its traditions — in a word, nowhere is there a country whose people have, by birthright, a tithe of what our people have to make them love that land which is their country, and that spot which is their home ! I am an American, a Virginian ! Prouder than ever to have said, " I am a Roman citizen \" So far from Brother Jonathan wanting a national feeling, he is justly suspected abroad of a little too much pride and bigotry of country. The Revolution and the last war with Great Bri- tain tried us, and the late conquest of Mexico found us not wanting in the sentimentality of nationalism. Though so young, we have already a dialect and a mannerism, and our customs and our costume. A city dandy may have his coat cut in Paris, but he would fight a Frenchman in the cloth of his country as quick to-day as a Marion man ever pulled the trigger of a Tower musket against a red-coat Englishman in '76. And peace has tried our patriotism more than war. What people have more reason to love a country from the labor they have bestowed upon its development by the arts of industry ? No : as long as the memory of George Washington lives, as long as there shall be a 22d of February and a 4th of July, as long as the everlasting mountains of this continent stand, and our Father of Waters flows, there will be fathers to hand down the stories which make our hearts to glow, and mothers to sing " Hail Columbia" to their babes — and that song is not yet stale. There is no need to revive a sinking patriot- ism in the hearts of our people. And who would have them be selfish in their freedom ? Freedom ! Liberty ! selfish and exclusive ! Ijever; for it consumeth not in its use, but is like fire in magnifying, by imparting its sparks and its rays of light and of heat. Is there any necessity from abroad for such se- cret political organizations? Against whom, and against what, is it levelled ? Against foreigners by birth. When we were as weak as three millions, we relied largely on foreigners by birth to defend us and aid us in securing indepen- dence. Now that we are twenty-two millions strong, how is it we have become so weak in our fears as to apprehend we are to be de- prived of our liberties by foreigners ? Verily, this seemeth as if Rnow-Nothings were re- versing the order of things, or that there is another and a different feeling from that of the fear arising from a sense of weakness. It conies rather from a proud consciousness of overweening strength. They wax strong ra- ther, and would kick, like the proud grown fat. It is an exclusive, if not an aristocratic feeling in the true sense, which would say to the friends of freedom born abroad : " We had need of you, and were glad of your aid when we were weak, but we are now so inde- pendent of you that we are not compelled to allow you to enjoy our republican privileges. We desire the exclusive use of human rights, though to deprive you of their common en- joyment will not enrich us the more, and will make you 'poor indeed 1'" But not only is it levelled against foreigners by birth, but against the Pope of Rome. There was once a time when the very name of Papa frightened us as the children of a nursery. But now, now ! who can be fright- ened by the temporal or ecclesiastical autho- rity of Pius IX ? Has he got back to Rome from his late excursion ? Who are his body- guard there ? Have the lips of a crowned head kissed his big toe for a century ? Are any so poor as to do his Italian crown any reverence? Do not two Catholic powers, France and Aus- tria, hold all his dominions in a detestable de- pendency ? What army, what revenue, what diplomacy, what church domination in even the Catholic countries of the old or the new world, has he ? Why, the idea of the Pope's influence at this day is as preposterous as that of a gunpowder plot. I would as soon think of dreading the ghost of Guy Fawkes. No, there is no necessity, from either op- pression or weakness of Protestants or natives. They are both free and strong ; and do they now, because they are rich in civil and reli- gious freedom, wish in turn to persecute, and exclude the fallen and the down-trodden of the earth ?— God forbid ! 2d. But there is not only no necessity for this secret political organization, but it is against the spirit of our laws and the facts of our history. Some families in this republic render themselves ridiculous, and offensive, too, by the vain pretensions! to the exalting accidents of birth. We, in Virginia, are not seldom pointed at for our F. F. V.'s of ances- tral arrogance. But whoever thought that pretension of this sort was so soon to be set up 696 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. by exclusives for the republic itself? Some of the ancient European people may boast of their "protoplasts," and of their being them- selves "autochthones" — that they had fathers and mothers from near Adam, whom they can name as their first formers, and that they are of the same unmixed blood, original inhabit- ants of their country. But who were our protoplasts? English, Irish, Scotch, German, Butch, Swedes, French, Swiss, Spanish, Ita- lian, Ethiopian — all people of all nations, tribes, complexions, languages, and religions! And who alone are " autochthones" here in North America? — Why, the Indians! They are the only true natives. One thing we have, and that more distinctly than any other na- tion : we have our " eponymas." We can name the very hour of our birth as a people. We need recur to no fable of a wolf to whelp us into existence. It may be hard to fix Anno Mundi, or the year of Noah's flood, or the building of Koine. Rome may have her Ju- lian epocha, the Ethiopian their epocha of the Abyssines, the Arabians theirs of the flight of Mahomet, the Persians theirs of the coro- nation of Jesdegerdis ; but ours dates from the Declaration of Independence among the nations of the earth, the 4th day of July, a. d. 1776. As a nation we are but 78 years of age. Many a person is now living who was alive before this nation was born. And the ancestors of this people, about two centuries only ago, were foreigners, every one of them coming to the shores of this country, to take it away from the aborigines, the " autoch- thones," and to take possession of it by autho- rity, either directly or derivatively, of Papal power. His holiness the Pope was the great grantor of all the new countries of North America. This fiction was a fact of the his- tory of all our first discoveries and settlements. Foreigners, in the name of the Pope and Mo- ther Church, took possession of North Ame- rica, to have and to hold the same to their heirs against the heathen for ever ! — and now already their descendents are for excluding foreigners and the Pope's followers from an equal enjoyment of the privileges of this same possession ! So strange is human hist; iry. Christopher Columbus ! Ferdinand and Isa- bella ! What would they have thought of this had they foreseen it when they touched a continent, and called it theirs in the name of the Holy Trinity, by authority of the keeper of the keys of Heaven, and of the great grantor of the empire and domain of earth ? What would have become of our national titles to northeastern or northwestern bound- aries, but for the plea of this authority, valid of old among all Christian powers ? Following the discovery and the possession of the country by foreigners, in virtue of Catholic majesty, came the settlements of the country by force and constraint of religious intolerance and persecution. Puritans, Hu- guenots, Cavaliers, Catholics, Quakers, all came to western wilds, each in turn perse- cuted and persecuting for opinion's sake. Op- pression of opinion was the most odious of the abominations of the Old World's despotism — its only glory and grace is that it made thou- sands of martyrs. It deluged every country, and tainted the air of every clime, and stained the robes of righteousness of every sect with blood, Avith the blood of every human sacri- fice, which was honest and earnest in its faith, the hypocrites and hinds of profession alone escaping the swords or the flames of persecu- tion. The colonies were blackened by the burnings of the stake, and were dyed red with the blood of intolerance. The American Revolution made a new era of liberty to dawn — the era of the liberty of conscience. If there is any essence in Americanism, the very salt wherewith it is savored is the freedom of opinion and the liberty of conscience. Is it now proposed that we shall go back to the deeds of the dark ages of despotism ? That this broad land, still unoccupied in more than half of its virgin soil, shall no longer be an asylum for the oppressed ? That here, as elsewhere, and again, as of old, men shall be burthened by their births, and chained for their opinions ? I trust that a design of that intent will remain a secret buried for ever. I have said this organization was against the spirit of our laws. Our laws sprang from the necessity of the condition of our early settlers. They brought with them from Eng- land their Penates, the household gods of an Anglo-Saxon race, the liberties of Magna Charta, the trial by jury, the judgment of the peers, and the other muniments of human dignity and human rights secured by the first English Charta. These, foreigners brought with them from Europe. Here they found the virtues to extend these rights and their mu- niments. The neglect of the mother country left them self-dependent and self-reliant until they were thoroughty taught the lesson of self-government — that they could be their own sovereigns — and the very experience of des- potism they had once tasted made them hate tyrants, either elective or hereditary. Their destitute and exposed condition trained them to hardy habits, and cultivated in them every sterner virtue. They knew privation, fatigue, endurance, self-denial, fortitude, and were made men at arms — cautious, courageous, generous, just, and trusting in God. They had to fight Indians, from Philip, on Massa- chusetts Bay, to Powhattan, on the river of Swans. And they had an unexplored continent to subdue, with its teeming soil, its majestic forests, its towering mountains, and its une- qualled rivers. Above all things, they needed population, more fellow-settlers, more foreign- ers to immigrate, and to aid them in the task of founders of empire set before them, to open the forests, to level the hills, and to raise up the valleys of a giant new country. Well, these foreigners did their task like men. Such a work ! who can exaggerate it ? They did it against all odds, and in spite of European op- pression. They grew and thrived, until they were rich enough to be taxed. They were WISE, HENRY A. 6 l J7 told taxation was no tyranny. But these foreigners gave the world a new truth of free- dom. Taxation without representation was tyranny. The attempt to impose it upon them, the least mite of it, made them resolve, ''that they would give millions for defence, but not a cent for tribute." That resolve drove them to the necessity of war, and they, foreigners, Protestants, Catholics and all, took the dire alternative, united as a band of bro- thers, and declared their dependence upon God alone. And they entered to the world a complaint of grievances — a Declaration of In- dependence ! This was pretty well to show whether foreigners, of any and all religions, just fresh from Europe, could be trusted on the side of America and liberty. One of the first of their complaints was : — He (George III.) has endeavored to prevent the population of these states, for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of fo- reigners, refusing to pass others to encourage their emigration hither, and raising the con- ditions of new appropriations of land." There is the proof that they valued the na- turalization of foreigners, and the immigration of foreigners hither, and they desired appro- priations, new appropriations of land, for im- migrants. Another complaint was, that they had ap- pealed in vain to " British brethren." They said : — " We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations, &c. They, too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and. con- sanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends." There is proof, too, that Nativism can't always be relied on to help one's own country- men, and that brethren, and kindred, and con- sanguinity, will fail a whole people in trouble, just as kinship too often fails families and in- dividuals in the trials of life. "And," lastly, "for the support of this De- claration, with a firm reliance on the protec- tion of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our tacred honor." There was tolerance, there was firm reliance on the same one God ; there was mutuality of pledge, each to the other, at one altar, and there was a common stake of sacrifice — "lives, fortunes, and honor." And who were they? There were Hancock the Puritan, Penn the Quaker, llutledge the Huguenot, Carroll the Catholic, Lee the Cavalier, Jefferson the Free Thinker. These, representatives of all the signers, and the signers, representatives of all the people of all the colonies. Oh ! my countrymen, did not that " ple.ge" bind them and bind us, their heirs, for ever to faith and hope in God and tc charity for each other — to tolerance in religion, and to " mutu- ality" in political freedom ? Down, down with any organization, then, which " denounces" a "separation" between Protestant Virginia and Catholic Maryland — between the child- ren of Catholic Carroll and Protestant George Wythe. Their names stand together among " the signatures," and I will redeem their " mutual" pledges with my " life," my " for- tune," and my " sacred honor," " so far as in me lies — so help me, Almighty God !" I think that here is proof enough that " fo- reigners" and Catholics both entered as ma- terial elements into our Americanism. But before the 4th day of July there were laws passed of the highest authority, to which this secret organization is opposed. On the 12th of June, 1776, the convention of Virginia passed a " Declaration of Rights." Its 4th section declares : " that no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services ; which not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator or judge to be heredi- tary." Now, does the Know-Nothing organization not claim for the "native born" " set of men" to be entitled to exclusive privileges from the community as against naturalized and Catho- lic citizens ; and thus, by virtue of birth, to inherit the right of election to the offices of magistrates, legislator, or judge, which are not descendible ? They set up no such claim for the individual person native born, but they do set up a quality for nativity, to which, and to which alone, they claim, pertains the privi- leges of eligibility to offices. Again : — Does this organization not violate the 7th section of this declaration of rights, which forbids " all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, as injurious to their rights, and which ought not to be exercised ?" When the laws say, and the representatives of the people say, that Catholics and naturalized citizens shall be tolerated and allowed to enjoy the privi- leges of citizenship, and eligibility to office, have they not organized a secret power to suspend these laws, and to prevent the execu- tion of them, by their sole authority, without consent of the representatives of the people ? This declaration denounces it as injuriousto the rights of the people, and as a power which ought not to be exercised. Again : — Does not this organization annul that part of the 8th section of this declaration, which says: "That no man shall he deprived of his liberty, except by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers?" This don't apply alone to personal liberty, the freedom of the body from prison, but no man shall be deprived of his franchises of any sort, of his liberty in its largest sense, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers, the trial by jury. Has, then, a private and secret tribunal a 'right to impose qualifications for C98 THE POLITICAL TEXT BOOK. office, and to enforce their laws by test oaths, so as to deprive any man of his liberty to be elected ? Again : — Is this organization not an im- periura in imperio against the 14th section of this declaration, which says : " That the peo- ple have a right to uniform government, and, therefore, that no government separated from or independent of the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof." It is not a government, but does it not, will it not, politically govern the f»ortion of the people belonging to it, differently rom what the portion of the people not be- longing to it, are governed by the laws of Virginia? Again : — It does not adhere to the "justice and moderation" inculcated in the 15th section of the declaration. And lastly, it avowedly opposes the 16th section, which declares, "that religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence ; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity to- wards each other." But this organization not only contravenes the rules of our Declaration of Independence and rights, but it is in the face of a positive and perpetual statute, now made a part of our organic law by the new Constitution — the Act of Religious Freedom, passed the 16th of De- cember, 1785. Against this law, this Know- Nothing order attacks the freedom of the mind, by imposing "civil incapacitations:" it " attempts to punish one religion and to pro- pagate another by coercion on both body and mind ;" it "sets up its own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible ;" it makes our " civil rights to have a depend- ence on our religious opinions ;" it " deprives citizens of their natural rights, by proscribing them as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon them an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless they profess to renounce this or that religious opinion ;" " it tends to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it ;" it lacks confidence in truth, which "is great and will prevail," if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate ; it withdraws errors from free argument and debate, and hides them in secret, where they become dangerous, because it is not permitted freely to contradict them . Let it not be said that this is a restraining statute upon government, and is a prohibition to " legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical." If they even are restrained by this law, a fortiori, every private organiza* tion, or order, or individual, is restrained. The Know-Nothings will hardly pretend to do what the government itself, and legislators, and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, dare not do. If such be their pretensions they claim to be above the law, or to set up a higher law — then, sic volo, to compel a man to fre- quent or support any religious worship, and to enforce, restrain, molest, or burthen him, or " to make him suffer" on account of his religious opinions or belief; or to deprive men of their freedom to profess, and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of re- ligion, and to make the same diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. No, when our constitutions forbid the legislators to exercise a power, they intend that no such power shall be exercised by any one. Not only is the law of Virginia thus liberal as to religion, but also as to naturalization. So far as " Know-Nothingism" opposes our naturalization laws, it is not only against our statute policy, but against Americanism itself. In this it is especially anti-American. One of the best fruits of the American Revolution was to establish, for the first time in the world, the human right of expatriation. Prior to our separate existence as a nation of the earth, the despotisms of the old world had made a law unto themselves, whereby they could hold for ever in chains those of mankind who were so unfortunate as to be born their subjects. In respect to birthright and the right of expatria- tion, and the duty of allegiance and protection, and the law of treason, crowned heads held to the ancient dogma: " Once a citizen always a citizen." If a man was so miserable as to be born the slave of a tyrant, he aiust remain his slave for ever. He could never renounce his ill-fated birthright — could never expatriate himself to seek for a better country — and could never forswear the allegiance which bound him to his chains. He might emigrate, might take the wings of the morning and fly to the uttermost parts of the earth, might cross seas and continents, and put oceans, and rivers, and lakes, and mountains between him and the throne in the shadow of which he was born, and he would still "but drag a length- ening chain." Still the despotism might pur- sue him, find and bind him as a subject slave. If America beckoned to him to fly to her for freedom, and to give her the cunning and the strength of his right arm to help ameliorate her huge proportions and to work out her grand destiny, the tyrant had to be asked for passports and permission to expatriate. But they came — lo ! they came ! Our laws en- couraged them to come. Before '76, Virginia and all the colonies encouraged immigration. It was a necessity as well as a policy of the whole country. Early in the Revolution, the king's forces hung some of the best blood of the colonies, under the maxim, "Once a citi- zen always a citizen." They were traitors if found fighting for us, because they were once subjects. Washington was obliged to hold WISE, HENRY A. 690 hostages, to prevent the application of this barbarous doctrine of tyranny. At last our struggle ended, and our independence was recognised. George III. was compelled to re- nounce our allegiance to him, though we were born his subjects. But still, when we came to our separate existence, we were called on to recognise the same odious maxim, still ad- hered to by the despots of Europe : " Once a citizen always a citizen." Subjects were still told that they should not expatriate them- selves, and America was warned that she should not naturalize them without the con- sent of their monarch masters. Spurning this dogma, and the tyrants who boasted the power to enforce it, the 4th power which the Conven- tion of 1787, that formed our blessed Constitu- tion, enumerated, is : " The Congress shall have power ' to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.' " The meaning of this was, to say by public law to all Europe and her combined courts, " Your dogma, ' once a citizen always a citi- zen,' shall cease for ever as to the United States of North America. We need popula- tion to smooth our rough places, and to make our crooked places straight; but, above and beyond that policy, we are, with the help of God, resolved that this new and giant land shall be one vast asylum for the oppressed of every other land, now and for ever I" That is my reading of our law of liberty. Those born in bondage might raise their eyes up in hope of a better country ! They might, and should if they would, expatriate themselves, fly from slavery and chains, and come ! — Ho, every one of them, come to our country and be free with us ! They might forswear their allegiance to despots, and should be allowed here to take an oath to liberty and her flag, and her freedom, and they should not be pur- sued and punished as traitors. When they came and swore that our country should be their country, we would swear to protect them as if in the country born, as if natives — i. e., as naturalized citizens, and they should be our citizens and be entitled to our protection. And this was in conformity to the only true idea of " Naturalization," which, according to its legal as well as its etymological sense, means, " when one who is an alien is made a natural subject by act of law and consent of the sovereign power of the state." The con- sent of our sovereign power is written in the Constitution of the United States, and Con- gress, at an early day after its adoption, passed the acts of naturalization. The leading statute is that of April 14, 1802. It provided that any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following con- ditions, and not otherwise : — 1st. That he shall have declared on oath or affirmation before the supreme, superior, dis- trict, or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territorial districts of the United States, 01* a Circuit or District Court of the United States, three years (two years by act of May 26, 1824) at least before his admis- sion, that it was bis bona fide intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce for ever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sover- eignty, whereof such alien may at the time be a citizen or subject. 2d. That he shall, at the time of his appli- cation to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he doth abso- lutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state ; or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject ; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court. 3d. That the court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held, one year, at least ; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the prin- ciples of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and hap- piness of the same : Provided, That the oath of the applicant shall in no case be allowed to prove his residence. 4th. That in case the alien applying to bo admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility in the court to which his application shall be made, which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court : Provided, That no alien who shall be a native, citizen, denizen, or subject of any country, state, or sovereign, with whom the United States shall be at war at the time of his application, shall then be admitted to be a citizen of the United States. The act has other provisions, and has since been modified from time to time. This statute had not operated a legal lifetime before Great Britain again asserted the dogma : " Once a citizen, always a citizen !" The base and cowardly attack of the Leopard on the Chesa- peake, at the mouth of this very bay, in sight of the Virginia shore, was made upon the claim of right to seize British born subjects from on board our man-of-war. The star- spangled banner was struck that day for the last time to the detestable maxim of tyranny : " Once a citizen, always a citizen." It must not be forgotten that it was upon this doctrine of despots that the Right of Search was founded. They arrogated to themselves the prerogative to search our decks on the high seas, and to seize those of our crews who were born in British dominions. In 1812, we declared the last war. For what ? For " Free Trade and Sailors' Rights." That is, for the 700 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. right of oui naturalized citizen-sailors to sail on the high seas, and to trade abroad free from search and seizure. They had been required to " renounce and abjure," all " alle- giance and fidelity" to any other country, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to the country, state, or sovereignty under which they have been natives or citizens, and we had reciprocally undertaken to protect them in consideration of their oaths of allegiance and fidelity to the United States. How pro- tect them? By enabling them to fulfil their obligations to us of allegiance and fidelity, by making them free to fight for our flag, and free in every sense, just as if they had been born in our country. Fight for us they did ; naturalized, and those not naturalized, were of our crews. They fought in every sea for the flag which threw protection over them, from the first gun of the Constitution frigate to the last gun of the boats on Lake Pont- chartrain, in every battle where " Cannon's mouths were each other greeting, And yard aim was with yard arm meeting." That war sealed, in the blood of dead and living heroes, the eternal American prin- ciple : — " The right of expatriation, the right and duty of naturalization — the right to fly from tyranny to the flag of freedom, and the reciprocal duties of allegiance and protection." And does a party — an order or what not, calling itself an American party, now oppose and call upon me to oppose these great Amer- ican truths, and to put America in the wrong for declaring and fighting the last war of In- dependence against Great Britain ? Never ! I would soon go back to wallowing in the mire of European serfdom. I won't do it. I can't do it. No : I will lie down and rise up a Na- tive American, for and not against these im- perishable American truths. Nor will any true American, who understands what Amer- icanism is, do otherwise. I put a case : — A Prussian born subject came to this coun- try. He complied with our naturalization laws in all respects of notice of intention, re- sidence, oath of allegiance, and proof of good moral character. He remained continuously in the United States the full period of five years. When he had fully filled the measure of his probation and was consummately a na- turalized citizen of the United States, he then, and not until then, returned to Prussia to visit an aged father. He was immediately, on his return, seized and forced into the Landwehr, or militia system of Prussia, under the maxim : " Once a citizen, always a citizen !" There he is forced to do service to the king of Prussia at this very hour. He applies for protection to the United States. Would the Know- Nothings interpose in his behalf or not? .Look at the principles involved. We, by our laws, encouraged him to come to our country, and here he was allowed to become natural- ized, and to that end required to renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to the king of Prussia, and to swear allegiance and fidelity to the United States The king of Prussia now claims no legal forfeiture from him — he punishes him for no crime — he claims of him no legal debt — he claims alone that very allegiance and fidelity which we required the man to abjure and renounce. Not only so, but he hinders the man from returning to the United States, and from discharging the allegiance and fidelity we required him to swear to the United States. The king of Prussia says he should do him service for seven years, for this was what he was born to perform ; his obligations were due to him first, and his laws were first binding him. The United States say — true, he was born under your laws, but he had a right to expatriate himself; he owed allegiance first to you, but he had a right to forswear it and to swear al- legiance to us ; your laws first applied, but this is a case of political obligation, not of legal obligation ; it is not for any crime or debt you claim to bind him, but it is for alle- giance ; and the claim you set up to his ser- vices on the ground of his political obligation, his allegiance to you, which we allow him to abjure and renounce, -is inconsistent with his political obligation, his allegiance, which we required him to swear to the United States ; he has sworn fidelity to us, and we have, by our laws, pledged protection to him. Such is the issue. Now, with which will the Know-Nothings take sides ? With the king of Prussia against our naturalized citizen and against America, or with America and our naturalized citizen ? Mark, now, Know- Nothingism is opposed to all foreign influence — against American institutions. The king of Prussia is a pretty potent foreign influence — he was one of the holy alliance of crowned heads. Will they take part with him, and not protect the citizen ? Then they will aid a foreign influence against our laws ! Will they takes sides with our naturalized citizen ? If so, then upon what grounds ? Now, they must have a good cause of interposition to justify us against all the received dogmas of European despotism. Don't they see, can't they perceive, that they have no other grounds than those I have urged ? He is our citizen, nationalized, owing us allegiance and we owing him protection. And if we owe him protection abroad, because of his sworn allegiance to us as a naturalized citizen, what then can deprive him of his privi- leges at home among us when he returns ? If he be a citizen at all, he must be allowed the privileges of citizenship, or he will not be the equal of his fellow-citizens. And must not Know-Nothingism strike at the very equality of citizenship, or allow him to enjoy all its lawful privileges ? If Catholics and natural- ized citizens are to be citizens and yet to be proscribed from office, they must be rated as an inferior class — an excluded class of citi- zens. Will it be said that the law will not make this distinction ? Then are we to under- stand that Know-Nothings would not make them equal by law ? If not by law, how can WISE, HENRY A. 70. they pretend to make them unequal, by their secret order, without law and against law ? For them, by secret combination, to make them unequal, to impose a burthen or restric- tion upon their privileges which the law does not, is to set themselves up above the law, and to supersede by private and secret authority, intangible and irresponsible, the rule of public, political right. Indeed, is this not the very essence of the "Higher Law" doctrine? It cannot be said to be legitimate public sentiment and the action of its authority. Public senti- ment, proper, is a concurrence of the common mind in some conclusion, conviction, opinion, taste, or action in respect to persons or things subject to its public notice. It will, and it must control the minds and actions of men, by public and conventional opinion. Count Mole said that in France it was stronger than stat- utes. It is so here. That it is which should decide at the polls of a republic. But, here is a secret sentiment, which may be so organized as to contradict the public sentiment. Candi- date A. may be a native and a Protestant, and may concur with the community, if it be a Know-Nothing communit} 7 , on every other sub- ject except that of proscribing Catholics and naturalizedcitizens; and candidate B.may con- cur with the community on the subject of this proscription alone, and upon no other subject ; and yet the Know-Nothings might elect B. by their secret sentiment against the public senti- ment. Thus it attacks not only American doctrines of expatriation, allegiance, and pro- tection, but the equality of citizenship, and the authority of public sentiment. In the affair of Koszta, how did our blood rush to his rescue ? Did the Know-Nothing side with him and Mr. Marcy, or with Hulseman and Aus- tria ? If with Koszta, why ? Let them ask themselves for the rationale, and see if it can in reason abide with their orders. There is no middle ground in respect to naturalization. We must either have naturalization laws and let foreigners become citizens, on equal terms of capacities and privileges, or we must ex- clude them altogether. If we abolish natural- ization laws, we return to the European dog- ma : "Once a citizen, always a citizen." If we let foreigners be naturalized and don't ex- tend to them equality of privileges, we set up classes and distinctions of persons wholly op- posed to republicanism. We will, as Home did, have citizens who may be scourged. The three alternatives are presented — Our present policy, liberal, and just, and tolerant, and equal ; or the European policy of holding the noses of native born slaves to the grind-stone of tyranny all their lives ; or, odious distinc- tions of citizenship tending to social and poli- tical aristocracy. I am for the present laws of naturalization. As to religion, the Constitution of the United States, art. 6, sec. 3, especially provides that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. The state of Virginia has, from her earliest history, passed the most lib- eral laws, not only towards naturalization, but towards foreigners. But I have said enough to show the spirit of American laws and the true sense of American maxims. 3d. Know-Nothingism is against the spirit of Reformation and of Protestantism. What was there to reform? Let the most bigoted Protestant enumerate what he defines to have been the abominations of the church of Rome. What would he say were the worst ? The secrets of Jesuitism, of the Auto da fe, of the Monasteries and of the Nunneries. The private penalties of the In- quisition's Scavenger's Daughter. Proscrip- tion, persecution, bigotry, intolerance, shutting up of the book of the word. And do Protest- ants now mean to out-Jesuit the Jesuits ? Do they mean to strike and not be seen ? To be felt and not to be heard ? To put a shudder upon humanity by the masks of mutes ? Will they wear the monkish cowls ? Will they in- flict penalties at the polls without reasoning together with their fellows at the hustings ? Will they proscribe ? Persecute ? Will they bloat up themselves into that bigotry which would burn non-conformists ? Will they not tolerate freedom of conscience, but doom dis- senters, in secret conclave, to a forfeiture of civil privileges for a religious difference ? Will they not translate the scripture of their faith ? Will they visit us with dark lanterns and exe* cute us by signs, and test oaths, and in secrecy ? Protestantism ! forbid it ! If anything was ever open, fair, and free — • if anything was ever blatant even — it was the Reformation. To quote from a mighty British pen : "It gave a mighty impulse and increased activity to thought and inquiry, agitated the inert mass of accumulated prejudices through- out Europe. The effect of the concussion was general, but the shock was greatest in this country" (England). It toppled down the full grown intolerable abuses of centuries at a blow ; heaved the ground from under the feet of bigoted faith and slavish obedience ; and the roar and dashing of opinions, loosened from their accustomed hold, might be heard like the noise of an angry sea, and has never yet subsided. Germany first broke the spell of misbegotten fear, and gave the watchword ; but England joined the shout, and echoed it back, with her island voice, from her thousand cliffs and craggy shores, in a longer and a louder strain. With that cry the genius of Great Britain rose, and threw down the gaunt- let to the nations. There was a mighty fer- mentation : the waters were out ; public opinion was in a state of projection ; liberty was held out to all to think and speak the truth ; men's brains were busy; their spirits stirring : their hearts full ; and their hands not idle. Their eyes were opened to expect the greatest things, and their ears burned with curiosity and zeal to know the truth, that the truth might make them free. The death blow which had been struck at scarlet vice and bloated hypocrisy, loosened tongues, and made the talismans and love tokens of popish superstitions with which 702 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. she had beguiled hei followers and committed abominations with the people, fall harmless from their necks." The translation of the Bible was the chief engine in the great work. It threw open, by a secret spring, the rich treasures of religion and morality, which had then been locked up as in a shrine. It revealed the visions of the Prophets, and conveyed the lessons of inspired teachers to the meanest of the people. It gave them a common interest in a common cause. Their hearts burnt within them as they read. It gave a mind to the people, by giving them common subjects of thought and feeling. It cemented their Union of character and senti- ment ; it created endless diversity and collision of opinion. They found objects to employ their faculties, and a motive in the magnitude of the consequences attached to them, to exert the utmost eagerness in the pursuit of truth, and the most daring intrepidity in maintain- ing it. Religious controversy sharpens the understanding by the subtlety and remoteness of the topics it discusses, and braces the will by their infinite importance. We perceive in the history of this period a nervous, masculine intellect. No levity, no feebleness, no indiffer- ence ; or, if there were, it is a relaxation from the intense activity which gives a tone to its general character. But there is a gravity ap- proaching to piety, a seriousness of impres- sion, a conscientious severity of argument, an habitual fervor of enthusiasm in their method of handling almost every subject. The de- bates of the schoolmen were sharp and subtle enough: but they wanted interest and grand- eur, and were besides confined to a few. They did not affect the general mass of the com- munity. But the Bible was thrown open to all ranks and conditions " to own and read," with its wonderful table of contents, from Genesis to the Revelations. Every village in England would present the scene so well des- cribed in Burns's " Cotter's Saturday Night." How unlike this agitation, this shock, this angry sea, this fermentation, this shout and its echoes, this impulse and activity, this concussion, this general effect, this blow, this earthquake, this roar and dashing, this longer and louder strain, this public opinion, this liberty to all to think and speak the truth, this stirring of spirits, ^his opening of eyes, this zeal to know — not nothing — but the truth, that the truth might make them free. How unlike to this is Know- Nothingism, sitting and brooding in secret to proscribe Catholics and naturalized citizens ! Protestantism protested against secrecy, it protested against shutting out the light f truth, it protested against proscription, bigotry, and intolerance. It loosened all tongues, and fought the owls and bats of night with the light of meridian day. The argument of Know-Nothings is the argument of silence. The order ignores all knowledge. And its pro- scription can't arrest itself within the limit of excluding Catholics and naturalized citizens. It must proscribe natives and Protestants both, who will not consent to unite in pro- scribing Catholics and naturalized citizens. Nor is that all ; it must not only apply to birth and religion, it must necessarily extend itself to the business of life as well as to poli- tical preferments. The instances have already occurred. Schoolmistresses have been dis- missed from schools in Philadelphia, and car- penters from a building in Cincinnati. 4th. It is not only opposed to the Re- formation and Protestantism, but it is opposed to the faith, hope, and charity of the gospel. Never was any triumph more complete than that of the open conflict of Protestants against the Pope and priestcraft. They did not oppose, proscription because it was a policy of Catho- lics ; but they opposed Catholics because they employed proscription. Proscription, not Ca- tholics, was the odium to them. Here, now, is Know-Nothingism combating proscription and exclusiveness with proscription and ex- clusiveness, secrecy with secrecy, Jesuitism with Jesuitism. Toleration, by American ex- ample, had begun its march throughout the earth. It trusted in the power of truth, had faith in Christian love and charity, and in the certainty that God would decide the contest. Here, now, is an order proposing to destroy the effect of our moral example. The Pope himself would soon be obliged, by our moral suasion, to yield to Protestants in Catholic countries their privileges of worship and rites of burial. But, no, the proposition now is, " to fight the devil with fire," and to proscribe and exclude because they proscribe and exclude. And they take up the weapons of Popery without knowing how to wield them half so cunningly as the Catholics do. The Popish priests are rejoiced to see them giving coun- tenance to their example, and expect to make capital and will make capital out of this step backwards from the progress of the Reforma- tion. Protestantism has lost nothing by tolera- tion, but may lose much by proscription. 5th. It is against the peace and purity of the Protestant churches and in aid of priest- craft within their folds, to secretly organize orders for religious combined with political ends. The world — I mean the sinner's world — will be set at war with the sects who unite in this crusade against tolerance and freedom of conscience and of speech. Christ's king- dom is not of this world, and freemen will not submit to have the Protestant any more than the Catholic churches attempt to influence poli- tical elections, without a struggle from with- out. And the churches from within must reach a point when they must struggle among themselves and with each other. Peace is the fruit of righteousness, and righteousness and peace must flee away together from a fierce worldly war for secular power. And the churches must be corrupted, too, as evil pas- sions, hatred, and jealousy, and ambition, and envy, and revenge, and strife arise, and temp- tations steal away the hearts of votaries from the humble service of the "meek and lowly Jesus." Protestant priestcraft is cousin ger- maiu to Catholic ; and where is this to end but WISE, nENRY A. 703 in giving to our Protestant priests — the -worst of them, I mean — such as will " put on the livery of heaven to serve the devil in" — a con- trol of political power, and thus to bring about the worst union which could be devised, of church and state ! The state will prostitute and corrupt any church, and any church will enslave any state. Corrupt our Protestant priests as the Catholics have been, with tem- poral and political power, and they will be of the same " old leaven" — the same old beast — the same old ox going about with straw in his mouth ! And where will the war of sects end ? When the Protestant priests have gotten the power, which of their sects is to prevail ? The Catholics proscribed, which denomination next is to fall? The Episcopal church, my mother church, is denounced by some as the bastard daughter of the whore of Rome. Is she next to be put upon the list of proscrip- tion ? And when she is excluded, how are the Predestinarians and Arminians to agree among themselves? Which is to put up the Governor for Virginia or the President for the United States? Which is to have the offices, and how is division to be made of the spoils ? Sir, this secret association, founded on pro- scription and intolerance, must end in nothing short of corruption and persecution of all sects, and in a civil war against the domina- tion of priestcraft, Protestant or Catholic. Indeed, it is so, already, that a real reason for this secrecy is that the priests, who have a zeal without knowledge against the Pope, are unwilling to be seen in their union with this dark-lantern movement ! Woe, woe, woe ! to the hypocrite who leaves the work of his Master, the Prince of Peace, the Great High Priest after the order of Melchisedeck, for a worldly work like this ! 6th. It is against free civil government, by instituting a secret oligarchy, beyond the reach of popular and public scrutiny, and supported by blind instruments of tyranny, bound by test oaths. If the oaths and pro- ceedings of induction of members published be true, they bind the noviciates from the start to a passive obedience but to one law, the order of intolerance and proscription. Men are led to them by a burning curiosity to know that they are to Know Nothing ! The novelty of admission beguiles them into ad- herence. They assemble to take oaths and promise to obey. To obey whom? Do the masses, will the masses, is it intended that the masses of their members shall know whom ? Where is the central seat of the Veiled Prophet ? In New York ? New Eng- land? or Old England? Who knows that Know-Nothingism is not influenced by a cabal abroad — by a foreign influence? Whence passes the sign ? — Of course from a common centre somewhere. Is that centre in Virginia, for the orders here ? If not, is it not alarm- ing that our people in this state are to be swerved by a sign from somewhere, anywhere else, to go for this or that side of a cause, for this or that candidate for election ? Those orders must have degrees ; the degrees are higher and lower, of course, and the higher must prescribe the rule to govern. Each de- gree must have its higher officers, and all the orders must be subject to some one. Now, how many persons constitute the select few of the highest functionaries, nobody knows. Nobody knows who they are, where they are, or how many of them there are. They exist somewhere in the dark. Their blows can't be guarded against, for they strike, not like free- men bold, bravely for rights, but unseen, and to make conquest of rights. Their adherents are sworn to secrecy and to obey. They magnify their numbers and influence by the very mystery of their organization, and the timid and time-serving fly to them for fear of proscription or for hope of reward. They quietly warn friends not to stand in the way of their axe, and friends begin to apprehend that it is time to save themselves by Knowing Nothing. They threaten their enemies, and some of their enemies skulk from fear of of- fending them. They alarm a nation, and a nation, with its political and church parties, gives them at once consideration and respect as a power to be dreaded or courted. Thus, in a night, as it were, has an oligarchy grown up in secret to control our liberties, to dictate to parties, to guide elections, and to pass laws. They are establishing presses, too, but we can- not define from their positions a single princi- ple wnicl. we can say Know-^otnings may not disown and disavow. The Prophet of Khuras- san never gave out words more cabalistic — words to catch by sounds, and sounding the very opposite of what they really mean When they have men's fears, curiosity, hopes, the people's voices, the ballot boxes, the press, at their command, how long will our minds be free, or persons safe, or property secure J Tow long will stand the pillars of freedom of speech and of the pen, when liberty of con- science is gone and birth is jtiade to " make the man ?" He is a dastard, indeed, who fears to oppose an oligarchy or secret cabal like this, and loves not human rights well enough tc protect them. 7th. It is opposed to our progress as a nation No new acquisition can ever be made by pur- chase or conquest, if foreigners or Catholic? are in the boundaries of the acquired countries; for, surely we would not seek to take jurisdic- tion over them ; to make them slaves ; to raise up a distinct class of persons to be excluded from the privileges of a republic. If not for their own sakes, for the sake of the republic we would save ourselves from this example. As early as 1787, we established a great land ordinance. The most perfect system of eminent domain, of proprietary titles, and tff territorial settlements, which the world had ever beheld to bless the homeless children of men. It had the very housewarming of hos- pitality in it. It wielded the logwood axe, and .cleared a continent of forests. It made an exodus in the old world, and dotted the- new with log-cabins, around the hearths of 704 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. which the tears of the aged and the oppressed were wiped away, and cherub children were born to liberty, and sang its songs, and have grown up in its strength and might and majesty. It brought together foreigners of every country and clime — immigrants from Europe of every language and religion, and its most wonderful effect has been to assimi- late all races. Irish and German, English and French, Scotch and Spaniard, have met on the western prairies, in the western woods, and have peopled villages and towns and cities — queen cities, rivalling the marts of eastern commerce ; and the Teutonic and Celtic and Anglo-Saxon races have in a day mingled into one undistinguishable mass — and that one is American !" — American in every sense and in every feeling, in every in- stinct and in every impulse of American pa- triotism. The raw German's ambition is first to acquire land enough upon which to send word back to the Baron he left behind him, that he does not envy him his principality ! The Irishman no longer hurra's for " my Lord" or "my Lady," but exclaims in his heart of hearts that " this is a free country." The children of all are crossed in blood, in the first generation, so that ethnology can't tell of what parentage they are — they all become brother and sister Jonathans — Jonathans to sow and plant grain — Jonathans to raise and drive stock — Jonathans to organize townships and counties and states of free election — Jonathans to establish schools and colleges and rear orators, sages, and statesmen for the Senate — Jonathans to take a true heart aim with the rifle at any foe who dares invade a common country — Jonathans to carry con- quest of liberty to other lands, until the whole earth shall be filled with the glory of Ameri- canism ! As in the colonies, as in the Revolu- tion, as in the last war, so have foreigners and immigrants of every religion and tongue, con- tributed to build up the temple of American law and liberty, until its spire reaches to heaven, whilst its shadow rests on earth ! ! If there has been a turnpike road to be beaten out of the rocky metal, or a canal to be dug, foreigners and immigrants have been armed with the mattock and the spade ; and, if a battle on sea or land had to be fought, foreigners and immigrants have been armed with the musket and the blade. So have foreigners and immigrants proved that their influence has not impaired the genius, or the grace, or gladness, or glory of American in- stitutions. At no time have they warred upon our religion in the west, and they have been at peace among themselves. The Pope has lost more than he has gained of proselytes by the Catholics coming here. No proscription but one has ever disturbed the religious tole- rance of the west, and that one was to drive out the religion of an impostor which struck at every social relation surrounding it. If Know-Nothings may tolerate Mormons, I pan't see why they leave them to their religious liberty and select the very mother church of Protestantism itself for persecution and pro- scription. But the west, I repeat, made up of foreigners and immigrants of every religion and tongue, the west is as purely patriotic, as truly American, as genuinely Jonathan, as any people who can claim our nationality. Now, is not here proof in war and in peace that the apprehension of foreign influence, brought here by immigrants, is not only groundless but contradicted by the facts of our settlements and developments ? Did a nation ever so grow as we have done under land ordinances and our laws of naturalization ? They have not made aristocracies, but sove- reigns and sovereignties of the people of the west. They have strengthened the stakes of our dominion and multiplied the sons and daughters of America so that now she can muster an army, and maintain it, too, oufc- numbering the strength of any invaders, and making " a host of freedom which is the host of God !" Now, shall all this policy and its proud and happy fruits be cast aside for a contracted and selfish scheme of intolerance and exclusion ? Shall the unnumbered sections of our public lands be fenced in against immigrants ? Shall hospitality be denied to foreign settlers ? Shall no asylum be left open to the poor and the oppressed of Europe ? Shall the clearing of our lands be stopped? Shall population be arrested? Shall progress be made to stand still ? Are we surfeited with prosperity ? Shall no more territory be acquired? Shall Bermuda be left a mare clausum of the Gulf of Mexico, and Jamaica, a key of South American con- quest and acquisition, in the hands of Eng- land ; Cuba, a depot of domination over the mouth of the Mississippi, in the hands of Spain, just strong enough to keep it from us for some strong maritime power to seize, whenever they will conquer or force a pur- chase ; Central America, in the gateway of commerce between our Atlantic and Pacific possessions — lest foreigners be lot in among us, and Catholics come to participate in our privileges ? Verily, this is a strange way to help American institutions and to promote American progress. No, we have institutions which can embrace a world, all mankind with all their opinions, prejudices, and passions, however diverse and clashing, provided we adhere to the law of Christian charity and of free toleration. But the moment we dispense with these laws, the pride, and progress, and glory, and good of American institutions will cease for ever, and the memory of them will but goad the affections of their mourners. Selfishness, utter selfishness alone, can enjoy these American blessings, without desiring that all mankind shall participate in their glorious privileges. Nothing, nothing is i-u dangerous to them, nothing can destroy them so soon and so certainly, as secret societies--, formed for political and" religious ends com- bined, founded on proscription and intole- rance, without necessity, against law, against the spirit of the Christian Reformation, against WISE, HENRY A. 705 the whole scope of Protestantism, against the faith, hope, and charity of the Bible, against the peace and purity of the churches ; against free government by leading to oligarchy and a union of church and state ; against human pro- gress, against national acquisitions, against American hospitality and comity, against American maxims of expatriation, and alle- giance and protection, against American set- tlements and land ordinances, against Ameri- canism in every sense and shape ! Lastly. What are the evils complained of, to make a pretext for these innovations against American policy, as heretofore practised with so much success and such exceeding triumph ? 1st. The tirst cause, most prominent, is that the native and Protestant feeling has been exasperated by the course pursued by both political parties, in the last several Presiden- tial campaigns ; they have cajoled and " ho- ney-fugled" with both Catholics and foreign- ers by birth, naturalized and unnaturalized, ad nauseam. Foreigners and Catholics were not so much to blame for that as both parties. And take these election toys from them, and does any one suppose that they would not resort to some other humbug? Is not another hobby now arising to put down both of these pets of party ? Is not the donkey of Know-Nothing- ism now kicking its heels at the lap-dogs of the " rich Irish brogue" and the " sweet Ger- man accent," for the fondlings and pettings of political parties ? 2d. Both parties have violated the election laws and laws of naturalization, in rushing green emigrants, just from on ship-board, up to the polls to vote. This, again, is the fault of both parties. And this is confined chiefly, if not entirely, to the cities. It don't reach to the ballot boxes of the country at large, and is not a drop in the ocean of our political influence. In New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cin- cinnati, and New Orleans, the abuse, I ven- ture to say, don't number, in fact, 500 votes. It is nothing everywhere else, in a country of universal suffrage and of twenty millions of free people. And would perjury and fraud in elections be arrested by the attempt to ex- clude Catholics and foreigners by birth from office ? — or, by extending the limitation of time for naturalization ? — or by repealing the naturalization laws ? Either of these remedies for the error would multiply the perjuries and the frauds and the foreign votes. Then there would be a pretext for obtaining by fraud and force what was denied under law. By making naturalization rather to follow immediately upon the oath of allegiance, and that to de- pend on the will and the good character of the applicant, fraud and perjury would rather be stripped of their pretexts. The foreigners would be at once exalted in their self-respect and dignity of deportment, right would enable them to exercise the elective franchise in peace, and the country would escape the demoraliza- tion resulting from a violation of the laws, and 45 from the means employed to set at nought their force and effect. 3d. Foreigners have abused the protection of the United States abroad. If they have, it was a violation of law. They cannot well do it, without the want of care and vigilance in our consular and diplo- matic functionaries abroad. Citizens at home abuse our protection, and they are not always punished for their crimes. 4th. Catholics, it is urged, have been com- bined and obeyed the signs of their bishops and priests in elections, and have been influ- enced in their votes to a great extent by reli- gious and exclusive considerations. If they have, that is one of the best reasons why Protestants should not follow their ex- ample. It is evil, and the less there is of it the better for all. Let bigotry and proscrip- tion belong to .any sect rather than to Protest- ants. When they follow alleged Catholic ex- amples, which they arraign as dangerous and mischievous, then they themselves become as Catholics, according to their own opinions, dangerous and mischievous. 5th. Catholics and Catholic governments, it is urged, have always excluded Protestants from religious and social privileges in their coun- tries. And how much have we gained upon them by following the opposite policy? By toler- ance we have grown so great as now to make them feel the necessity to respect our title to comity and right to a separate enjoyment of the privileges of Protestants. Our govern- ment is interposing in that behalf, and I fear it will not be assisted any in its negotiations by the attempt here to proscribe Catholics and strangers by birth. 6th. It is complained that in some instances, in New York particularly, the Catholics have been arrogant, exclusive, and anti-republican in their attempts to control the public schools, and to exclude from them the free and open study of the word of God. How can this bigotry be subdued by bigotry, which retires itself in secrecy and proscribes all who dou't proscribe Catholics? There is no homoeopathy in moral disease. Proscrip- tion and bigotry and secrecy must not be pre- scribed for the maladies of proscription, bigotry, and hiding of the word! The dis- eases would then be epidemics among Pro- testants, Catholics, and all. The open and lawful and liberal means for either preven- tion or correction of this evil are simple and efficacious if righteously applied. 7th It is urged that Catholics recognise the supremacy of the Pope and submission to priestcraft, which might, under circumstances, be destructive of our free government. Suppose that to be so, there are worse sects among us, whom Know-Nothings pretend not to assail. There are the Mormon polyga- mists ; there are the necromancers of Spirit- ual Rappings ; and there is a sect which as- pires not only to destroy free government, but the great globe and all that it inhabit — the 706 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. millennial Millerites. And, it is about as likely that Millerites will set the world on fire in one day, as that Popery will ever be able to break up or bow down this republic. The prophecies must all fail, and Christ's domi- nion upon earth must cease, and printing presses and telegraphs and steam must be lost to the arts, and revolutions must go back- wards, and the sky must fall and catch Know- Nothings, before the times of Revelations are out, and the Pope catches " Uncle Sam." No, no, no — there is not a reason in all these complaints, which is not satisfied by our laws as they exist, and not an error, which may not be corrected by the proper applica- tion of the lawful authority at our command, without resorting to the extraordinary, extra- judicial, revolutionary, and anti-American plan of a secret society of intolerance and proscription. I belong to a secret society, but for no poli- tical purpose. I am a native Virginian intus et in cute, a Virginian ; my ancestors on both sides for two hundred years were citizens of this country and this state — half English, half Scotch. I am a Protestant by birth, by baptism, by intellectual belief and by educa- tion and by adoption. I am an American, in every fibre and in every feeling an American ; yet in every character, in every relation, in every sense, with all my head, and all my heart, and all my might, I protest against this secret organization of native Americans, and of Protestants, to proscribe Roman Catho- lic and naturalized citizens ! Now, will they proscribe me ? That question weighs not a feather with Your obedient servant, Henry A. Wise. Reso- Witte, Wm. H., of Pa. Anti-Secret-Political-Association lutions OF. The astonishing increase about the meeting of the second session of the 33d Congress of the then new political party commonly called Know-Nothings, had involved in the changes it produced that of the politics of no small portion of the members of the House. Many representatives who had been elected under the auspices of the old parties had joined the new order, others sympathized with it, whilst others, fearing its apparent gigantic propor- tions, were afraid to show their hands against it. Mr. Wm. H. Witte, a Democratic repre- sentative from the state of Pennsylvania, con- ceived the idea of bringing the House to an expression of opinion as to the new order, through the medium of resolutions in opposi- tion to it. He was aware that it would be impossible to bring the body to a direct vote, 80 he proposed to make the vote on the sus- pension of the rules for the introduction of the resolutions the test. The following are the proceedings which took place in the House on the 5th of February, 1855, which fully ex- plain themselves : — SECRET POLITICAL ASSOCIATION. Mr. Witte. Mr. Speaker, I ask the unani- mous consent of the House to enable me to introduce a preamble and three short resolu- tions. [Cries of " Read them !"] The preamble and resolutions were reported, as follows : — Whereas, discussions have been indulged in this House in Committee of the Whole which, with other circumstances, lead to the conviction that there exists in this country an extensive secret oath-bound political association, which seems intended to interfere with the purity of election, and the legislation of the country, such an association has excited the fears, and induced the solemn warning of Washington in his Farewell Address: Therefore — Resolved, That in the opinion of this House, the existence of secret oath-bound political associations, having in view an interference with the sanctity of the ballot-box and the direction of the course of national or municipal legislation, is inconsistent with, and daugerous to, the institutions of republicanism and directly hostile to the genius of this government. Resolved, That every attempt to proscribe any class of citizens on account of their religious opinions, or to favor or injure any religious denomination by national legislation, is in direct violation of the spirit of the Constitution of the United States. Resolved, That while a careful and strict administration of the naturalization laws is a solemn duty, yet every inter- ference with the guarantied rights of naturalized citizens, is inconsistent with the plighted faith of the nation, and must diminish its growth and prosperity. Mr. Mace. I object. Mr. Witte. I move a suspension of the rules, for the purpose of enabling me to intro- duce these resolutions, and on that motion I call for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. Witte. I wish that the vote by which the motion to suspend the rules maybe adopted or rejected, may be regarded as a test vote on the resolution. Mr. Florence and other members. Oh ! every one understands that. Mr. Went worth of 111. I wish to ask a question of the Chair. Will it now be_ in order to have a call of the House ? I think all the members ought to be present when this vote is taken. I therefore move that there be a call of the House. [Cries " Oh ! no." " We are all here."] Mr. Wentworth. I ask for the yeas and nays on my motion for a call of the House. That will show the opinions of members on the matter. . Mr. Bayly of Va. Nobody can make testa for the members of the House. This is no proper matter of legislation, and I shall vote against the suspension of the rules. The yeas and nays were not ordered. Mr. Wentworth demanded tellers on the call for the yeas and nays, but subsequently withdrew the demand. Mr. Smith of Tenn. I wish to ask if it is in order now to move to suspend the rules for the purpose of going into the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union ? The Speaker. Not while the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Witte | is pending. WITTE, WILLIAM H. 707 Mr. Jones of Term. I am satisfied that there will be no good, but some harm done here to-day ; and I therefore move that this House do now adjourn. The question was taken ; and the motion was not agreed to. The question on the motion of Mr. Witte was then taken ; and it was decided in the negative — yeas 103, nays 78, as follows : — Teas. — Messrs. James C. Allen, Willis Allen, Appleton, Ashe, David J. Bailey, Barksdale, Barry, Belcher, Benton, Bliss. Bocock, Boyce, Breckinridge, Bridges. C&skie.Chandlr, Chastain, Chrisman, Clark, Craige, Curtis, John G. Davis, Thomas Davis, Dawson, Edmands, Edinundson, Thomas D. Eliot. John M. Elliott, Ellison, English, Farley, Florence, Fuller, Giddings, Green, Greenwood. Hamilton, Hastings, Hendricks. Henn, Hibbard, Hiester, Hill, Hillyer, Ingeisoll, Johnson, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Roland Jones, Keitt. Kidwell, Kurtz, Lamb, Letcher. Lilly. Liudsley, Mae- douidd, McDougall, McMullin. McXair. McQueen, Maxwell, May, Smith Miller. Morrison, Nichols, Noble, Olds, Orr, John Perkins, Phelps, Richardson, Riddle, Robbins, Rowe. Ruffin, Russell. Seymour, Shaw, Shower, Simmons, Singleton, Samuel A. Smith, George W. Smyth, Richard H. Stanton, Straub. Andrew Stuart. David Stuart. John J. Taylor. Trout, Tweed, Upham, Vansant, Walbridge, Walker, Walley, Walsh, Warren, Elilni B. Washburne, Wells. John Wentwurth, Witte. Daniel B. Wright, Hendrick B. Wright— 103. Nays.— Messrs. Aiken, Thomas H. Bayly, Ball, Banks. Bennett, Benson, Bugg, Carpenter,Carvtliers, Chase, Clingman, Cobb. Cook, Onrioin, Disney, Dunham, Eastman, Edgerton, Etheridge, Everhart. Faulkner, Feuton, Flagler, Franklin, Goodwin. Gray, Grow. ^larorc Harlan. Andrew J. Harlan, Haven, Houston, Howe, Hunt, Daniel T.Jones, Kerr. Knos. Latham, Lindky. Lyon, McCulloch, Mace, Mattesan, Mayali, JMddieswarth, Millson, Morgan, Murray, Andrew Oliver, Mordecai Oliver, Parker, Peckham, Pennington, Phillips. Pratt, Pringle, Puryear, Ready, Reese, David Ritchie, Thomas Ritchey. Rogers. Sabin, Sage, Sapp. Seward. Shannon. Shl- tnn, Sollers, Frederick P. Stanton. John L. Taylor, Nathaniel G. Taylor, Teller, Thurston, Tracy, Wade, Wheeler, Yates, Zollicoffer — 78. Those in roman, Democrats ; classification according to politics when elected. So (two-thirds not voting in favor thereof) the rules of the House were not suspended. Pending the announcement of the vote, Mr. Sollers asked to have the resolutions again read. [Cries of " Object !"] The Speaker. It is not strictly in order while the vote ; s being taken, objection being made Mr. Corwin. Is it proposed to make this a test vote on the resolutions? The Speaker. The Chair knows nothing about that. Mr. Corwin. Do my brethren around here suppose this to be a test vote ? Several members. Oh no. Mr. Corwin. If so, I vote no. Mr. Campbell. I was called out of my seat .on business, and was not within the bar when my name was called. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to my voting. Several members. I object. Mr. Lancaster. I would inquire from the Chair whether Delegates can be permitted to vote on resolutions of this character ? The Speaker. Delegates are not entitled to vote. Mr. Lewis. I was not within the bar when my name was called, but I suppose that it is competent for me to ask the unanimous con- sent of the House to record my vote. Mr. Keitt. Unless the gentleman from Ohio be allowed to vote I will object. Mr. Lewis. Then I will say that if I were permitted to give my vote, I should have voted m the negative. Mr, Ccllom. If I had been within the bar when my name was called, I should have voted in the negative. Mr. Faulkner of Va., on the 9th of Feb., 1855, made the following explanation of tho reasons which governed his vote and that of other Democrats in the House upon it: — . I ask, sir, then, with what propriety could I have aided, by my vote, the introduction be- fore this House, of resolutions such as those submitted by the gentleman from Pennsylva- nia, which, however sound they may be in their political teachings, propose no legislation whatever by Congress ; are merely declaratory of individual opinion, and would only lead to debate and a useless consumption of time that should be devoted to the urgent wants of the country ? 1 ask, more especially, with what propriety could I record my assent to this waste of time, when that branch of the public service which has, in some measure, been specially confided to my care, was then, and is, at this moment, most grievously suffering for want of the legislation of this House? Sir, I thought it better to submit to a temporary misconstruction of my motives, than to exhibit such infidelity to the trust reposed in me. The views which influenced my vote were, I believe, participated in by nearly every chairman of an important committee in this House, who manifested, by their course, the same repugnance that I did, to see the time of this bod} 7 consumed in action upon mere abstract resolutions, when the necesssitics of the country so loudly call for practical mea- sures of legislation. I may here refer to the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means [Mr. Houston], to the chairman of tho Committee on Foreign Relations [Mr. Bayly], to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee [Mr. Stanton], to the chairman of the Com- mittee on Public Lands [Mr. Disney], to the chairman of the Committee of Claims [Mr Edgerton], to the chairman of the Committee on Revolutionary Claims [Mr. Peckham], to the chairman of the Committee on Roads and Canals [Mr Dunham], to the chairman of the Committee on Printing [Mr. Murray], and perhaps others who concurred in their vote with me ; but of those gentlemen named, I can speak with confidence, as they all have seats near to me, and my opposition to the sus- pension of the rules was the result of a con- sultation between three of the gentlemen named and myself, founded upon the pressing condition of the business of the House. Mr. Speaker, I will not abuse the courtesy which has been so kindly extended to me by the House, by indulging in any general re- marks on the merits of the resolutions which 708 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. were sought to be introduced by the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. But I trust I may be allowed, in conclusion, to say that, although I did not, and will not, hereafter, under simi- lar circumstances, vote for the suspension of the rules, yet, that I do not yield to that gen- tleman or to any other member of this body in my firm determination to maintain the rights of conscience, and the inviolability of the great principles of religious freedom. I am not, never have been, and never expect to be, a member of any oath-bound secret politi- cal association. I claim communion with but one political organization — and that is the great national Democratic party of this coun- try — a party that has shown itself, after the most ample experience, broad enough to em- brace all the vast interests of liberty and hu- manity, and strong enough to uphold by its firm and conservative grasp, the Constitution of my country and the Union of these states* APPENDIX. Admission of Kansas, under the Lecomp- ton Constitution. The following, taken from the debates during the first session of the Thirty-fifth Congress, and from published letters and speeches, present the views of the several public men whose names are attached to the extracts, on the ad- mission of Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton Constitution : — Hon. Garnett B. Adrain of New Jersey, in the House of Representatives, March 20th, 1858. " But the vote, Mr. Chairman, on the Lecompton consti- tution on the 4th of January, was a legal one. The law of the territorial legislature authorizing it was legal. That legislature had full power to make it, and it would have been derelict in its duty to the people of Kansas, not to have done so. It was the territorial legislature which authorized the holding of the convention that adopted the Lecompton constitution ; and it was the territorial legisla- ture which authorized the vote on the 4th of January. The convention had no power to deprive that legislature of the right of passing laws for the benefit and protection of the people. Here was a convention which framed a constitution, not in accordance with the sense and wishes of the people of Kansas, but in direct opposition to both; and the territorial legislature, acting as the guardian to the rights and liberty of the people, passed the law affording to them the right to say whether the Lecompton constitution was acceptable to them or not, before it was sent to Congress. If it had no such authority to pass the law, then the convention was above the legislature, the very power which called it into being. The legislature was still in existence, and only ceases its territorial power on the admission of Kansas as a state into this Union; and 'its power over the whole subject was as full and absolute on the 17th day of December, when the law was enacted providing for the submission of the consti- tution to the people at the election on the 4th of January, as it was on the 19th day of February, 1857, when the legislature passed the act calling the Lecompton conven- tion into existence.' " Hon. Thomas L. Anderson of Missouri, in the House of Representatives. " When they saw the people of the North impelled by a spirit of mad fanaticism, organizing large moneyed associa- tions, under the authority of one of the states of this Union, for the purpose of sending to that territory, ' to prevent the introduction of slavery,' a population such as they might gather principally from the purlieus of their large cities — such as had recently landed upon our shores, unacquainted with our laws and constitution, unimbued with the spirit and genius of our institutions, for the purpose of mould- ing and controlling the institutions of that territory, and for the unjust and unconstitutional purpose of dispossessing the people of the South of their legitimate interest in it ; with the undisguised object in view of compelling those who had gone or might go with slave property, under the protection and by the authority of the Constitution of the United States, either to forsake their homes and flee the country, or yield up their property to the unconstitutional demand of a predatory army, whose next field of operations, ai announced by many of them, was Missouri ; then, and not till then, did the people of Missouri think themselves excusable at least, if not justifiable, at the commencement of this unholy crusade, in aiding in the protection of their rights. "Let me also say, Mr. Chairman, that when this excitement shall pass away, and when the faithful historian shall com- mit to paper the stirring events connected with the settle- ment of Kansas, the people of this country will learn, and coming generations know, that the emigrant aid societies of the North — by the character of the population they sent there, with the avowed purpose for which it was sent — super- induced the outrageous and unlawful act3 that have been perpetrated upon the soil of Kansas." Hon. T. D. C. Atkins of Tennessee, in the House of Repre- sentatives, February 17th, 1858. "This is a representative government; it is sui generis; no other nation, either of ancient or modern times, so per- fectly embodies the representative principle. It is our boast that all power is inherent in the people, and that our public officers are at last but our public servants. For convenience and practicability re delegate that power to chosen ones for specified purposes, to act as our servants or agents. " Now, there is no ru'" of law better established, and the validity of which is more universally acknowledged, than that, whatever is done by a duly and legally authorized agent, the principal is bound. It is especially true when applied to our political polity. We are emphatically a repre- sentative government, as before observed. What we do here in Congress, our constituency, through us, have done. We are the medium, so to speak, through which they communi- cate one with another, and to the world. Sir, will it be con- tended that the convention was not duly authorized to make a constitution? The proof is abundant on that point. They were legally elected; they were clothed with sove- reignty — that sovereignty which lay dormant or in a residu- ary form until it was vitalized by the action of the people, and conferred upon their delegates. It was in their sove- reign capacity that they sent this their solemn organic law ♦or their future government, that we might in due form initiate her into the great sisterhood of states, and that we might bespangle our banner with another star answering to the young and virgin state of Kansas." Hon. William T. Avery of Tennessee, in the House of Representatives, January 27 th, 1858. "Granting, for argument's sake, that the Kansas and Nebraska act, that the Cincinnati platform, that the doc- trines of the Democratic party, that the behests of the people, all demanded that the question should be submitted to the people by the language of the act and of the platform, it is plain that the reference or submission of no other question was contemplated. The language of the act is, that its true intent and meaning is not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom ; but, &c The language of the Cincinnati platform is. that it recog nises the right of the people to form a constitution, with or without slavery, and be admitted into the Union, &c. So, if it was contemplated that anything at all should be sub- mitted to the people, slavery was that thing, and that alone. It is the only thing, the only institution, the only domestic institution referred to by name. It was, and is the institu- tion ; the great, absorbing, distracting element alone thought of, or that interested anybody. It was dominant in the public (709) 710 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. mind ; it had lashed it into fury everywhere. Well, then, this question was plainly and palpably submitted. The legal expression of the public will speaks through the Lecompton constitution. All other constitutions, or steps taken to form a constitution, have been done without law or the form of law; not in conformity to, but in violation of, not only the Kansas and Nebraska act, but of every legally authoritative step that was taken by the people of Kansas." Hon. William Barksdale of Mississippi, in the House of Representatives, March 20th, 1858. Mr. Barksdale. What, then, is the ground of the oppo- sition to the admission of Kansas? The true ground, sir, disguise it as gentlemen may, is that its constitution recog- nises slavery. I see near me the gentleman from Indiana. [Mr. Colfax], who is one of the leaders of his party in this house, and I desire to ask him now whether, if all the people of Kansas desired to have a pro-slavery constitution, he would vote for her admission into the Union? Mr. Colfax. The gentleman from Mississippi asks me a question. I have listened very attentively to his speech, and I desire to say to him that if I get the floor when he con- cludes, as I hope to, I intend to answer every point he has made in his speech. Mr. Barksdale. I do not know that I will be here. I should like to have the answer now. I ask you, gentlemen on the other side of the house, of the Black Kepublican party, would you vote for the admission of Kansas into the Union with a constitution tolerating slavery, if a hundred thousand people there wished it? Mr. Giddings. Does the gentleman ask me? Mr. Barksdale. I ask all of you. Mr. Giddings. Then I answer the gentleman that I will never associate, politically, with men of that character, if I can help it. I will never vote to compel Ohio to associate with another slave state, if I can prevent it. Mr. Barksdale. I desire to ask the gentleman from Ohio if he speaks for his party ? Mr. Giddings. I speak for the thinking, reflecting, humane portion of mankind generally. [Laughter.] Mr. Barksdale. Black Kepublicau mankind you mean. [Laughter.] I have no doubt of it. I repeat that the true ground of opposition to the admission of Kansas is. that her constitution tolerates slavery, and I now have indubitable evidence of the fact in the declaration of the gentleman from Ohio. Why, sir, gentlemen on the other side of this hall voted for the admission of Kansas into the Union under the Topeka constitution — a constitution framed not only without authority of law, but in a iolation of law — a con- stitution which did not embody the will of the people — a constitution which, notwithstanding their professed .devo- tion to the negro, as I am told by a friend near me, [Mr. Keitt,] prohibits the immigration of free negroes. Mr. Bingham. If the gentleman will allow me for a mo- ment, I wish to say that the statement which I have heard made before, that the Topeka constitution excluded free negroes from Kansas, is an entire mistake. It excludes nobody from that territory. On the contrary, so far from excluding free negroes, it provides that no person shall be transported from the state, not even for crime. Mr. Barksdale. Was that constitution ever submitted to the people and voted on by them '! Mr. Bingham. It was submitted, and I believe voted on, though the vote was not a large one. Mr. Barksdale. Was it ratified? Mr. Bingham. Yes, sir. Mr. Barksdale. The gentleman is mistaken: it had not heen submitted before it was sent here. While the gentle- man from Ohio is on the stand, I ask him if he would vote to admit Kansas into the Union with a pro-slavery constitu- tion if the people of that territory all de-ired it? Mr. Bingham. Certainly not. Mr. Barksdale. I repeat, then, sir. that the opposition to the admission of Kansas into the Union is based upon the ground that her constitution tolerates slavery. Mr. Stanton. I will say, if the gentleman will allow me, that the Republican members of this House, so far as I know, will never vote for the admission of any slave state north of 36° 30'. Mr. Keitt. Will you south of 36° 30'? Mr. Stanton. A good many of them will. Mr. Barksdale. The gentleman speaks for himself. I sup- pose, when he makes that declaration. He certaiuly did not speak for his colleague over the way, [Mr. Giddings.] Then, sir, this question involves the rights, the equality, and honor of the Southern States of this Confederacy. Upon the floor of the Senate it has already been avowed by the Senator from New York, [Mr. Seward,] that no more slave states shall bo admitted into the Union. I will read the language of the Senator : '•'The white man needs this continent to labor upon. His head is clear, his arm is strong, aud his necessities are fixed. He must aud will have it." This, sir. is not only a declaration that no more slav« states shall be admitted into the Union, but that slavery must yield even in the fifteen slave states. He must have the whole continent. That is his declaration. And, sir, with this formal and well-considered proclama- tion by the leader of the Black Kepublican party, in thu Senate, reiterated by chiefs and subalterns of the same party here on this floor, can there be any misapprehension as to the purposes and the inevitable end to be accomplished by this opposition to the admission of Kansas? Hon. James A. Bayard, of Delaware, in the Senate, March 22d, 1858. "What is the basis of all our state governments? That from tbf nature of man it necessarily results that in the formation of mankind into distinct communities, the only admissible axiom is. that ihe power of self-government Is inherent in the people at large, and of necessity to be exer- cised by a majority. " Two propositions are essential parts of the axiom. First, that the right of government vests in the people at large; and secondly, that a majority of those who choose to act may organize a government; and the right to change is included in the principle which gives the authority to organize. '• The constitution of a state cannot restrain or impair this right; because it exists in the people outside of th» constitution. It is the political axiom upon which the con- stitution itself is founded. "In governments founded on the social compact, no de- press or actual contract exists between the different mem- bers of society ; but the theory is that the consent of all U implied, and an indefinite authority exists in the majority to bind the whole. " This assumed right of the majority under the axiom must exist at all times, and cannot be controverted, except by those who place the right of government on some other foundation. " Whence does the right of the majority spring to form governments, if not from the assumed principle, the doc- trine of implied compact, as the true basis of government? "If the people of one generation have an inherent right to form governments, the same inherent right must exist unfettered in those of a subsequent generation. " The right of the majority to organize a government under the law of the social compact, precludes any power in that majority to render the government they form un- alterable, either for twenty or ten years, or for one year; because such a restriction is inconsistent with their own authority to form a government, and at war with the very axiom from which their own power to act is derived. "The Senator from Illinois admits the rigrht; but con- siders that, where the constitution prohibits change, or spe- cifies a mode of change, alteration in any other mode would be an act of revolution. In this I differ with him. The change of organic law in modes other than those specified in the constitution, may be made without revolution in the present received sense of the word. Wherever the ultimate power of government rests, there the power to change its form must rest." Hon. John Bell of Tennessee, in the Senate, March 18th, 1858. "But, upon principle, the people of a territory, without any act of the territorial legislature, without an enabling act of Congress, can hold public meetings and elect delegates to meet in convention for the purpose of forming a consti- tution; and when formed, it has all the essential attributes of a valid constitution, as one formed in any other way. Many Senators contend that it is the inalienable and inde- feasible right of the people of a state at all times to change their constitution in any manner they think proper. This doctrine I do not admit, in regard to the people of a state; but. in reference to the formation of a constitution by the people of a territory, there can be no question as to the soundness of this doctrine. They can form a constitution by delegates voluntarily chosen and sent to a convention, but what is it worth when it is formed? Nothing at all, until Congress shall accept it. and admit the territory into the Union as a state under that constitution. It is worth no more in that case than in the case of a constitution formed under a territorial act, or an act of Congress; but it is worth just as much." Hon. Henry Burnett of New York, in the House of Repre- sentatives, March 29th, 1858. " The territories of the United States are under the govern- ment and control of Congress. No Ugal proceedings can be taken to organize a state government in a territory, except by the authority of Congress. Any proceedings adopted in the territory for that purpose, (withont such authority,) whether originating with the legislature or the people, can only be regarded as an unauthorized voluntary application, APPENDIX. 711 and is entitled to no consideration, except as an expression of the sentimtnts and wishes of the people. If it is clearly shown to be the expression of the will of a majority of the people, Congress may adopt it; otherwise it should be re- jected. "The territorial legislature, as such. 1ms no power to call a convention to form a state constitution, in order 'to sub- vert' the territorial government. In the case of Arkansas, this was so decided by the Attorney-General, Mr. Butler. He said: "'To suppose that the legislative powers grauted to the General Assembly include the authority to abrogate, alter. or modify the territorial government established by the act of Congress, and of which the Assembly is a constituent part, would be manifestly absurd. Consequently, it is not in the power of the General Assembly of Arkansas to pass any law for the purpose of electing members to a convention to form a constitution and state government, nor to do any other act, directly or indirectly, to create such new govern- ment. Every such law, even though it were approved by the governor of the territory, would be null and void ; if passed by them, notwithstanding his veto, by a vote of two- thirds of each branch, it would stifl be equally void.' "In the case of Michigan, the President (then in the Senate) held the same doctrine. He said : "'No Senator will pretend that the territorial legislature had any right whatever to pass laws enabling the people to elect delegates to a convention for the purpose of forming a Btate constitution. It was an act of usurpation on their jiart.' " But the President and his friends insist that the organic act, in this case, conferred upon the people of Kansas the right to form their state constitution in their own way. If this were conceded, the authority was given to the people, and not to the legislature. The authority granted to the legislature is specified in that act, and none was given in any form to call a convention to form a state constitution. If the act authorized the people to form a state constitution, it was independent of the legislature; and the Topeka con- stitution was made and adopted in a legal and regular manner." Hon. John A. Bingham of Ohio, in the House of Represen- tatives, January 25th, 1858. "This is the precise principle, the bald and atheistic aver- ment, of this Lecompton constitution; and we, by affirming it, are only to become the avowed upholders of the stupen- dous lie, that one class of men have no rights which another are bound to respect; and hence, the partial and exclusive provision of this instrument, " 'That no freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or dis- seised of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the laud.' "'No freeman:' the words of necessity import that any person not a freeman, any slave, any human chattel, may be taken and imprisoned, disseised of his freehold, .liberties, and privileges, outlawed, exiled, and murdered, without the judgment of his peers, and without the protection of law. That this instrument may want in no feature of horrid cruelty, it is further therein provided, that 'free negroes shall not be permitted to lire in this state wider any circumstances' Sir, they are mere ' visionary theorists' who suppose that this world was not made for Cresar, but for man— that it belongs only to the common Father of all, and is for the use and sustenance of all his children. By our affirmance of this instrument, we are to say to certain human beings in the territory of Kansas, though you were born in this territory, and born of free parents, though you are human beings, and no chattels, yet you are not free to live here upon your native heath ; you must be disseised of your freehold, liberties, and privileges, without the judg- ment of your peers and without the protection of law. Though born here, you shall not, under any circumstances, be permitted to live here. You must suffer exile or death — you cannot and shall not live here. That sky which you first saw, and to which weary men look up for hope and consolation — that beautiful sky which bends above your humble home like the arms of beneficence, clasping in its embrace the evil and the good, the just and the uujust — tliat sky was not made for you: you shall not live under it. This laud, this goodly land, with its fertile fields, and quiet waters, and rustic homes, where you first learned to lisp the hallowed name of father, sister, brother, and where sleeps in humble hope the sacred dust of your poor dead mother — this land was not made for you ; you shall not. under any circumstances, be peimitted to live upon it; go hence, never more to return : that is our law. Representatives! will you give to this proposed atrocity your official sanction? An- swer upon your oaths, to your conscience, to your country, tni to your God'" Hon. W. D. Bishop of Connecticut, in the House of Repre- sentatives, March 22d, 1858. " No man has more respect for the principle of popular sovereignty, or will go further to secure to the people the right to govern theuiselvcR, than myself. But who are the people in a legal sense, and how do they speak and express their will? Why, our government is a representative go- vernment, and the will of the people is expressed through their representatives. In every state in this Union laws are frequently passed, which, if submitted to a vote of the people for ratification or rejection, would be voted down by an overwhelming majority; and yet who would presume to say that those laws are of no binding force, because a ma- jority of the people are opposed to them, and would vote them down if an opportunity was offered? Candidates are nominated as exponents of the will of the people; if elected, the power and authority of the people is vested in them— their will is the will of the people ; and should they turn traitor to those by whom they were elected, no matter how great the majority by which they were elected, still they would express the legal will of the people. The people of Kansas were asked to form and regulate their institutions in their own way when they nominated and elected dele- gates to the constitutional convention. All the people were included in the invitation. They must have known the character and opinions of the candidates presented ; and if the majority held back, and allowed the minority to elect their candidates, the legal presumption is that the majority were satisfied with the result. How, then, can it be claimed that the Lecompton constitution does not express the legal will of the people of Kansas? The territorial legislature being a legal body, being invested by the organic act with full power to legislate upon all rightful subjects, having passed a law for the election of delegates to form a constitu- tion, having conferred upon these delegates full powers without limitation or restriction, the delegates elected not having violated the law or exceeded the authority conferred upon them by the legislature, I cannot, for the life of me, discover upon what ground it can be claimed that the con- stitution framed by them was not a legal instrument. For these reasons I regard the Lecompton constitution as the legal, the only legal, constitution of Kansas. Thus far I have referred to the Lecompton constitution only as a legal constitution. Another question which presents itself to our minds is, is it just and right, under all the circum- stances of the case, to admit Kansas into the Union as a state under that constitution? Now, Congress may admit new states into the Union, but she is not obliged to do so until she sees fit. I care not how strictly in accordance with law the constitution of a state may have been formed, if the people whose rights are to be affected by it have had no opportunity to shape and model it according to their own views, I would avail myself of that little word may, and would never consent to her admission until such an opportunity was afforded. How stands the Lecompton con- stitution in this respect? Have not the people had a full and fair opportunity to form such a constitution as they wanted? lias any deception been practised upon them ? Were they not told in advance by the President of the United States, were they not told by Governor Walker and Secretary Stan- ton, that the law of the legislature providing for the elec- tion of delegates was binding upon them ? Were they not told that the constitution framed by those delegates would be recognised by the party in power? Were they not then invited, urged, impltrred even, by Governor Walker, to vote for those delegates? Were they not promised full protec- tion ? Were they not warned of the consequences in case they declined to vote ? Were they not warned not to delude themselves with the idea that "the constitution would be submitted to them for their adoption or rejection? Did they not have as full and fair an opportunity as was ever presented to any people upon the face of the earth to elect just such delegates as they chose, who would have adopted just such a constitution as they wanted? No man can deny but that an opportunity was then offered to the peo- ple of Kansas to form and regulate their own institutions in their own way. The whole power of the government was pledged to insure them a fair election. They chose not to exercise that power, and suffered the two thousand men who did vote to exercise it for them. Why did they not vote? The returns were to be made to Walker and Stanton, and they had no reason to suppose that they would cheat and defraud them. Why, I ask again, did they not vote? I can tell you why: Kansas had already been seized upon by the Republican party as the proper field for political war- fare. Her struggles, her sufferings, and her blood, were necessary to furnish sustenance to that starving political organization. Republican Senators and wire-pullers were prowling about that territory by day and by night, advising the people not to undertake to mauage their institutions in their own way. The Republican press all over the North gave them further advice, aud urged them not to vote. Don't vote, don't vote, was the universal exclamation of 712 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. those men who are now complaining and lamenting that the dear people are deprived of their sovereignty. AVhy did they tell them not to vote ? Ah, they believed that, if they voted, Kansas would be a free and prosperous state. They knew that, when peace was restored to Kansas, the days of their party would be numbered ; they knew that, when the wounds of bleeding Kansas were healed, the life of repub- licanism would be extinguished. Twice, previous to the adoption of the Lecompton constitution, had the free-state men of Kansas, if they were in the majority, an opportu- nity to assume the control of her government. The army of the United States, sent into the territory upon their own request, was pledged to protect them against invasion from abroad and intimidation at home. Guided by the advice of outside politicians, twice did they refuse the proffered boon. The legislature by which the convention was called was offered to them and refused •■ the delegates to that convention, clothed with full power to adopt such a constitution as they pleased, were offered to them and refused. After these too distinct assertions on the part of the people that they would have nothing to do with the formation and regulation of their own domestic institutions, still the legally constituted convention of Kansas, though not required by the territo- rial law to submit any portion of the constitution to the people, said, 'though you have refused to participate in the elections; though you have defied our authority and tram- pled the laws under your feet, yet your voice may be heard upon the great question which has convulsed the country, and so long disturbed the. peace of this territory; though we have the power in our own bunds; though we are anxious to make Kansas a slave state, yet we will leave that question for you, and you alone, to decide.' What was the response? Away with your constitution. Who cares about slavery? Let us kill the whole constitution. Let us undo all that you, the legal representatives and exponents of the people. have done. Let us open afresh the wounds of bleeding Kansas. Let us keep up this agitation uutil I860, until upon this sea of excitement we have wafted our candidate into the presidential chair; or you may make Kansas a slave state as soon as you please. Then, when that deed is accom- plished, we will raise the cry at the North, Behold how our prophecies are fulfilled ! We told you that the result of the Kansas and Nebraska bill would be to make Kansas a slave state. Under these circumstances Kansas presents herself for admission into the Union under the Lecompton consti- tution, and, so far as the facts now appear, I deem it due to Kansas and due to the couutry that she should be admitted. She will be a slave state in name, and in name only, and that for a brief period. I care not how deeply slavery may be engrafted in her constitution, for there is an uuwritten law far above all human constitutions and laws which must ever control and regulate that institution. It is the irre- pealable law of nature, of climate, production, and soil. That law I. as a Northern man, am willing to trust. We have seen its operation in California, Utah, Oregon, New Mexico, Washington, Nebraska, and Minnesota." Hon. F. P. Blair, Jr., of Missouri, in House of Represen- tatives, March 23d, 1858. " Now, I apply another test. The oligarchy say that they have the right to take their slaves into the territories of the Union, and employ them as they see fit. under the Consti- tution of the United States, and nobody can take that right from them. They can take them into the territories, and make them mechanics, and work them in the mines, in the factories, or in any other way ; and if white men don't like that sort of competition, the Democracy will tell them t i go somewhere else. In Russia, a man can educate his serf or slave, and they frequently do, and make lawyers, doctors, and merchants, of them. Now, suppose these Sou a gentlemen should exercise their constitutional right of edu- cating their slaves, and put them into the learned profes- sions; do you suppose the people of this country would submit, for one instant, to this Russian innovation V Would there not be a cry raised, from one end of this land to the other? And why? Have they not the same constitutional right to make lawyers, doctors, aud merchants, of their slaves, as they have to make them mechanics? Precisely the same. There is no difference whatever. But the Rus- sian nobles never engage in those avocations themselves, and therefore they do not feel the degradation of putting their serfs into the professions. But with us that would be treuching upon the occupation of the slaveholders them- selves — the oligarchs — and here the shoe pinches. They demand that they shall be allowed to put their slaves to work side by side with mechanics and laborers; and. in the same breath, they claim that no slave shall be allowed to degrade the employments i;i which they condescend to en- gage. I contend that tbey have no more right to inflict this degradation on mechanics, by placing slave labor in competition with their fret; labor. Not a whit more; and, !is they exercise the right of excluding slaves from the pro- Sessions in which they are themselves engaged fas they do by inhibiting their education). I say they admit the right of e'.hus to exclude them fruru the mechanical trades, and i from competition with every freeman who follows an honest calling." Hon. Thomas S. Bocock of Virginia, in the House of Repre- sentatives, March 8th, 1858. '■In the first place, then, I admit that governments in- stituted among men derive their just powers from the con- sent of the governed. That is the first admission. But I deny that it is a necessary corollary from this principle that the constitution of a state shall be submitted to the votes of all the governed. On the contrary, no constitution that was ever framed, either in this or any other country, was ever submitted to the vote of all the people who were to be governed by it. How many of the spates of this Union allow the African race to vote? I thinit New England and New York alone aspire to that ' bad eminence.' Yet the African race are among the governed. How many states in this Union allow a citizen just lauded upon its soil from any other state, or from a foreign country, to vote? Not one, I believe. In most of the states in the Union, they require a man to have resided in tke state for twelve months, even if a citizen of the United States, before he is allowed to vote. Aud yet, sir, they are among the governed. How many of the states of this Union allow females and children to vote? Not one; and yet, are they not in the list of the governed? Then it is a clear proposition, that the fact that a form of government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, does not require the constitution to be submitted to all who are to be governed under it. I will show, iu the sequel, that the consent of the governed is given on the representative principle. " The next concession which I make is to be found in a certain letter written by the late governor of Kansas, upon the occasiou of his resignation of office. He says that — '• ' Sovereignty makes constitutions ; that sovereignty rests exclusively with the people of each state; that sovereignty cannot be delegated ; that it is inalienable, iudivisible, a unit incapable of partition.' " Now, sir, I admit all that ; but I will not concede for a moment, because sovereignty is inalienable, that acts of sovereignty cannot be exercised through some medium, organism, or representative agency; far from it. I think that the celebrated letter to which I refer affords a remarka- ble instance of how a really able man. when sustaining a heresy, may entangle and overthrow himself in the mazes of his own metaphysics. Robert J. Walker declares : — " ' It will not be denied that sovereignty is the only power that can make a state constitution, and that it rests exclu- sively with the people; and if it is inalienable, and cannot be delegated, as I have shown, then it can only be exercised by the people themselves.' " And again, in reference to the Constitution of the United States, he says: — " ' Each state acted for itself alone in acceding to the Arti- cles of Confederation in 1778, and each state acted for itself alone in framing and ratifying, each for itself, the Constitu- tion of the United States. Sovereignty, then, with us, rests exclusively with the people of each state.' '• Here, sir, he assumes that each state adopted the Consti- I ution of the United States for itself, and that the Constitu- tion of the United States, being so adopted, has become the constitution of each particular state. Yet he seems not to have borne in mind that that very fact upsets his whole theory. Sir, the Constitution of the United States is not to- day binding in the state of Virginia, or in any other state of this Union, or else the doctrine is erroneous that it require* the people in their primary capacity to ratify it. Why, sir, the Constitution of the United States was framed by a con- vention and ratified by conventions and legislatures in the several states; not in any one case was it referred to a direct vote of what Mr. Walker calls the sovereign people. '•Sir, to declare war and to make peace— are they not acts of sovereignty ? And are they not done by representative agencies? Why may not a constitution be formed in like manner? Mr. Chairman, a great deal of confusion exists in the public mind in relation to the question, who are the people in whom the sovereignty resides? I accord with the doctrine of Robert J. Walker, and say it resides in the masses. Every man and every citizen who has rights and power in the community is a part of the sovereign mass. All of the citizens together constitute the original fountaiu and source of all power in a community. They are the sovereignty. Now, sir, if sovereignty is a unit aud indivisible, the whole sovereign mass must act together. If one citizen be want- ing, the unity is broken and the sovereignty destroyed. It is clear, then, that if sovereignty resides in the mass, and is indivisible, it cannot be carried out into acts without a medium, an organism, or a representative agency, as the free mind cannot act except through the agency of the body. This results from the fact that it is impossible ever to get all APPENDIX. 713 the citizens together in consentaneous action. If this sove- reignty is a unit, can a majority exercise that sovereignty? Those who do not act with the majority have a part of the sovereignty in themselves, and their dissent breaks the unity. " I wish now to inquire upon what principle the majority acts for a community, and what results from that fact? I say that the majority does not act for the commuuity upon any principle of natural right. Let us suppose that the whole frame-work of government could by some mighty jonvuision be struck from existence in any state of the Union: what would follow? A primary meeting of the people would be held, to put into operation some rude struc- ture of government. Would all the people assemble ? By no means. That is always impossible. A great many would stay away, and those who stayed away would have a part of the sovereignty in themselves. But according to the principle declared by Governor Walker, those who came would be the representatives of those who stayed away. Each man who should attend the primary meeting would represent his absent neighbor and family ; and, upon the principle of representation, that primary meeting could act for the whole. If the community left without government should consist of one hundred thousand people, not more than eighty thousand could assemble in primary meetiug. How would they act? The eighty thousand would not agree upon all questions, or perhaps upon any question; and from necessity, a majority would control their decisions, uuless a different rule were agreed on. Then forty-one thou- sand, being the majority of the eighty thousand, would speak for the whole community. Upon what principle of natural right or undivided sovereignty, I ask, can forty-one thousand declare the opinion of one hundred thousand? Again, take the case of the voters of a community. Upon what principle do they act for the whole? Are they the sovereign mass? No, sir, by no means. Take the case of Kansas itself; and allowing that there are one hundred thousand people in that territory, then say that the consti- tution is to be submitted to the voters. According to statistics, the number of votes would be about one-fifth of the entire mass. Take the census of 1840 or 1850. and then the vote at the intervening and succeeding presidential elec- tion, and you will find that the votes are rarely, if ever, more than one-fifth of the entire number of the people. Then, if there were one hundred thousand people in Kansas, the number of voters might have been as high as twenty thousand. Of that twenty thousand, a majority would control, and eleven thousand would constitute that majo- rity. Now, I ask, upon what principle of natural right, or of indivisible sovereignty, can eleven thousand voters declare the voice of one hundred thousand people? They are the organism or representative agency merely, through which the whole body speaks, just as a convention is the mouth-piece of the people. "Chief Justice Taney, in giving the opinion of the court in the Dred Scott case, says : — " ' Undoubtedly, a person may be a citizen — that is a mem- ber of the community who form the sovereignty — although he exercises no share of the political power, and is incapaci- tated from holding particular offices. Women and minors, who form a part of the political family, cannot vote; and when a property qualification is required to vote or hold a particular office, those who have not the necessary qualifica- tions cannot vote or hold the office, yet they are citizens.' "There are a number of the citizens in every community who constitute a part of the body politic, who have a portion of the sovereignty in themselves, but who are not allowed to vote. The voters, then, only represent the people. They are not. in fact, the sovereign people. So I show the univer- sality of the representative principle. A primary meeting, as usually constituted, is a representative agency. A con- vention is a representative agency. The voters are a repre- sentative agency, and any question between them is a question between different representative agencies. Each one speaks the voice of the people in its sphere, just as the agent when acting within his power speaks the voice of his principal. Talk about appealing from the convention to the sovereign people! I say, if you appeal to the voters, you only appeal from one representation to another representa- tion. Perhaps broader, perhaps better, but still a represen- tative agency. You deny the voice of one organism through which the people speak, and take the voice of another organism. When there is no law to determine who shall declare the voice of the people, the people are a law unto themselves, and necessity and circumstances determine. When you have an organized society, the law declares who shall speak for the people in each particular case. u Now, apply these principles to the case of Kansas. Who was authorized to speak the voice of the people of Kansas in relation to the constitution? The convention, and the convention only. Sir, the convention was the organism through which sovereignty spoke. Its voice was the voice of the people. The Constitution of the United States, framed, as I have said, by a convention, and ratified in each state by a convention, nevertheless announces itself as the act of the people. In its preamble it says: 'We, the people of U United States, Ac., Ac, do ordain and establish this consti- tution.' So in Kansas, the convention was merely the mouth through which the people were presumed in law to speak. The constitution adopted by them was, therefore, the act of the people. You may think that another agency would have been better, but you cannot properly interfere, for this is that which was spoken when we said that we would ' leave the people thereof (of Kansas) perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in theii own way." Hon. W. W. Botce of South Carolina, in the House of Re- presentatives, March 25th, 1858. "Empowering others to make the constitution for them, is agreeing in advance to be bound by the action of those others, and thus in advance giving their assent to the con- stitution. There are several modes by which the people might give their assent to a constitution. They might meet in mass meeting, and make their constitution, clause by clause. This would come nearest, perhaps, to actually making their own constitution; but there are so many practical objections to this mode, that it will find, perhaps, few advo- cates; though, in the progress of the democratic mania, even this mode may come to be insisted on eventually as the only legitimate mode having due regard to popular sovereignty. Again : the people might authorize their dele- gates to form and establish their constitution for them ; and this, perhaps, is the best mode of accomplishing the purpose, if the delegates are judiciously chosen; for it is most likely that in this mode the constitution will be the embodiment of the highest wisdom of the community, acting independ- ent of popular errors or prejudices. " Yet further, the people might confer upon their delegates the power of forming the constitution, but deny them the power of giving it vitality, but reserve to themselves this sovereign right. At first view this mode may appear desira- ble; but when we consider that the mere power to say yes or no upon an entire constitution in the lump, not permit- ting an expression of opinion upon every clause, but only upon the aggregate, amounts to very little. If every man were allowed to vote upon every clause, it is likely that no constitution that could be devised would obtain a majority of votes for all its clauses, yet if the same constitution were submitted to a popular vote it would in all probability, as a general rule, obtain a majority of votes." Hon. Jesse D. Bright of Indiana, in the Senate, March 25th, 1858. "In our country, however, where the people are recog- nised as the origin and seat of political power; where con- stitutions flow from, them, instead of being concessions to them ; where the remedy for an abuse is in their own hands, to be exercised at any time and in their own way, the case is far different. With us, state constitutions are mere orga- nizations. They are merely pieces of political mechanism — simple contrivances for organizing legislative, judicial, and executive branches. One power is made to lodge in one place, and another resides elsewhere. In their declaration of general principles, they but repeat the common law, which our fathers brought with them, and which would be law without such repetition. So far even as the limitations in them are concerned, they are but restrictions upon the agents of the people, which can be removed or modified at their pleasure. Even against a provision contained in the constitution itself, it can be amended. Wherever the doc- trine prevails that all power is lodged with the people, to be exercised by them for their own benefit, such must be the necessary consequence. Where the power to make exists, there also the power to modify exists, if the rights of none others intervene. If royal power could not rightfully abro- gate constitutions and charters, it is because the rights of other parties do intervene. In our country, however, there is no other party but the people. They make for themselves, and can unmake. There is no power anywhere to prevent When the people of a state determine to change their con- stitution, there is no political body in existence Which can interpose. The distinction, in this respect, between out federal and state constitutions is apparent. One is a con> pact between several parties. Any one can claim the observ- ance of any provision. To a state constitution, however, there is but one party. It is merely a rule of action devised by themselves for themselves alone. There are no obliga- tions in it of which other political bodies can claim th« benefit. At the pleasure of the party whi.'h made it, it can be unmade. Any provision in it which pretends to take away that power or delay its exercise is impotent against the majesty of the people. I hold it, therefore, Mr President, as incontrovertible, that the constitution of Kansas now presented, so far as it conflicts with the interests, or even caprices, of the people of that territory, can be altered at any time and in any way, at their pleasure. 714 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Nay, more, I hold that if the proposed constitution be ob- noxious to the people of Kansas, the surest and speediest way of securing to Kansas a constitutiou agreeable to her people would be to admit her to the companionship of states, under the Lecompton constitution, and then leave her as a sovereign power to adjust her own affairs without inter- ference from any quarter. Once admitted into the Union, the contest loses its national character (an event which every true patriot should desire), and the determination of her people will stand as the law and the fact for the youth- ful state." Hon. David C. Broderick of California, in the Senate, March 22d, 1858. "In the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the rampart that protected slavery in the Southern territories was broken down. Northern opinions. Northern ideas, and Northern institutions were invited to the contest for the possession of these territories. "How foolish for the South to hope to contend with suc- cess in such an encounter! Slavery is old. dem-pid, and consumptive. Freedom is young, strong, and vigorous. One is naturally stationary and loves ease. The other is migra- tory and enterprising. There are six millions of people interested in the extension of slavery. There are twenty millions of freemen to contend for these territories, out of which to carve for themselves homes where labor is honor- able. Up to the time of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act, a large majority of the people of the North did not ques- tion the right of the South to control the destinies of the territories south of the Missouri line. The people of the North should have welcomed the passage of the Kansas- Nebraska act. I am astouished that Republicans sh< mid call for a restoration of the Missouri Compromise. With the terrible odds that are against her, the South should not have repealed it, if she desired to retain her rights in the territories." iu the House Hon. James Buffinton of Massachusetts, of Kepresentatives, March 24th, 1S.38. " There is an attempt made to establish, by violence, or fraud, or any iniquity which may be necessary to accomplish the purpose, the relation of slavery among a people, a great majority of whom detest it: a great majority of the people of the whole country sympathizing with them in their abhorrence of it. They oppose it because they believe it an institution nefarious in itself, and pernicious in its influence. It is a curse upon any state where it exists ; it affects allthe relations of a community, internal and external; it is a blight upon moral and social progress; it affects all the material interests; it depresses the value of lands, it dis- courages and debases free labor; and gives the political control and social predominance to a few aristocratic pro- prietors of slaves; it retards and prevents the development of all the resources of a state, and is a withering blight upon its prosperity. ••The Free-State people of Kansas resist this scourge, which would afflict and injure them, and would be a curse upon their posterity. Yet by those laws, which are upheld by the pro-slavery party, they are forbidden to write, speak. or circulate in any way, the expression of their hostility to this great wrong': and the National Administration emu- lates the oppression of foreign despotism, in its efforts to sustain, by the employment of United States troops, the enforcement of this tyranny." Hon. Anson Burlinoams of Massachusetts, in the House of Representatives, March 31st, 1858. "I hold it also their duty to bear testimony as to the manner iu which the Douglas men — and they will pardon me for giving them the name of their gallant and gifted Wader — to bear testimony to the manner in which they have borne themselves. The'y have kept the faith; they have adhered to the doctrine of popular sovereignty; they have voted it in this House, and they Save not fawned and trem- bled iu the presence of a dominating administration— iu the presence of that great tyranny which holds the government in its thrall at Washington. They have given flash for flash to every indignant look; and when a gentleman from Vir- ginia, the other day. tauntingly told them that certain lan- guage which they used upon the floor of this House was the language of rebellion, they shouted out, through the lips of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Davis], -it was the lan- guage of freemen.' I say that it is due to them that we should say that they have borne the brunt of the battle — and that they, whether from New York. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois, have kept the whiteness of their souls, and have made a record which has lain in light: and if my voice can have any weight with the young men of the country where those men dwell. I should say to them, stand by these men with all your young enthusiasm, stand by them without distinction of party; the) may not agree exactly with you, but they have stood th« test here, where brave men falter anc" fall. Let them teach this tyran- nical administration, thai r* it is strong, the people are stronger behind it. Thus I would speak to the young men of the country. I differ in some points with those men, and I do not wish to complicate them. I pay also the high tribute of my admiration to that band of men who have been reposing outside of the boundaries of the great parties of the country as a patriotic corps of reserve, for the pur- pose, I suppose, of saving the Union when it is endangered. When they saw this sectional issue made, standing as they did in a position to look fairly on betweeu the parties, they saw who made it, and they instantly took sides; and in the language of Mr. Bell, in his reply to Mr. Toombs, thej accepted the issue of disunion . They accepted it ; and when, sir, they saw that Lecompton was synonymous with 'fraud, with forgery, with perjury, with ballot-box stuffing,' then they trampled it with their high manly honesty under their feet. They have taken it in charge to preserve the ballot box pure and open to American citizens. Sir, it was a prouu day to me, wheu I heard the speech of the venerable Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Crittenden]. The melody of his voice, and his patriotic accent, still sound iu my ears. I was glad to hear him deuounce fraud; I was glad to hear him stand for the truth. As I listened, it seemed to me that the spirit of the Kentucky commoner had come back again to visit his old place in the Senate. It seemed to me as if his spirit was hovering there, looking, as in the days of old, after tho interests of the Union. At that moment, the heart of Mas- sachusetts beat responsive once again to that of grand old Kentucky ; and I longed to have the day come again, when there should be such feelings as in the olden time, when the Bay State bore the name of Heury Clay on her banners over her hills and through her valleys, everywhere to victory, and with ail affection equal to the affection of Kentucky herself. " I also felt proud to hear the speech of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Bell]. I was glad to hear their confreres on this floor, Messrs. Underwood of Kentucky, Gilmer of North Carolina, Kicaud and Harris of Maryland, and Davis, with his surpassing eloquence, worthy of the best day of I'inkney and of Wirt; and I also express my gratitude to Mr. Marshall of Kentucky, who has labored so long to secure this union of patriotic men. I owe it to these men, and to myself, to say that I do not agree with them on the subject of slavery, and I know that they do not agree with me. Neither do I agree with the Douglas men; I take what I think is a higher position. I hold to the power of Con- gress over the territories; they do not. But while I oppose the Lecompton constitution for one reason, and while the Douglas Democrats oppose it for another, the South Ameri- cans may oppose it for still another. God knows we have all cause of war against it, and against the administration- And we have come together here as a unit, not by any pre- concert, not by any trade among leaders, but by the spon- taneous convictions of our own honest minds. 1 trust that this may be an omen of what may happen in the future. As to what may happen, it is not for me to prophesy. Let time and chance determine. We come together, not in a spirit of compromise, because we compromise nothing, but in a spirit of patriotism. And, acting in that spirit, I, for one, am prepared to sustain the substitute offered by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Crittenden]." Hon. Henry C. Burnett of Kentucky, in the House of Representatives, March 23d, 1858. "We are told that the Kansas-Nebraska bill, by leaving the people of the territories free to regulate their own domestic institutions, had reference to other institutions than that of domestic slavery; that it was meant to embrace all domestic institutions. Sir, this is not a true construction of that act. Previous to its passage, under the Missouri Compromise, the people were left free to regulate all their domestic institutions except that of slavery. It was in refer- ence to that institution alone that they were restricted. The Kansas-Nebraska bill removed that restriction. It referred to no other domestic institutions, because no others were restricted. It was to the institution of slavery alone that it had reference; and it was especially to ls;_ve the people free to have slavery, or not. iu the territory, as thej pleased, that that clause of the bill was inserted. The whole history of the struggle in Kansas shows that this was the only question involved ; it has been the issue of every battle fought; it has been the bone of contention both in and out of the territory. In the last presidential canvass it was an issue made upon the Democratic party by the Black Repub- licans. Judge Douglas himself so regarded it; for in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, as originally reported by him from the Committee on Territories, the material section made reference only to the question of slavery ; and he proposed to settle that, even, not by a vote of the people, but through their representatives in convention. I read it: " ' All the questions appertaining la slavery in the terri- tory, and in the new states to be formed therefrom, are »• APPENDIX. 715 be left to the decision of the people residing therein, through their appropriate representatives.' " TLus it will be seen that Judge Douglas did not then Sropose to go us far as the LecomptOB convention has. He id not even propose to refer the slavery question to the people. The Lecomptou convention did. The convention, iu submitting this isolated question — it being the absorbing one of all others — had met the demands of those who in good faith desired to see it settled by the people." Hon. Charles Case of Indiana, iu the House of Represen- tatives, March 11th, 1858. "Sir, does the President imagine that Northern men are statues, that in the free states of this Union there will be no 'keen feeling' on this question? If our Southern brethren may be so strenuous about a barren victory, may not we as strenuously decline to yield? Suppose we reverse the argument, and say, 'in proportion to its insignificence, &c. ; for this very reason the adnptirm of this constitution will be bo much the more keenly felt by the people of the sixteen States of this Union where slavery is not recognised.' Is not the reasoning equally sound ? Yet he seems to be blissfully unconscious that the people of the North have any interest, or any right to be interested, in this matter. But on this I do not dwell. I wish rather to refer to a graver error, ap- parent in the passage last quoted, and more prominent still in. other parts of the message. It is the assumption that this constitution is to be rejected, if at all, because it tole- rates a certain peculiar institution. In another place, you may remember, he speaks of the 'disasters to result if we reject Kansas because slavery remains in her constitution.' Now, sir, this assumption is sadly wrong. With me, and with many others, under the circumstances, it would be a sufficient reason for voting against the adoption of that con- stitution, if there were no other. But the President must know, or should kuow, that in this House there are those who are earnestly opposed to its adoption, with whom the slavery clause is of secondary or no importance; and, sir, he ought to kuow, if he does not, that all over the land there are thousands of men — men who were his supporters a twelvemonth ago — who care little about slavery, but who will look upon the admission of Kansas under this constitu- tion as an outrage unparalleled in all our past legislation." Hon. C. C. Chaffee of Massachusetts, in the House of Re- presentatives, February 24th, 1858. " And now, I ask of the conservative men of the South if they are willing that the institution of slavery shall take this additional load upon itself, in this day and generation? Is it not enough that it has concentrated upon itself the world's unmitigated scorn, but it must needs take upon itself the additional burden of seconding the administration in its crusade against the free labor of the country? Are you, the conservative slaveholders of the country, willing to allow the institutions of your section to become the cause and instrument of the further aggrandizemeut of this ad- ministration — of building up and further extending the power and rule of the African Democracy of this country, who seek by their policy to Africanize its productive indus- try? I tell gentlemen plainly, that while chivalry once had a name and a prestige, yet in these African-Democratic hands its gold has become dim and its lustre is faded; and unless It is speedily rescued, its glory will have departed forever. Sir, the civilized world cannot, and will not, look on com- placently, and see this great and monstrous wrong consum- mated upon this people; and their anathemas and execra- tions will be hurled against the institution in whose name and iu whose behalf it is perpetrated." Hon Daniel Clark of New Hampshire, in the Senate, March 15th, 1S58 "Thus much, Mr. President, for the law. I now come to more general considerations which are going to govern me in regard to the vote I may give. I said a short time ago — I said it deliberately, I said it upon mature conviction, I said it under the full knowledge of what I did say. as something which I mean to stand by without committing anybody else — that I do object to Kansas coming into the Union as a slave state. I ohject to slavery going into that territory now, henceforth, and for ever, unless the sovereign people, after it is made a state, in virtue of their sovereign power, choose to carry it there; and I had almost said that I then would have objection to it, because that state was a part of the territory covered by the old Missouri Compromise. You forced that compromise, Mr. President. The people of the North did not want to take it; they did not want slavery to go into Missouri; they wanted that to be free territory; but at the time she was about to be admitted as a slave state, you put in a provision that all the rest of that territory should be free. Why have you not kept it? Why has not that compact, if you call it a compact, been kept? Why this agitation, growing out of the question to force slavery in there ? Do you tell me that that compromise was unconsti- tutional ? Suppose it was : I ask whether, when you made that provision, and agreed fairly to it at that time, it now becomes you, if you can do it by the form of law, to wrest that territory from freemen? That is the point I make. I want to kuow why there has not been honor enough in the people of the other side to maintain that pledge, even if they were not obliged to do so, when they forced that division of the territory, and said slavery should not go to Kansas? I want to know why the other side are not willing now that it should be a free state?" Hon. J. B. Clark of Missouri, in the House of Representa- tives " The delegates to the convention embodied, presumpti vi ly. the will of the people, and are therefore to be presumed to have acted honestly and fairly. No one has a right to ques- tion their action in that regard, it is a matter between tha delegates and their constituents. If the delegates misrepre- sented their constituents, let them settle that between them- selves— we have nothing to do with it ; and whenever we undertake to control the matter, and ascertain by other means the popular will, we bring about the scenes that we have had on this floor— scenes of crimination and recrimina- tion — and we strike down the strongest pillar of our govern- ment. " But, sir, it is said that some counties were disfranchised, and were not represented in the convention at all. Walker and Stanton say so now; and yet, if it is true, they were the cause of it. Stanton made the apportionment himself, disfranchising these counties, if they were disfranchised; but yet, he and Walker, when the constitution did not pre- cisely meet their views, turned round and proved recreant to their duty. They then found out, for the first time, that the delegates did not represent the will of the people, and that they had no power to represent those counties to which no representation was given. " 1 make these remarks, Mr. Chairman, in order to relieve that part of the subject of the charge of non-representation iu the convention. The charge is untrue." Hon. James B. Clay of Kentucky, in the House of Repre- sentatives, March 30th, 1858. " The only matter of evidence strongly insisted upon, and appearing, indeed, like proof that the constitution is not the will of the people, is the vote of the 4th of January last. But, sir, in my judgment, that vote cannot properly be con- sidered by us at all. I do not believe that the legislature called by Mr. Stanton, competent as it may have been for other purposes, had any power to submit to a vote of the people the constitution formed by the represented sove- reignty of the people, which had not chosen iu its sovereign capacity to submit it. That a large portion of the people of Kansas thought so themselves is evident from the fact that the vote was all on one side. As against the constitution, if it were not their will, I believe the people of Kansas had a clear legal remedy. I believe it was in their power to have furnished Congress with competent testimony against it. I mean by petition. They have not chosen to exercise that right; and I, for one, cannot regard a one-sided party vote, directed by incompetent authority, in the light of a petition, which is a clear legal right. Sir, I do not, as a member of Congress, give any weight whatsoever to individual or news- paper charges against the Lecompton constitution. 1 believe there has been fraud and violence — far too much of fraud and violence on all sides; but aside from the question of policy, I do believe that the weight of testimony before us is altogether in favor of the proposed requirement that the 'constitution presented was at the time of its adoption the will of the people of Kansas lawfully expressed.' " Hon. Shkrrard Clemens of Virginia, in the House of Re- presentatives, February 18th, 1858. " The American distinction between a convention and a legislature implies only a difference in power and authority. A legislature can act under a constitution; and it is tue only competent body to call a convention to change it. Through these mediums the whole power and majesty ol the people are as fully exercised as if each man were present as an active participator. It is, indeed, the percolation of the will of the people through the legislature, and thence through a convention, that, like the filtration of water through porous stones, clears and purities it. The people can exercise no act of supremacy or legislation at all. except by assembling all in a mass convention of the wholf state, and taking the vote by the head, or by chosen representatives. As the first is impossible, the last became here the graud advanced idea iu politics; and the exercise of individual sovereignty was made to consist in the choice of representa- tives, with such powers as the people decided to give them. The very power competent to bind the people in other respects is competent to bind them in the formation of a constitution. The idea of re-submission to the people them- selves of a constitution for ratification or rejection, or legis- lative acts which they had expressly authorized, was not the 716 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Idea of republicanism at the era of the Revolution, nor at the tibia the Federal Constitution was formed. That great instrument, the most majestic product of intellect in the world, is not the work of the people of the Union, as a whole o- as tn aggregate mass. There is no provision any- where in it, nor no law passed under it, nor no stipulation by the federal convention, by which it was possible to ascer- tain whether a majority of the whole people of the United States, counted by numbers, were in favor of it or not. John Adams, in one of his letters to Jay, says if it had been sub- mitted directly to the people, it would have been voted down. It came very near being defeated in several of the state conventions by the delegates of the people who were empowered to consider it. It was the discussion aud scrutiny of deliberative bodies which saved it, to throw its broad blessings ovei this continent. Four of the present states of thia Union, containing a majority of the whole population, could have rejected the constitution, and yet it would have been binding as a constitution of the United States upon the nine states which ratified it, containing a minority of the people. "The Declaration of Independence itself was not the act of the people, counting by the head. That great deed which changed our relations to the whole world never was sub- mitted to the people. It was the work of delegates appointed by a convention in each of the colonies, each colony acting for itself. They were vested with a general grant of power, ' to consent and agree to all measures which said Congress 6hall deem necessary to obtain redress for American griev- ances.' They announced themselves as acting as the re- presentatives of the United States, in general Congress assembled, when they appealed to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of their intentions. Rhode Island existed from the Revolution up to 1842, under a royal charter from Charles II.. granted in 1663. But from the first colonial constitution, formed by Virginia, 5th July, 1776, down to the last of the original thirteen, not one of them was submitted to the people; but their delegates, in con- vention assembled, ordained aud established them, in com- pliance with the plenary powers granted to them by the people themselves, or the legislature." Hon. Clark B. Cochrane of New York, in the House of Represeutatives, January 2Gth, 1858. "Had I been a member of a constitutional convention of Kansas, fairly elected aud constituted by its people, I might have accorded to the owner of this species of property (as was done at Topeka) a reasonable time to remove his slaves from the territory, to be disposed of in any manner he thought proper; but I should have doue it as a matter of favor, aud not conceded it as a claim of right. I deny that any such right exists. No such claim is recognised by any rule of justice or equity. 'The practice of the older states which have abolished slavery' has nothing to do with the case under consideration, either by analogy or otherwise. The justice of this claim is to be determined by the Kansas- Nebraska act. As this act was put forth as inaugurating a new policy in respect to the territories, we have a claim to know (though not responsible for the measure) what are the rights, if any, of the people under it? Is it conceded that the people of a territory, when they come to form a state government, may exclude aud abolish slavery? Then, sir, every person who carries his slaves into the territories, carries them with notice of this unquestioned right of the people, and subject to the exercise of that right. He goes, knowing and acknowledging that the people may say. whenever they proceed to form a constitution, that property in human beings shall no longer exist in the territory, and he goes at his peril. If the people say, 'We give you time to remove and dispose of your slaves elsewhere.' very well; if not, he has no cause of complaint whatsoever." Hon. John Cochrane of New York, at Tammany Hall, March 4th, 1S58. " Kansas being admitted as a state under the Lecompton constitution, have her people the power to change or in any manner to alter it and at any time they please ? I am uotcer- tain that I am warranted in detaining this au lience longer than with an ailirmatiou of the proposition implied by this interrogatory ; yet. so general is the interest which pervades all classes upon this momentous subject, that everything pertinent to it is possessed of an artificial if not a natural importance. It certainly cannot he seriously questioned that this power resides in. and is inseparable from the people. Cujtis est instituere.ejus t:xf abrogate, is the language of Algernon Sydney. Mven the doctors of Laybach fulmi- nated theuogma that the sovereign power alone is competent to the modification of government. What was thus assumed by the parties to the holy alliance is inherent in the people of the United States— sovereignty : and the truism is incap- able of argument that supreme power is irresponsible men to itself for the exercise of its functions But we are obliged to depend on neither theory nor foreign instances for the support of the proposition. Our own history furnishes us with ample authority, and frequent applications of it. James Madison, in No. 40 of the Federalist, defends our pre- sent Constitution as the act of the people, though originally recommended by ' a very few deputies from a very few states,' and asserts that the app.~Dat«>« of the people ' blots out all antecedent errors and irregularities.' Every constitution of the original thirteen states has undergone changes, and yet the constitutions of none, except New Hampshire, pro- vided for alterations or admitted them. The constitution of 1821 of the state of New York was displaced and abrogated against its express provisions in 1845, and a new one was adopted by the people. In the case of Luther v. Borden (7 Howard, pp. 2-47), the Supreme Court of the United States (Taney, Chief Justice) says: 'No one, we believe, ever doubted the proposition that according to the institutions of this country the sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state, and that they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure.' In the convention which framed the late constitution of Virginia, a proposition was made to insert a clause providing a mode for its further amendment. The proposition was rejected on the ground that a majority of the people had the power at any time and in any manner they pleased to amend the constitution, or to make a new one. Among the votes by which it was rejected were those of James Madison, Chief Justice Marshall, John Tyler, and Littleton Tazewell. I will add another authority which, though contemporary, is entitled to all the respect and veneration belonging to the great past. During the debate upon the admis- sion of Michigan in the Senate of the United States, Mr. Benton remarked, ' that conventions were original acts of the people. They depended upon inherent and in- alienable rights. The people of any state may at auy time meet in convention, without a law of their legislature, and without auy provision in their constitution, and may alter or abolish the whole frame of government as they please. The sovereign power to govern themselves was in the majority, and they could not be divested of it.' — (Gales & Seaton's Debates, vol. 12, part 1, p. 1036.) Sir, there is no room for comment upon this formidable array ; no exception to their general current is anywhere to be found. They are full and conclusive upon the point that a people, through the intervention of their represeutatives in convention, are clothed with the power of abrogating old constitutions and of establishing new constitutions at their owu arbitrary pleasure, regardless of legislative law, organic law, or any other law." Hon. Schuyler Colfax of Indiana, in the House of Repre- sentatives, March 20th, 1858. " When the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Barksdale] was upon the floor, a little while ago, he put some interro- gatories to me. He wished to know whether, if Kansas came here with a constitution adopted by her people recognising slavery, I would vote for her admission under that constitution? I tell him now, emphatically, in advance of the speech which I have prepared, that I would not. When the Missouri compromise, that time-honored compact, was repealed, I declared then, and I maintain it now, that by no vote of mine shall that repeal be carried out to what I feared was intended to be its result; and, therefore, I would refuse to admit Kansas as a slave state under auy contingency." Hon. Martin J. Crawford of Georgia, in the House of Representatives, February 24th, 185S. " But it is urged that although the charges made he true, and that a majority of the people did not vote at all former elections, yet the Lecompton constitution was voted upon legally and decided against by the people on the 4th of Jauuary last. This demands consideration, but is easily overcome. The question made is. that the legislature of the territory, called by Secretary Stanton, directed that a vote should be taken against the constitution, and that this legis- lature was legally assembled, aud possessed power to send to the people the Lecompton constitution lor adoption or re- jection. Our answer is. that the legislature culling the con- vention and clothing it with power might have limited it in its action, and required the whole constitution to be sub- mitted to the people; but as it failed to do so, then the con- vention was free to act as it thought proper, and no subse- quent legislature could trammel or direct its action. To hold otherwise would be to hold that the legislature was superior in power aud sovereignty to the convention, for if it could direct and control this subject aud thus defeat the constitu- tion, it would be the higher power, and in possession of attributes unknown to legislative bodies. This legislature could pass any law within the scope of its jurisdiction, but nothing more; the power once enjoyed by the legislature had passed away from it. and the subject was above and be- yond its reach; the door was closed; the act was nugatory; and the election was as much without effect as though it had been upon the Kansas act, instead of the constitution. APPENDIX. 717 It only remains to be seen whether Congress will redeem its pledge, or whether it will offer a reward to the rebellious spirit which has existed in Kansas from the passage of the organic act to this time." Hon. John J. Crittenden of Kentucky, in the Senate, March 17 th, 1858. "There are some doctrines which have been advanced here with which I disagree, and upon which I will briefly express my views. Some gentlemen have argued, and they have the high authority of the President to sustain them, that the Kansas-Nebraska act gave all the authority that is usually conferred by what is called an enabling act on the people of a territory. I never considered it so. I do not believe it is to be considered so. Some gentlemen, on the other hand, maintain that, under the Kansas-Xebraska act, the convention were bound to submit the constitution to the people for the popular suffrage; indeed, that it is the right of the people to have every convention submit every consti- tution to them. I do not agree to that doctrine. The peo- ple are too sovereign to be required to do that. Tbey can Confer upon a convention the power to make a constitution that shall be good without reference to any other power. The sovereignty over the territory is in this government. It belongs to the people of the United States, one and all. The people of the states own it ; and they are the real sove- reigns of the territory, and we as their representatives. They have no more power in the territory, than we give. They have no government but what we give. It is not in the nature of things that they should have. All squatter sovereignties, and sovereignties of all sorts, vanish before the sovereignty of the people of the United States. "But the President says, in reference to this Kansas con- stitution, that, although it contains a provision that after 1864 a convention may be called to change it, the people can, nevertheless, change it before that time. That is to say, the people, by their irresistible power, can at any time, not- withstanding the provisions of their constitution to the con- trary, change it as they please. Sir, this is a very high authority, the Presideut of the United States; but it is, in my humble j udgment, a very dangerous doctrine and a very untrue one. The people cannot bind themselves by a con- stitution! I thought that was one of the great virtues and purposes of a constitution. We admit them to be sovereign. Why cannot they make what sort of a constitution they please? The constitution which sovereignty makes, in all its parts and in all its purposes, must be the rule of conduct for all. It cannot be abolished, except in the manner pre- scribed and pointed out in the constitution itself, if any manner is prescribed. " If the President's doctrine on this subject be true, what becomes of the Constitution of the United States? Instead ef following the mode of amendment prescribed in the Con- stitution, the people, by their irresistible power, may in any other manner at any time change the whole frame of our government. There is not a state constitution in the Union that does not impose some restraint as to the manner of change. What would a constitution be if it were just as liable to change as any ordinary act of the legislature ? It would lose its character. Those who talk to the people about the unlimited and illimitable power they possess are teach- ing a dangerous doctrine. That is a sort of sovereignty which the people cannot exercise. It niay be made very flattering to their ears, but it is impracticable in the nature of things. It cannot be exercised at all. The people must exercise their sovereignty through agencies. They must exercise it through representatives and governments; they mast exercise it safely through constitutions. If they could not make constitutions bind themselves, their sovereignty never would be safe. If it were not invested in the consti- tution, it would be constantly escaping into the hands of gome of those gentlemen who could talk most eloquently to the people about their irresistible sovereignty. That would be the end of that sort of sovereignty in the people. "The people must understand that their sovereignty, their practical sovereignty, is to be exercised through repre- sentatives and delegates, over whom they are to hold the proper control; and to hold that control, and to fix and make permanent and operative their sovereignty, they must put it in the form of a constitution. That is the only secu- rity for popular sovereignty. Therein it exists, and therein alone can it exist. It is not true that the people cannot bind themselves, and are not bound, by the restrictions of their constitution. They may rebel against their own con- stitution ; they may violate their own law and constitution, just as they could violate the law or constitution of any other people; but it does not follow that, because they could do that, they have not created a political obligation on themselves by a constitution, only to amend that instru- ment in the guarded, temperate, gradual method which the constitution may have provided for and prescribed." Hon. Henry Winter Davis of Maryland, in the House of Representatives, March 30th, 1858. * The question is not whether Congress may in its discre- tion recognise constitutions formed by the people without authority of law ; but whether a territorial legislature has in point "of law authority to legalize the election of a conven- tion, to give the convention itself a legal existence, to vest it with legal power to bind not merely the people but the Con- gress. No one denies the power of Congress to admit Ten- nessee and Florida ; yet no body ever asserted any legal vali- dity in their proceedings before admission. '• The language of the organic acts and the proceedings of Congress thereupon are decisive. " The territories divide themselves into two great classes. In Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Tennessee, and Michigan, the legislatures had " power to make laws in all cases, for the good govern- ment of the people of the said territory, not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.' "In Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Florida, Iowa, the powers of the legislatures were declared to extend— in the identical words of the Kansas Nebraska act—' to all rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.' " Congress has construed both forms of expression by pass- ing enabling acts for both classes. Not only for Ohio, Loui- siana, Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, but also for Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Oregon, did Congress pass acts specially authorizing them to call a convention and form a state government; and, in every instance, excepting Wisconsin, these bills provided all the details of the conven- tion, the number of delegates, its time of assembling, the modes under which the delegates should be elected. It is plain Congress thought the power ' to make laws in all cases' necessarily extended it ' to all rightful subjects of legislation.' It is plain, Congress thought neither form of expression authorized the temporary territorial government to create a convention to form a constitution which would begin to operate only after the territorial legislature itself had ceased. Its power to govern was confined to the territory — a tempo- rary contrivance for a temporary purpose — involved in all the local interests and conflicts of territorial politics — and not safely to be intrusted with the providing for a constitu- tion. In a word, tbey were authorized 1o make laws to govern the territory ; but a law for a constitution was no law for governing a territory at all. " The case is stronger under the Kansas act ; for it reserve! to Congress the power to make two or more states or terri- tories out of that territory ; and if Congress have the right to make two states, it is absurd to suppose it gave the legis- lature power to make one state of it. " But there are cases of territories which have spontane- ously petitioned for admission under constitutions framed without an enabling act, and tbey are fruitful of authority. " The proceedings for the admission of Arkansas, Michigan, and Iowa— where there were no acts of Congress authorizing conventions — are decisive. "The law admitting Arkansas declared the boundaries of the state. That, I suppose, establishes the fact that nobody then maintained that there was any authority in her con. stitution prior to her admission. The territorial limits of a state are essential to her existence; till they are defined there can be no state; after there is a state, Congress can- not determine its right of territory. On the territory depend the counties, the election districts, the judicial divi- sions, the apportionments of representation, the very people who are entitled to be heard on the adoption of the consti- tution. " If the territorial law can authorize a convention which can adopt a constitution having any legal force prior to the recognition of Congress, it must have the right to define and appropriate the territory of the state it creates ; and if it have not this power it cannot create a state in the eye of the law at all ; for Congress may destroy its identity by taking away a half, or two-thirds, or all its territory, and give it to another state." Hon. John G. Davis of Indiana, in the House of Represen- tatives, March 25th, 1858. " The President says in his annual message : " ' The convention were not bound by its terms (the terms of the Nebraska-Kansas bill) to submit any other portion of that instrument (the constitution) to an election, except that which relates to the ' domestic institution of slavery.' "This is a remarkable assumption. What gave rise to the provision in the Kansas-Nebraska act 'that the people should be left free to form and regulate their domestic insti. tutions in their own way?' Why, Congress had. from time to time, legislated on the subject of domestic slavery, but had never assumed the authority to legislate upon any other of the domestic institutions of the states or territories Hence Congress ignored the right it had before assumed tc legislate on that institution, and left it on the same footing with all other domestic institutions of the states and terri tories, to be controlled, like them, by the people whom they directly concerned ; and I think it would be difficult, in- "718 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. deed, to make any ■well-informed person give it a different construction. Again the President says : "'Domestic institutions' are limited to the family. The relation between master and slave, and a few others, are 'domestic institutions,' and are entirely distinct from insti- tutions of a political character. Besides, there was no ques- tion then before Congress, nor indeed has there since been any serious question before the people of Kansas or the country, except that which relates to the ' domestic institu- tion' < f slavery." "This assumption is still more novel and remarkable. If domestic institutions are limited to 'the relation of master and slave, and a few others,' the 'few others' may be as im- portant to the people as ' the relation of master and slave,' and they, by the President's own showing, are included in the terms of the act, and should have been submitted to the peo- ple; and why, let me ask, not submit the few others, as well as that one 1 Until this ingenious discovery of the President, I venture the assertion that nobody dreamed of giving to the phrase ' domestic institutions,' as used in the Kansas- Nebraska act, a narrower scope than that of embracing all institutions belonging to a territory or a state, as contra- distinguished from those placed under the control of Con- gress by the Federal Constitution." Hon. Reuben Davis of Mississippi, in the House of Repre- sentatives, February 24th, 1858. "The very act of the government giving to the people of Kansas a charter, authorizing them to pass laws for them- selves, enables them to do anything and everything necessary to make a state government when their numbers will justify it. This being the case, the people of the territory can only determine for themselves when it suits them to change their political status, and when they will exercise the full sovereign act of making a state. Having come to this determination, they can, for the first time, incorporate in the compact be- tween themselves, an agreement as to what shall be property and what not — and they may also agree that certain things, recognised as property by other states in the Union, shall not exist with them as such, and can only be exercised in convention, by which the compact is made — because, it is only in the exercise of the highest act of sovereignty that this decision can be made. It is the result of the agreement made by each of the members who compose the society, with each other — whereby everything held as property may be divested of that attribute and invested with the elemeuts of other property not previously so existing. " When the people have thus agreed, the legislative power cannot change the condition of things, or alter their decree in relation thereto. It is this reasoning which prohibits the territorial legislature from divesting anything, taken to the territory as property, of that element. Congress, having no powers but legislative, cannot do it herself, and of course cannot authorize it to be done. "The people of the territory, in a state of society, cannot determine whether slavery shall exist or not, as in that con- dition they cannot exercise any legal control over the rights of persons or things — nor can they do so in their legislative character. They haviDg derived from the government power only to enact rules and regulations, which is inferior to the power inherent in the people to form a compact between themselves. To my mind, then, it is most clear that the only period at which the question of slavery can be deter- mined is in the convention." Hon. Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts, in the House of Representatives, March 8th, 1858. "The Lecompton convention was the creature of the ter- ritorial legislature. It derived all its authority and power from that legislature. No one ever claimed for it that it derived any power from the people outside of the forms of territorial law; for to do that, would be to go to the same source from which the Topeka convention derived its autho- rity. And if it be ' treasonable' for the one to drink at that fountain, it cannot be • legal' for the other to partake of the same poisonous draught. If. then, the Lecompton convention derived all its power and authority from the territorial legis- lature, the question next arises, had the legislature itself the power to clothe this convention with authority to form a con- stitution and state government .' Now, the territorial legis- lature derives all its power from the organic act. It can Serive power from no other source; else it, too, will rind itself going for authority to that treasonable source, the people, where the nifii of Topeka were debauched. In the organic act will be found both the creation and the measure of all legislative power in the territory. And that act has defined and set limits to the power of the legislature, which it creates, in express terms, beyond which it cannot go, in these words — section twenty-fourth of the act : — "'The legislative power of the territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Con- ■titution of the United States and the provisions of this act.''" " In section twenty-four, it is further enacted, ' that the legislative power of the territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution.' " But, sir, this section not only limits the power of the legislature by the Constitution, but it imposes the further limit that all legislation shall also be consistent with the provisions of the act that created the legislature. The one is just as clear, just as express, as the other. Uvery legisla- tive act which conflicts with the organic law. is here made void for want of power in the legislature; just as much, and for the same reason, that it would be void if it conflicted ' with the Constitution. The organic act is here made a part of the constitution of the territory, and is supreme over its legislature. And this must have been so in the nature of things, in the absence of any provision in the organic law upon the subject. For either the organic act, or the legisla- ture, must be supreme; both cannot be. But the organic act created the legislature, and could not therefore clothe it with greater power than itself had, and could not make it supreme over itself. •• Now, the organic act nowhere provides for its own sub- version, or for the substitution of another government in its place. It is the charter of the territory, and is to be an- nulled only by the power which created it, acting upon it directly by repeal or modification, or indirectly by the ad- mission of the territory into the Union with a state consti- tution, which is itself a repeal. It needs no argument to show that the legislature could not delegate to a convention powers which it did not itself possess. Nor does it admit of any greater doubt that to form a constitution and state government is to act inconsistently with the organic law. It is an attempt to transfer the executive and legislative power, the whole machinery of government, into new hands, and if put in operation would subvert all territorial rule. * * * * * # * * $ * * * " There is another clause in the organic act, often quoted, from which it is thought by some that authority is derived to form a constitution and state government without any further enabling act. That clause is the celebrated one which ' leaves the. people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. sub- ject only to the Constitution of the United States.' Those who claim that, under this clause, the legislature has autho- rity to create a convention clothed with power to form a constitution and state government, claim for the legislature nothing less than power unlimited save by the Constitution of the United States, and forget that by a subsequent section the power of the same legislature is restricted to consistency with the organic act precisely as it is to the Constitution. If the legislature has power, under this clause, to initiate a state government subverting the organic act itself, then it would have authority, under the same clause, to provide for the election of a territorial governor by the people, or to dis- pense with the presence of such a functionary altogether, or any of his official duties like the approval of an act of the legislature. All this would be 'their own way' of doing business, and would certainly be no more subversive of the organic act than the formation of an entirely new govern- ment. Does any one claim, that if the territorial legislature of Kansas should declare that its acts should be valid with- out the approval of the governor or a vote of two-thirds, such acts would be of any binding force? And why not? That would be ' their own way.' The answer is, that the organic law has taken this power away from the legislature, and clothed the governor with a veto upon all their acts, to be overridden only by a vote of two-thirds. So, too, has it taken away, or rather, never granted, the power to make a constitution. If the organic act has created a legislature supreme over itself, it is a felo de se. It was but at the beginning of this session, and in his annual message, that the President himself claimed that the full intent and force of this clause was exhausted by an offer to the people of a vote upon the question of slavery merely, without, at that time, the slightest pretence that it had the force of an ena- bling act." Hon. J. F. Farnsworth of Illinois, in the House of Repre- sentatives, March 20th, 1858. "I oppose the admission of Kansas as a slave state, also, for the reason that shivery is a curse to any country, and to any people; it corrupts the morals and the manners of the people wherever it exists; it promotes poverty and igno- rance; it degrades labor, and consequently banishes the free labor from the land. You might as well prohibit by an act of Congress the emigration of the free laboring man of the North to that state, as to permit slavery to exist there. Slavery cramps and clogs the energies and progress of a state; retards improvements; wears out. and depreciates the value of the soil ; in fine, sir. it is, in almost every conceiv- able light, a curse! In this connection I wish to refer to some of the sentiments which have been uttered by a num- ber of gentlemen, members of this and the other branch of Congress, during the present session, and to reply to this threat of disunion, which has become so common of late, if we do not admit Kansas under the Lecompton constitution." APPENDIX. 719 Hon. Reuben E. Fenton of New York, in the Ilouse of Representatives, February 24th, 1858. " Gentlemen on the other side of the House tell us that if the Lecompton constitution is not endorsed by Congress, the Union will be dissolved. As much ns I love the Union, and cherish its hallowed recollections; as much as I reverence the memory of its founders, and their living and last wish for its perpetuation ; as much as I hope from its mission in the field of liberty— I would try the experiment, if I had the power, to defeat this usurpation, this cheat, this fraud upon the rights of the people of Kansas. But, sir, I have no fear of dissolution from this cause. I scarcely believe there are fifty thousand meu in all the South that would rally under the black standard of Dissolution. The Union is not to be dissolved. I fear vastly more in the consummation of this great wrong — commotion, strife, and bloodshed — and a reproach, if not a blot, upon the great experiment of self- government." Hon. L. F. S. Foster of Connecticut, in the Senate, March 8th, 1858. " In the territory of Kansas, we know that the people are exceedingly divided in their sentiments in regard to govern- ment. We know that a very large portion — nineteen-twen- tieths of the people of that territory, as I believe — are in favor of having it a free state. One-twentieth may be in favor of having it a slave state. Here, however, is a consti- tution which establishes slavery in it for ever. Now, I say, establish this constitution, and it can never be lawfully abolished, except by consent of every slaveholder in the state of Kansas. If it can never be lawfully abolished except by the consent of every slaveholder in trie state, it simply recognises this principle, that where a right is secured under a constitution, and a mode is provided in that constitution for amending or altering it, that right can never be affected or taken away, except in the manner provided in the con- stitution itself. The acquiescence of every one whose right is to be affected has, no doubt, the same effect. And this principle is applicable not only to the owner of property, but the holder of office, as the judge of a court, a sheriff, or any Other officer who might be holding an office under the old constitution. If the people, under this inalienable right that is talked about, should make a new constitution, elect new officers, ordain and establish new courts of justice, and set up a new state government, all those who are holding office under the former constitution and under the old govern- ment, unless they chose to give up their positions and | acquiesce in this revolution of their government, would be lawfully in the places to which they had been appointed under the original constitution and under the original law, and could call upon the Executive of the United States, if they were about to be forcibly removed from their offices, or if their legal behests were not obeyed, and the Executive of the United States would be bound to call in the physical force of the country, the militia — the Army of the United States — to carry out and to execute the mandates and judg- ments of the original and lawful legal tribunals under the old constitution, and never allow those tribunals or those officers legally in power to be overthrown and displaced by the new claimants. Would the Supreme Court allow what gentlemen here call 'property' to be disposed of by the will of the majority in any other manner than as provided in this constitution ? No, sir ; nobody believes it ; and that is a test of the question, because there are other rights as dear as the -ight to property; and if that may not be done there is an end of this loose talk, as it seems to me, about the inalienable right of the people to govern themselves." Hon. Stephen C. Foster of Maine, in the House of Repre- sentatives, March 10th, 1858. "We are also opposed to the reduction of our own free laboring classes to the level of slaves, by compelling them to work by their side. We claim the common territories as the common heritage of the people — the free people. Cer- tainly, if slaves cannot own themselves, they can have no light to go into the territories. The territories must either he free or slave. If the latter, then free laborers have no further interest in them ; for it is a well-established fact, that wherever slavery exists, the slaveholders get possession of nil the lands that are good for anything, and crowd out the poor. Slavery and freedom are irreconcilable as oil and water. They cannot be tenants in common of the same territory; and, since one must give way, which shall it be, '.he black slave or the white freeman? I insist that the slave must be excluded, but not the South. The great mass of the Southern people are not slaveholders, and they, like ■we of the North, are interested in keeping out the slaves. The slaveholders themselves may go and enjoy the terri- tories, but they must leave their slaves at home. But it is fiercely asked, shall we not carry our property? I answer, no! There is no hardship in excluding a particular species tff property from a state or territory; it is a common and no *ery heavy grievance. In the state from which I came, the banks are permitted to issue one dollar bills; and we find it impossible to avoid taking them. They are my money, my property; and yet, when 1 arrive in Washington with my. pocket full of them, I find that I dare not pass them, under a penalty of ten times their value. Your Congressional legislation hns rendered them useless to me. In like man- ner. Congress prohibits the institutions of rum, gin. and whiskey, in the Indian territories; and why may it not pro- hibit the still more pernicious and wicked institution of negro slavery ?" Hon. M. R. H. Qarnett of Virginia, ip the House of Re- presentatives, March 22d, 1858. " Sir, this point has been so well treated by Mr. Calhoun, in a letter addressed to my colleague [Hon. VVilliam Smith], that you will excuse me for adopting his words, so much better than any I could offer. " ' With this answer to your second question, I shall now proceed to reply to your third. It is in the following words: ' After a state has been admitted into the Union, has the numerical majority of the people of such state the right to alter or abolish the constitution, regardless of the mode pre- scribed for its amendment, if any : and where there is none, of the refusal or assent of such state ?' "'I answer — no; neither after nor before admission. If the right exists at all. it must be either a natural or acquired right. It cannot be the former; because all such rights be- long to man in what is called the state of nature — that is, in the state which is supposed to precede the existence of government, or what is called the political state. Although the human race cannot exist without society, nor society without government, yet. in the order of things, man must have existed before society, and society before government. And hence it has not been unusual for elementary writers on morals and politics, in treating of the rights and duties of man, to regard him iu each of these states. In his na- tural state, he is considered simply as an individual, with no superior; and his rights and duties are deduced from those faculties and endowments, physical, intellectual, and moral, which are common to the race. Regarded in this state, all are equal in rights. In it, each individual is the sole master of his own actions; and there are neither majorities nor minorities, nor the rights of majorities and minorities. In the other or political state, he ceases to be regarded in this isolated and independent character, and is viewed as a member of a body-politic, or a state; that is, a society or- ganized under a government, which represents its sovereign will, and through which it acts. It is in this state, and this only, that majorities and minorities are known, or have, as such, any rights. Whatever rights they possess, are political rights — the whole class of which are acquired — and are called conventional; that is, rights derived from agreement or compact, expressed or implied. How absurd, then, is it, to suppose the right of a majority to alter or abolish the constitution is a natural right — a right belonging to man re- garded as existing in a state of nature — when, in that state, majorities and minorities are unknown. '•'If, then, the right of the majority exist at all, it must be as a conventional right; and fortunately for the decision of the question, if it really exists in that character in our system, there will be no difficulty in finding it. The provi- dent foresight of our ancestors has not left to conjecture or implication, in whom the right to abolish constitutions, or forms of government, resides; or how, for the most part, it is to be exercised. In every case (including the Federal Constitution) except New Jersey and Virginia — and recent- ly Rhode Island— the authority by which it is to be exer- cised, and iu what manner, is designated in the constitu- tions themselves.' * * * '■ ' Now, as the right, if it exists at all, must exist as a con- ventional right ; that is. a right founded on express agree- ment or compact, or, in the absence of such an one, implied, it follows, from the statement, that it does not exist by ex- press agreement or compact, in any of the cases where pro- vision is made for amending the constitution ; nor can it exist by implication, in any state, unless in the only two where constitutions make no provisions on the subject' ******* "'Why was it not left to the discretion of Congress and the state legislatures, to call conventions, or propose amend- ments to the people for their ratification? It is not because the power of doing either was doubted, but because those who framed them, while they were too wise not to see that amendments would become necessary, were, at the same time, too deeply impressed with the danger of frequent changes in the fundamental law of a state, to permit amend- ments to be made wilh too much facility. To meet the one, it was necessary that they should be left open to amend- ments, and to guard against the other, that restriction* should be imposed on the amending power; or, without them, the numerical majority of the legislature might call conventions, or propose amendments at pleasure, to be adopted by a like majority of the people. The consequent would be, that constitutions might be changed with alrnort 72. THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. the same facility as ordinary acts of the legislature. It is to restrain this facility, that in all cages, where the constitu- , tion provides for its amendment, it imposes restrictions on the power of amending, which would not otherwise exist.' ******* '"'In denying, however, the right of the numerical ma- jority, as such, to alter or abolish the constitution of a state, regardless of the forms prescribed, or. where there are none, without the consent of the government, I am far from deny- ing that the people are the source of all power; and that their authority is paramount over all. But when political, and not natural rights are the subject, the people, as has been stated, are regarded as constituting a body-politic, or state, and not merely as so many individuals. It is only when so regarded that they possess any political rights. Viewed individually, as the elements of which the body-poli- tic is formed, they possess none but natural rights. Taken in either light, the people may alter or abolish their consti- tution: but with this difference— that in the former they can only do it by acting according to the prescribed forms, where there are such, and when there are none, through the agency of its representative and organ, the government of the state; while in the latter they act individually, and on individual responsibility. The one is a political, and the Other a natural right, or, as usually called in such cases, the right of revolution ; and can be resorted to, rightfully, only where government has failed in the great objects for which it was ordained — the security and happiness of the people; and then only where no other remedy can be ap- plied. In such cases, the individuals who compose the com- munity rightfully resume their natural rights, which, how- ever restricted or modified they may be in the political state, are never extinguished. But as a natural right it is the right of individuals, and not that of majorities: although it may not be so safely and prudently exercised by one man, or a minority as a majority, it belongs to oue as well as the Other.' "This admirable reasoning, Mr. Chairman, leaves us only to inquire, what mode has Kansas provided for the amend- ment of her constitution ? The fourteenth section of the schedule answers : " ' After the year 1864, whenever the legislature shall think it necessary to amend, alter, or change this constitution, they shall recommend to the electors at the next general election, two-thirds of the members of each house concur- ring, to vote for or against calling a convention; and. if it shall appear that a majority of all citizens of the state have voted for a convention, the legislature shall, at its next regular session, call a convention, to consist of as many members as there may be in the house of representatives at the time, to be chosen in the same manner, at the same places, and by the same electors that choose the representa- tives. Said delegates, so elected, shall meet within three months after said election, for the purpose of revising, amend- ing, or changing the constitution; but no alteration shall be made to affect the rights of property in the ownership of slaves.' "The time here named — after the year 1861 — is as much a part of the prescribed mode of amending as the two-thirds vote, or any of the other conditions. It goes to the very essence of the provision, and wisely, I repeat, as a guarantee against rash and precipitate change. Suppose the clause had said that, whenever the legislature think it necessary to amend, it may, at its regular session, by a two-third vote, call a convention ; would it follow that, at an extra session, a mere majority vote might call a convention ? Surely not; and neither does the power of two-thirds to call a convention after 1S64 imply the power of a majority only to call one before. The constitutional prescription of a particular mode of exercising a power precludes all other modes; in legal phrase. ' expressio unius, est exclusio alterius.' This clause determines who shall amend — a convention; who shall call a convention — two-thirds of the legislature; and the time when — after 1864. It defines the entire amending power. Hon. L. J. Gartrell of Georgia, in the House of Represen- tatives, January 25th, 1858. "I desire to say, for my time is very brief, that what I have said has been directed mainly to the attainment of two objects. These objects are paramount with me to-day. Proud as an American citizen, proud of the country, and the whole country, of the North as well as the South, my object is to demand forbearance at your hands, and preserve. if we can. the Union of our fathers. My second and great- est object is to have secured to the people of the South their constitutional rights, fully, entirely, and effectually. You may drive me from my first, position; you may force me to abandon the Union : you may tear the stars and stripes under which our fathers fought and won their liberties, and trample it under foot; you may drive me from my advocacy •f the Union; but, sir, never, while I have an arm to raise W a tongue to speak, a heart to feel or a hand to strike, can you drive me from the maintenance of Southern rights and Southern equality. "I tell gentlemen, further, that in order to preserve thil Union, you must admit Kansas as a state with the Lecomp- ton constitution. You must admit her as a slave state, with that constitution. And why? Sir, this whole Kansas ques- tion is -in a nut-shell.' It depends upon a single principle — it is the doctrine of non-intervention, sustained by the great Democratic party of the country in the last Presiden- tial election. Democrats from New York. Pennsylvania, and other Northern states, have gallantly and manfully stood by this principle. I honor them for it. The South honors them for it. They are National Democrats, and, as such, are dear to the people in my section. We honor them for their devotion to principle. But, sir. I said this Kansas question depends upon the great principle of non-intervention. Has that principle been observed? I say it has not. We have had intervention there. It has been the intervention of Walker and Stantou against the South, and in favor of the North, and it does not lie in the mouths of gentlemen to make objection to her admission now. It is true the South has achieved a triumph in Kansas; but it was a victory won over intervention on the part of the officers of the general government against slavery and against the South." Hon. Henry C. Goodwin of New York, in the House of Representatives, February 24th, 1858. "Notwithstanding all this, the administration, unveiling to the gaze of the nation its devotion to the interests of slavery, hastens, with the power and influence of the govern- ment it controls, to complete this dariug and infamous con- spiracy ; and urges Congress, at the risk of civil strife and bloodshed, to force not only this constitution, but state offi- cers and the insiitution of slavery, upon the people of Kan- sas, against their expressed and recorded will. Sir, this attempt will awaken a just spirit of retribution ; its success would arouse the whole land, and call forth a response from the ballot-box, compared with which the uprising of the people of the free states at the Presidential election of 1856, ■ would be but as the whispering of the summer winds to the loud wail and fearful blasts of the awakened tempest." Hon. William S. Groesdeck of Ohio, in the House of Repre- sentatives, March 31st, 1858. "It is said, Mr. Chairman, that the people cannot bind themselves in this way. We have heard, that one genera- tion cannot bind another. I do not care to discuss that proposition; I do not care to argue the proposition whether the living can legally bind the dead. I may grant that they cannot. That is not the question. The question is, can the living bind themselves. The question I have to consider in reference to this provision, is, whether you, and I, and all of us, have the right to bind ourselves for the brief period of six years, from 1858 to 1864? What are we? Sovereigns — essential parts of the sovereignty of this govern- ment, wearing sovereignty as it were, upon our shoulders. There is no power above us, and no power to control us. Where is the power above me, which says I cannot bind myself? If there be, sovereignty is there and not in me. Do you tell me. sir, I cannot bind myself for six years? I am no freeman if I cannot. You treat me as if I were an infant, as if I were a lunatic, as if I were an imbecile. You put me under guardianship. To whom? I can go into a partnership and bind myself for six years to carry out some two-penny arrangement; but when I come to the great matters of government, where stability is most needed, and wherein my highest rights are cared for and deposited, then, according to the theory of these gentlemen, though a free- man, I have no power to bind myself for six years ! That is a curious notion, in my judgment, of the rights of a freeman. •' What mean the commentators upon this subject, in ad- vising that constitutions be framed to secure some degree of stability and permanence in government ? What meant Thomas Jefferson, when in treating of this subject, he ad- vised that constitutions should be made alterable every twenty years. With the tables of mortality in his hand, and with a close and careful reckoning, he ascertained how long the majority of any given generation would survive, and re- commended that as the period for which constitutions should be made binding. What did he mean by this, if they can be changed at any time regardless of their provisions? Let me give his language. In speaking of the propriety of pro- viding for periodical amendments of constitutions, he says "'Let us, as our sister states have done, avail ourselves of our reason and experience, to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced, although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils. And lastly, let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be, nature itself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place ; or in other words, a new generation.' * • * • • APPENDIX. 721 4 And It is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution.' &c. (Jefferson's Works, volume 7 : pages 14, 16, and 10.) •• What meant the numerous conventions which have, from time to time, been held to frame and change constitu- tions f Why put the power of amendment into your consti- tutions and point out a particular mode of amendment, if this phrase in your bill of rights enables the people at any time in any way, constitutionally and legally, to tumble their governments to the ground'? Why require two-thirds of a legislature to pas- an act to assemble a convention ? Why go into all this formality if the people have the right, at all timjs, and in any manner they see tit. It/ally, and not by revolution, to change the constitution? " Sir, they cannot do it. If they undertake to change their constitution in a manner not authorized by the con- stitution itself, it is the right, and may become the duty, of the existiug government to resist such an attempt: and I tell you that if blood be spilt in such resistance, it is not always a penal act; if life be taken, it is not manslaughter; if property be taken and houses entered and searched, it is not trespass. Look at the Rhode Island case. It furnishes an illustration.' At the period of the American Revolution. Rhode Island did not, like the other states, adopt a consti- tution, but continued the form of government established by the charter of Charles the Second. In 1841, the people held meetings and formed associations, which resulted in the election of a convention to form a constitution, to be sub- mitted to the people for their adoption or rejection. The convention framed a constitution, directed a vote to be taken upon it. declared afterwards that it had been adopted and ratified by a majority of the people, and was the paramount law and constitution of Rhode Island. Under it elections were held for governor, members of the legislature, and other officers, who assembled together in May, 1842. and proceeded to organize the new government. But the old government, under the charter of Charles the Second, did not acquiesce. On the contrary, it passed stringent laws, and finally declared the state under martial law. I will not stop to give further particulars. The people tried to enforce the new government: the old charter government resisted. The people were put down. The legality of their movement was tested in the courts, and it was decided to be illegal, because done without the sanction of the old government. The effort of the people was treated as rebellious and insur- rectionary. I give no opinion upon the determination of this case, as being right or wrong. I allude to it simply as an instance where, in an extreme case, the people were not allowed, on their own motion and without consent, to reform or alter their government in their own way." Hon. G. A. Grow, in the House of Representatives, March 25th, 1858. - Peace among a brave people is not the fruit of injustice, nor does agitation cease by the perpetration of wrong. For a third of a century, the advocates of slavery, while exer- cising unrestricted speech in its defence, have struggled to prevent all discussion against it— in the South, by penal statutes, mob law, and brute force ; in the North, by dis- persing assemblages of peaceable citizens, pelting their lec- turers, burning their halls, and destroying their presses; in this forum of the people, by finality resolves, on all laws for the benefit of slavery, not, however, to affect those in behalf of freedom, and by attempts to stifle the great constitutional right of the people at all times to petition their government. Yet, despite threats, mob law, and finality resolves, the dis- cussion goes on. and will continue to. so long as right and wrong, justice and injustice, humanity and inhumanity, shall struggle for supremacy in the affairs of men." Hon. Johx P. Hale of New Hampshire, in the Senate, January 21st, 1858. " Sir, you are now proposing to carry out this Dred Scott decision by forcing upon the people of Kansas a constitution against which they have remonstrated, and to which there can he no shadow if doubt a very large portion of them are opposed. Will it succeed? I do not know; it is not for me to say: but I will say this: if you force that— if you perse- vere in that attempt— I think, I hop,-, the men of Kansas will fight. I hope they will resist to blood and to death the attempt to force them to a submission against which their fathers contended, and to which they never would have sub- mitted. Let me tell you, sir, I stand not here to use the language of intimidation or of menace: but you kindle the fires of civil war in that country by an attempt to force that constitution on the necks of an unwilling people; and you will light a fire that all Democracy cannot quench— ay, sir, there will come up many another Peter the Hermit, that will go through the length and the breadth of this land, telling the story of your wrongs and your outrages ; and they will stir the public heart; they will raise a feeling in this eountry such as has never yet been raised : aud the tn/m of tuia country will go forth, as they did of olden time, in 46 another crusade ; but it will not be a crusade to redeem the dead sepulchre where the body of the Crucified had lain from the profanation of the infidel, but to redi-em this fair land, which God has given to be the abode of freemen, froic the desecration of a despotism sought to be imposed upon them in the name of ' perfect freedom' and ' popular sovtt- reignty.' " Hon. T. H. Hammond of South Carolina, in the Senate, March 4th, 1858. '• I think that the Senator fell into a fundamental error in his report dissenting from the report of the majority of the territorial committee, when he said that the convention which framed this constitution was ' the creature of the ter- ritorial legislature;' and from that error has probably arisen all his subsequent errors on this subject. How cau it be possible that a convention should be the creature of a terri- torial legislature? The convention was an assembly of the people iu their highest sovereign capacity, about to perform their highest possible act of sovereignty. The territorial legislature is a mere provisional government; a petty cor- poration, appointed and paid by the Congress of the United States, without a particle of sovereign power. Shall that interfere with a sovereignty— inchoate, but still a sove- reignty? Why, Congress cannot interfere; Congress cannot confer on the territorial legislature the power to interfere. Congress is not sovereign. Congress has sovereign powers, but no sovereignty. Congress has no power to act outside of the limitations of the Constitution : no right to carry into effect the supreme will of any people; and, therefore, Con- gress is not sovereign. Nor does Congress hold the sove- reignty of Kansas. The sovereignty of Kansas resides, if it resides anywhere, with the sovereign states of this Union. They have conferred upon Congress, among other powers, the authority of administering such sovereignty to their satisfaction. They have given Congress the power to make needful rules and regulations regarding the territories, and they have given Congress power to admit a state. Under these two powers. Congress may first establish a provisional territorial government merely for municipal purposes; and when a state has grown into rightful sovereignty, when that sovereignty which has been kept in abeyance demands recognition, when a community is ft rmed there, a social compact created, a sovereignty born as it were upon the soil, then Congress is gifted with the power to acknowledge it, and the legislature, only by mere usage, oftentimes neg- lected, assists at the birth of it by passing a precedent reso- lution assembling a convention. " But when that convention assembles to form a constitu- tion, it assembles in the highest known capacity of a people, and has no superior in this government but a state sove- reignty ; or rather the state sovereignties of all the states alone can do anything with the act of that convention. Then if that convention was lawful, if there is no objection to the convention itself, there can be no objection to the action of the convention ; and there is no power on earth that has a right to inquire whether the convention represented the will oAhe people of Kansas or not. I do not doubt that there might be some cases of such gross and palpable frauds com- mitted in the formation of a convention, as might authorize Congress to investigate them, but I can scarcely conceive of any I and I do not think that Congress has any other power, when a state knocks at the door for admission, but to inquire if her constitution is republican. That it embodies the will of her people must necessarily be taken for granted, if it is their lawful act. I am assuming, of course, that her boun- daries are settled, and her population sufficient. '• If what I have said he correct, then the will of the people of Kansas is to be found in tin' action of her constitutional convention. It is immaterial whether it is the will of a majority of the people of Kansas rutm, or not. The conven- tion was. or might have been, elected by a majority of the people of Kansas. A convention, elected in April, may well frame a constitution that would not be agreeable to a majority of the people of a new state, rapidly filling up, in the succeeding January : and if legislatures are to be allowed to put to vote the acts* of a convention, and have them an- nulled by a subsequent influx of emigrants, there is no finality. If you were to send back the Lecompton constitu- tion, and another was to be framed, in the slow way in which we do public business iu this country, before it would reach Congress and be passed, perhaps the majority would be turned the other way. Whenever you go outside of the regular forms of law and constitutions, to seek for the will of the people, you are wandering in a wilderness — a wilder- ness of thorns. "If this was a minority constitution. I do not know that that would be an objection to it. Constitutions are made for minorities. Perhaps minorities ought to have the right to make constitutions, for they are administered by majorities. The Constitution of this Union was made by a minority, and as late as 1840 a minority had it in their hands, and could have altered or abolished it ; for, in 1S40, six out of th» twenty-six states of the Union held the numerical majority " 722 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Hon. James Harlan of Iowa, in the Senate, January 25th, 1858. "But what is the extent of the hoon attempted to be wrested from the unwilling hand of the President, for the people of Kansas, by the Northern Democracy 1 A negative right only ! The right to withhold their assent from consti- tutions and laws! The naked right of denial! At the polls, the people can do nothing more. They cannot there delibe- rate, modify, and mature measures of policy. " It is not a bold and manly contest, like that of the com- moners of England with the crown, for constitutional liber- ty ; but it is a contest with the President and his supporters, for the power to veto laws enacted by usurpers and tyrants. By their arguments we are carried back thousands of years in the history of free governments, to the period when the plebeian orders were engaged in a similar contest with those of senatorial rank in imperial Rome. In that contest, the plebeians did indeed achieve a great triumph when they acquired the right, in the person of their tribunes, to sit at the feet of senators, and write 'veto' on Roman laws. This was certainly one- step towards their emancipation. But does this, in the opinion of the Northern Democracy, fill the whole measure of the liberty of American freemen '! to choose between the law proposed and nolaiv? to decide between the constitution submitted and no constitution? I had sup- posed that in this country the people possessed the right, in the persons of their representatives, to march boldly into the ' Senate Chamber' itself, and there take seats f'.de by side with the Ciceros and Ctesars of that assembly; that they had the right not only to object to the passage of a bad law, but had the right boldly to step forward and make their own laws. Yet the whole Northern Democracy, led by the honourable Senator from Illinois, the honorable Sena- tor from Michigan, and others, stand here begging the Pre- sident and Congress to allow the people of Kansas to veto a constitution dictated to her— not the right by their legally- constituted delegates, fairly elected, to make a constitution." Hon. TnOMAS L. Harris of Illinois, in his letter to the Phi- ladelphia meeting, February 5th, 1858. " I hold it to be sound Democratic doctrine, that no peo- ple possessed of an equality of rights can yield up those rights or their liberties, either to individuals or society, by mere implication. To constitute government, a grant of power is indispensable, and to obtain it in a manner con- sonant with our Democratic theory, there must be a sur- rendermade by the people; but such surrender can go not one hair's breadth beyond what is specifially stated. When citizens vote 'yes' or 'no' on a proposition to call a conven- tion, is it to be said that they thereby sanction in advance whatever such convention may see fit to do ? When the people vote for delegates to such conventions, do they there- by ratify and confirm irrevocably the action of a body not yet constituted, which can, if it choose, disfranchise nine- tenths of them, and destroy systems and institutions which are universally cherished, or fasten upon them such as are abhorred? Does any Democrat claim for conventions such powers as these? Is there a citizen of any state who would concede such powers to any delegate body on earth 1 If not, why permit a body of men in a territory, just on the point of emergence into sovereignty — and a body, too, said not to have been elected from the whole body of the people, but to have been spawued into being from corrupted ballots — to fasten or attempt to fasten upon an outraged and protesting public an organic law against their will? Federalism in its rankest form never enunciated a doctrine more hostile to republican liberty." Hon. John B. Haskin of New York, March 10th, 1858. " Stop agitation upon this subject by a presidential edict, or by office-holders crying 'peace, be still!' Impossible! When this can be done we shall not be fit for the liberty we enjoy ; and the present Democratic party will be buried so low in political infamy as to prevent its resurrection by the united efforts of the entire South. Stop that agitation which demands that popular sovereignty shall reign omnipotent in this Republic! No, never! Sir, it is the child of light; it gambols on the hill-tops and in the valleys, throughout our beautiful country. It is that spirit which lived where a Tell dwelt; it had a Hampden for a votary; it wrested Magna Charta from King John ; gave the habeas corptis act to Britain; and the Declaration of Independence to this country. It has ever been the life of the Democratic party. Jefferson was an agitator. Monroe was an agitator, when he announced the doctrine of ' non interference of European powers on this continent' — a sound doctrine, and one that I hope to see this Administration enforce. Andrew Jackson was an agitator, and agitated the United States Bank out. of existence. We agitated Texas into the Union ; and, by a system of hard agitation, fbnght -Kansas' and -popular sovereignty' into favor with the people, and agitated Mr. Buchanan upon it into the presidential chair. Opposition to agitation is the child of darkness; it was begotten by a despotism, and fostered by kings and emperors. It has in France established the censorship of the press, and is used to keep light from the oppressed people, and them in ignor- ance. As a Democrat, considering how much benefit agita- tion has conferred upon the people of this country in the adoption of all the wholesome progressive measures ot '.he Democratic party, I can never consent to oppose agitation, especially when I believe justice will finally follow right. No, sir, I glory in agitation, and I am proud of being an agitator against the Lecompton constitution." Hon. Israel T. Hatch of New York, March 30th, 1858. "Sir, Kansas can never become a slave state. Climate and soil will mark the boundaries of slavery. The laws of political economy have already determined this. Popular assent has been given to this doctrine. It is not in the power of this government to make Kansas a slave state.- The executive, legislative, and the judicial power all com- bined, and acting in concert, could not make and keep Kansas a slave state, or make one inch of free, slave terri- tory. The laws of climate, production, and emigration are supreme. "Mr. Chairman, my time will only permit me to add, in conclusion, that in the view I take of all these momentous issues, there is one that transcends all others in the magni- tude of fearful consequences. It is not whether Kansas shall be admitted as a slave state or a free state, for the lat- ter is conceded a fixed fact, but it is whether the Democracy of this Union shall be overthrown or survive the coming conflict. To-day it is the only surviving party in the history of our government, all others have disappeared. To-day it is the only party that carries the flag of our Union ; the only party whose ranks, filled with the toiling millions, keep step to the ' music of the Union.' In its past struggles for ascendancy, many have deserted, many have fallen; but, thank God, their places have been filled in its advancing columns. None know so well as our oft-beaten enemies on the other side that their only path to victory is over the prostrate Democracy of this Union. " We are now warned by the other side that a crisis has arrived in our political history, and that the fate of this great party is sealed. It may be so. If it be true, God knows I desire not to lift the veil which hangs over the future of my country. I am no alarmist; but I will utter the honest sentiment of my heart, that I as solemnly believe as I believe in my God, so solemnly do I believe, that if the Democracy of this Union goes down, the flag of the Union will go down, to be trampled in fraternal blood under the feet of northern and southern hosts, contending for the empire of this continent. Yes, sir, go down to rise no more. Never again to float from the dome of this capitol. " But, sir, it will not go down. The Democracy of this Union has a higher, it has a divine destiny. Its mission must and will be fulfilled. Its mission in this republic is to maintain this Union — equality to all its sections, equality to all its citizens in their constitutional, religious, civil, and personal rights. " Its mission on this earth is universal emancipation. Wirt, in his eulogy on the immortal Jefferson, the father of Democracy, said : " From the working of the strong energies within him, there arose an early vision which cheered his youth and accompanied him through life — the vision of emancipated man throughout the world." Hon. Joshua Hill of Georgia, to Tammany Hall meeting. " House of Representatives, "Washington, March 1st, 1858. "Dear Sir: I am in receipt of the invitation of the appro- priate committees, to unite with them in a public meeting to be held at Tammany Hall, on Thursday evening next, at half past seven o'clock. I trust I am properly sensible of the honor intended me. I most cordially agree with the President of the United States in the sentiment which so justly demands the approval of your associates, that ' the peace and quiet of the whole country are of greater import- ance than the more temporary triumph of either of the political parties in Kansas ;' and I even go further, and add, or of any political party in any state or in the United States. '•I further give my hearty assent to the proposition of the President, that 'Kansas has, for years, occupied too mu.h of public attention, and that it is high time this should tie directed to far more important objects.' I am clearly of opinion that it was quite an unnecessary and wanton dis- turbance of the public tranquillity to enact a law for the organization of a territory in a wilderness, without popu- lation, and with conditions attached repugnant to the con- servative sentiment of the country. 1 never thought the Missouri compromise constitutional, but its repeal was Mid- den, unasked for, unexpected, and. I fear, unprofitable. Coupled as it was with the Badger proviso, without which. I am well assured it could not have been repeaVd. to sty nothing of its accompanying covert squatter sovereignty and patent alien suffrage, l>oth pernicious doctrines, 1 regarded APPENDIX. 723 It as t.f no practical advantage to the South, and hurtful to the nation at large. •'I am not so well convinced that, ' when once admitted Into the Union, whether with or without slavery, the ex- citement beyond her own limits will speedily pass away.' I incline to the opinion that, so soon as the too sanguine people of the Southern states lose all hope of Kansas be- coming a slave state, or continuing one, they will advert to the influences which have disappointed their hopes, and if, by possibility, it should occur to them that the past and present administrations of the general government have, in any manner, contributed to produce so unpalatable a result, they will feel and exhibit a just indignation. '• Apart from its influences upon parties, I am unable to attach any great importance to the admission of Kansas. I am free to own that, if I had any well grounded hope that, when admitted, it would continue a slave state, I should feel deep solicitude for its admission. If any man, from any section, sustains the Lecompton constitution because he desires the admission of the new state to be followed soon by the assembling of a new convention of her people, for the purpose of excluding slavery from her system, I frankly declare that I have no sympathies with such sup- porter, and cannot regard him as my ' natural all}*.' '• Hoping that good counsels may prevail in your meeting, and that good may come of your deliberations. I have the honor to remain, with high respect, your obedieut servant, " Joshua Hill. " Peter B. Sweeny. Esq., •• Chairman General Committee, Tammany Hall." Hon. James Hughes of Indiana, at the Mozart Hall, New York, meeting, March 2d, 185S. "But it was urged against the Lecompton constitution, that the non-submission of that instrument to the popular vote was a violation of the Nebraska bill, of the Cincinnati platform, and of promises made to the people in 1856. Fel- low-citizens, a more barefaced imposition upon the public never was attempted, and a mere statement of the issues discussed and decided in the presidential election will show it. Was there any issue presented to the people as to the manner in which the people of Kansas should ratify their constitution — whether by delegates or a popular vote ? What was the issue ? "One party proposed to make Kansas a free state by c-rc- gressional action, and to refuse her admission as a slave state, notwithstanding her people might desire it, and without re- gard to the manner of adopting her constitution. And up to this day we hear the republican orators wiud up their long harangues about popular sovereignty, to which, in fact, they have always been opposed, by declaring that they would not vote to admit Kansas under the Lecompton constitution if all her people desired it, because they are oppos<:d to her admis- sion as' a skive slate. "The other party ignored all ri^ht to determine the ques- tion of slavery for the people of Kansas, either by the perj)b> of the states or by Congress, and declared that Kansas ought to be admitted, in the language of the Nebraska bill, 'with or without slavery, as her constitution might prescribe,' and there was no issue whatever as to the mariner of ratifying that constitution. "The Cincinnati platform, after proclaiming non-inter- ference by Congress with SLAVERY in state or territory, or in the District of Columbia, says: — " ' Resolved, That wc recognise the right of the people of all the territories, including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the legally and fairly expressed will of a majority of actual residents, and whenever the number of their in- habitants justifies it. to form a constitution with or without domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other states.' "It is a fair inference, and doubtless a correct one, from all this, that as to the mode of framing; and ratifying their constitution, the people of Kansas were, like other states, to regulate that matter for themselves, and custom had established two methods — one by delegates, the other by popular vote." Hon. R. M. T. Hunter, in the Senate. March 12th, 1358. " But. Mr. President. I take another view of it. Suppose that this wrong was about to be perpetrated; suppose that tn the admission of Ka :sas we were going to bring into the Union a people, the majority nl whom did not desire the constitution under wliicli it is a Imitted, it is a wrong which carries its own remedy with it. It will carry its own remedy immediately anil swiftly, because the main subject of griev- ance, as we all know, is that of slavery, and the Lecompton constitution itself allows a majority of the legislature to emancipate the slaves, provided they will pay for them; and is there any civilized government in the world which would emancipate slaves without paying for them? Hid not the English and French governments compensate the owners? Would the legislature of any state emancipate the negroes without paying for them? What would lie the burden on that territory of paying for some oue hundred, or two hun- dred, or perhaps three hundred negroes? Is it a matter to be considered when they could thus accomplish their wishes and give peace to the country at so small an expense? and shall we say that we will keep up all the complications and agitations of this question because they are unwillin-x to make even that small exertion in order to carry out their wishes ? This matter, it seems to me, cannot be considered by gentlemen who have been complaining that the will of the people of Kansas has been disappointed. In the second section of the seventh article the Lecompton constitution provides that ' the legislature shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of the owners, or without paying the owners, previous to their emancipation, a full equivalent in money for the slaves SO emancipated.' Is not the power to emancipate upon com- pensation expressly given by these words ? "It has been said, however, that the question of slavery- was not the only one in regard to which there was contro- versy; and that the people might desire to change the con stitution itself. I believe there is a large majority in Congress, a large majority everywhere, who think that the people of Kansas will have theright to change this consti- tution even before 1864 — not for the reason given by the President of the United States, for I am not one of those who believe it is not in the power of a convention to limit the right of its successors as to a change (that is for a limited period of time), or to prescribe the mode in which it shall be done; but 1 incline to think there is no provision for the case before 1864. If there be no provision, it stands like all other states in consimili casu; and then, with the assent of the existing government to the call of a convention, such a body could change the constitution. " Whether this be so or not it will depend on the people of Kansas themselves to say ; because, if there be a majority who believe they have the right, and who desire to change it, that majority will get possession of the legislature, and there will then be harmony between the existing govern- ment and the new one called into being under the second constitution. The same majority would control them both, and if there were harmony between both, there is no one who could apply to the general government for its interfer- ence. The case in which a legislature would apply for fede- ral interference, under such circumstances, is. when there is an old government whii h is contesting with the new for authority and jurisdiction; but no such case could arise here, because the same- majority would rule them both. " If this be so. if this people would have the power to change their constitution, I ask if they could not remedy the evil much more readily and completely after they were brought in as a state, than if they were remanded and sent back to their territorial condition? If they came to act on this subject as a state, they would act on it in reference to Kansas' interests and feelings alone. They would not be disturbed by the fear that unless their constitution should suit the views of a majority of Congress, they would not be admitted ; but, being in the Union, they would have nothing to consider except the interest of Kansas itself. They would therefore come to a conclusion much more readily, and under much sounder and safer influences than if they were to attempt it after they were remanded to a territorial con- dition. " I sav, then, sir, that if it be the great object of theur wishes to be enabled to govern Kansas according to the wishes of a majority, and they do constitute such a majority, the readiest and easiest mode of gratifying that desire is to admit Kansas as a state in the Union. We do the majority no wrong, therefore, by such an admission ; but, on the contrary, we afford them the most certain and easiest mode of securing their rights." Hon. William Kellogg of Illinois, in the House of Repre- sentatives, March 23d, 1858. "The equal enjoyment of the right of emigration to the territories and new states is one of the important features of our system of government; and any element introduced into the organic act of a territory or new state, in derogation of such principle, is subversive of an important element of our institutions. And for this reason, if for no other, I should feel compelled to oppose the introduction of Kansas as a slave state. •• Prohibit slavery, and the laboring masses of the North and South, of the teeming East and the growing West, enter that country on exact and certain equality. The reward of honorable toil, the -xreat avenue to wealth and power in our free government, is secured to all alike. The emigrants from every part of the extended confederacy meet in Kansas, then, upon that hiirh equality that American freemen alone can appreciate. With that element of wealth— free labor, undebased— they become, in fact, lords of the soil, peers of the land. Their houses, reared by the industry of their own hand, are consecrated as fitting habitations of those in whose hands are intrusted the destinies of this Republic. Yea, su« 724 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. the ricb. the wealthy of the North and South, can alike enjoy the fruits and participate in the advantages of the new state. I grant you the Southern planter cannot take with him his slaves — slavery is an institution of his state — nor can he remove his plantation and cotton fields : but he can enjoy there the profits that both produce, where one is lo- cated and the other tolerated. Equally so with the capitalist of the free states. The incorporations in which are invested his wealth, and which require his supervision, are institu- tions of the state in which he lives. His mills, his manu- factories, and his wheat fields, are local in their character, and he can only enjoy in Kansas the profits they may return ■where they are situate; but each may take with him the same kind of property, the same elements of wealth and happiness, to his new home." Hon. Anthony Kennedy of Maryland, in the Senate, March 12th, 1858. "Sir, the responsibility of agitation will rest upon the gentlemen here who initiate it, when once the mantle of sovereignty has been thrown upon the people of Kansas, and outside pressure has been removed. I am happy to say, frankly, I am perfectly free to admit that the message of the President upon this question, however much he may have been wrong in his policy before, in my judgment is the only measure of peace that can now be adopted. As such I accept it. Upon that ground I take it. I believe, before God, he is right; but whatever result may come, Jam not to be held accountable for it. The authors, and beginners, and originators of this question, must take the responsibility to themselves. I do not mean to vote to keep up agitation in Kansas, by letting the people of Maine or Oeorgia, Maryland or Vermont, claim the right to frame a constitution there. A constitution has been presented to me in conformity with law, legal in all its bearings. The question of fraud I ignore. There has been fraud on all sides. There has been cheatery of every kind. I do not mean to consider it. If representa- tives come here under a fraudulent vote it is competent for this body to purge itself of them, and to investigate frauds affecting the election of its members. "I have stated my views, Mr. President; I have protested against the principle of alien suffrage in the Minnesota con- stitution. 1 speak for a state that I believe to be as truly, I know to be as thoroughly, sensitive upon all questions affecting the rights of the South as any; yet, at the same time, with every pulsation of her heart beating for the pre- servation of this Union ; with every commercial tie and connection that she has with the south and southwest, she is endeavoring to act as a mediator in all this war of strife upon an impractical issue — one, really, in my humble judg- ment, of not the slightest moment, or the slightest import- ance, for the reasons I have stated ; because slave labor will be controlled by the principle of political economy, the immutable law of supply and demand. I vote, then, to take the question of slavery away from these Halls, by the only means that is in my power. I vote in accordance with the principle of the party that I have the honor to represent, which has for one of its cardinal doctrines that alien suf- frage and squatter sovereignty must be repudiated. Believ- ing that the proper authority has decided it not to be neces- sary to submit the Lecompton constitution to every resident inhabitant of Kansas for a vote of approval or rejection, I shall vote for the acceptance of that constitution. '• One other point of view I will allude to before I conclude ; and that is the inalienable right of the people of a State, in the exercise of popular sovereignty, in conformity to law, to amend their constitution in their own way and for their own purposes. The legislature of my own state of Maryland has, within the last three days, passed a bill on precisely that ground, all parties concurring in it. Americans and Demo- orats have just passed a bill to take the sense of the people on amending the constitution of Maryland, which now has in it a clause prohibiting the change or amendment of that constitution until 1862. It has been done in accordance with the forms of law. It is to be submitted to the people. If there be any question of difference as regards this particular constitution of Kansas, how can you so readily, in what manner can you so soon, and so easily, remedy the evil as by admitting the state? If there be a majority of ten thousaud against it, that majority can control it. Take it away from here, and let us get to the real business of the country. Let us take away the exciting subject of dispute and quarrel, for which this Congress has been agitated now for three months, and give it to the people of Kansas to settle. " For these reasons, sir, I shall vote for the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution." Hon. L. Q. C. Lamar of Mississippi, in the House of Repre- sentatives, January 13th, 1858. " But we are told that it is a coutempt of the authority of the people of Kansas — that it is an inroad upon popular sove- reignty to withhold from them a revision of their constitu- tion. Sir, the authority of the people is fully recognised; popular sovereignty, as a principle, is fully enforced when an opportunity is afforded to the legal voters to deposit their votes for delegates to a convention. And are not those dele- gates the people's representatives ? Is there a lawyer present who would teach his client that the acts of an authorized agent are invalid if not submitted for ratification to the principal? Would he tell them that such acts unsubniitted would be insulting to the principal's dignity, or intrusive upon his prerogatives? Would you say that no respect should be paid to the acts, or to the principal himself, if he suffered them to go forth as his own, unratified? The truth lies just in the opposite direction. 'The right of electing delegates to a convention,' in the language of the profouudest writer on the philosophy of government, 'places the powers of the government as fully in the mass of the community, as they would be had they assembled, made, and executed the laws themselves without the intervention of agents or repre- sentatives.' " The people act in their sovereign capacity when they elect delegates ; and the delegates thus elected, and convened, are, for all practical purposes, identical with the people. Sir, I take higher grounds. I hold that the highest embodi- ment of sovereignty, the most imposing political assemblage known to our Constitution and laws, is a convention of the people legally assembled, not en masse, for such an assem- blage is unknown in our representative system, but by their delegates, legally elected. When such a body, with no de- clared limitation upon their powers, are deputed to form a constitution, and they execute their trust, the constitution, ipso facto, becomes the supreme law of the land, unquestion- able and unchangeable by any power on earth, save that which ordained it. This is no novel doctrine. It has th# sanction of the wisest and greatest men known to Americai history. Mr. Calhoun, speaking of a convention of the peo pie. says it implied ' a meeting of the people, either by them- selves or by delegates chosen for the purpose in their high sovereign character. It is, in a word, a meeting of the peo- ple in the majesty of their power — in that in which they may rightfully make or abolish constitutions, and put u| and down governments, at their pleasure.' (Calhoun's Works, vol. 2, page 612.) Our present chief magistrate, in standing by the action of the Lecompton constitution, is only acting in accordance with his opinions, long since recorded. In the debate on the veto power, he said: " ' The Senator [Mr. Clay] asks, why has not the veto been given to the President on acts of conventions held for the purpose of amending our constitutions? If it be necessary to restraiu Congress, it is equally necessary to restrain con- ventions. The answer to this argument is equally easy. It would be absurd to grant an appeal through the intervention of the veto to the people themselves against their own acts. They create conventions by virtue of their own undelegated and inalienable sovereignty; and when they speak, their servants — whether legislative, judicial, or executive — must be silent.' " Such was the convention of Lecompton, and the consti- tution it presents was established under laws, federal and territorial, to which every man in Kansas (except rebels) has given his consent. These laws direct the election, prescribe the order of it, the qualification of voters, and the times of holding the meeting, and the duties and qualifications of the presiding officer. In this way the delegates were elected. They met, and upon mature deliberation framed a constitu- tion — a constitution republican in form, and securing to the people of Kansas all those great institutions of freedom which have ever been regarded as the only and surest bulwarks of civil liberty. Violating no law, inconsistent with no prin- ciple of the Federal Constitution, it preserves and guaranties to the people of Kansas all the great agencies of freedom, the right of habeas corpus, trial by jury, freedom of the press and speech, and liberty of conscience, as inviolate and pure as when they were first given to us, baptized in the blood of our revolutionary fathers. Now, sir, can a greater insult be offered to the understanding of the American people, than to say that a constitution thus established would gain anything of credit or sanctity by a ratification like that con- tended for? I grant that the people, through the legisla- ture, may reserve to themselves the right of ratification, or the delegates may recognise it in the constitution itself; and in either case a ratification would become necessary to the validity of the instrument ; but without those terms it would become absolute as soon as sanctioned by the delegates." Hon. Joseph Lane of Oregon, in the House of Representa- tives, March 27 th, 1858. " I repeat, sir, that that constitution is before us. The -people have had a chance to vote upon the question of slavery, and nine-tenths of those who have voted have voted in favor of slavery. I have no doubt that a majority of the whole people of the territory, at the time the question was submitted, were not in favor of slavery. But their opposi- tion to slavery did not go to the extent of recording their vote against it. What I mean to say is this, that in ascer- taining the will of the people you are to look to the votes given for or against, not to the vote withheld, whether ihay ArPENDIX. 725 be vjthheld on accour.t of indifference to the result, or from factious motives. And when gentlemen say they are ready to vote for the admission of a slave state, if they are satis- fied that the people of the state are in favor of slavery, and yet propose to vote against this constitution, I say, that with the constitution before us recognising slavery, they are es- topped in that argument. They cannot go behind that con- stitution. It is here legally ; it is here legitimately : it is here properly. If there have been irregularities, bloodshed, and disorder in the territory, you know how it has been caused. You know it has been caused by the instrumen- tality of men armed with Sharpe's rifles, sent out by the emigrant aid societies for the purpose of defeating the ends of justice, and thwarting the will of the people. The fault rests with them ; and let the consequence rest upon the guilty. Do not permit the territory and the country to suffer. It is in behalf of the country that 1 speak. I appeal to this House to stand by the Constitution, and to allow the majority of the people to regulate their own institutions. Bring Kansas into the Union. Raise her to the dignity of a state. Place the sovereignty in the hands of her people, and they will regulate their own affairs as they please, and peace will be restored to the country. Let us not do injus- tice to our friends of the South, now. and for all time. I am sure my friend from Iowa [Mr. Curtis] would not desire to do injustice. I have a very high personal regard for the gentleman. I know him to be a man of good heart, and strong mind, although he is wrong in politics. He has only to take one step further, and come over to the Democratic party. I say to that gentleman, tjiat the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon this question of slavery commends itself to my judgment; that slavery nominally exists in the territories subject to the control of the people when they come to form a state government; that Congress has no power over the subject. It cannot establish or prohibit slavery; it is not in the book ; no such powers were conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. Our forefathers had the good sense to confer, in plain and unmistakable terms, all powers necessary for the good of the whole country; and they took care to provide that the powers not conferred upon Congress should be reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Hon. William B. Maclay, of New York, to the Chairman of the Committee of Arrangements for a meeting at Tam- many Hall, New York, Dec. 23d, 1857. "I acknowledge the receipt of your letter inviting me to attend a meeting to be convened at Tammany Hall on the 23d instant for the purpose of expressing confidence in the administration of James Buchanan, and responding to the sentiments of his message. I hail such a response as pecu- liarly appropriate and timely. The principles and policy of Mr. Buchanan, its hitherto developed and foreshadowed in his administration, merit the approbation of all good citi- zens. And now, when his honest endeavor to effect the peaceful settlement of a long-vexed question, by the intro- duction of Kansas into the Union as a sovereign state, ' with or without slavery,' as the people of that territory shall de- termine for themselves, is being unjustly embarrassed by his political opponents, it behooves all the friends of his ad- ministration to give him a prompt and unequivocal demon- stration of their hearty support. My views on this subject have been already given at some length in a letter to the Democratic meetiug held in this city on the 17th instant. I hold the doctrines of popular sovereignty and non-interven- tion as set forth in the platform of the Democratic party, and established by Congress in the organic act of Kansas territory. And I maintain that popular sovereignty, as properly defined and commonly understood, secured to the people of Kansas the exclusive right to determine the man- ner in which their will shall be expressed in the ratification of a state constitution— whether by a direct popular vote upon the constitution itself, or through their representa- tives voting in a convention chosen by a popular vote for that purpose; while the doctrine of non-intervention not only precludes all interference with the free exercise of that right, but makes it the duty of the President and Congress of the United States, with all the vested powers of the fede- ral government, to protect and preserve that right inviolate. And the argument which assumes that because sovereignty itself cannot be delegated, a sovereign cannot act through a delegate, and therefore no popular sovereignty can be ex- ercised by the people through a convention of their own choice, involves a specious fallacy which may at first mislead the masses, but cannot long escape detection. The people of Kansas may not have been fairly represented iu the Le- ■ompton convention; but this defect, whether it be attribu- table to the legislature or the subordinate officers, was not such as to invalidate the authority of the constitution, or to affect, in any way the legality of its action ; and in the pro- vision for a popular vote upon that part of the constitution relating to domestic slavery, which lias been so long with some the real ground, and with others the mere pretext. fhr the most unhappy agitation and irritation throughout the country, the people had an opportunity to counteract all the irregularity and unfairness which may have occurred in the choice of delegates to that convention — so far, at least, as regards everything upon which the sentiment of the convention can be supposed to differ from that of a ma- jority of the people. Besides, a vote upon the slavery clause by itself affords the fairest popular expression of the popu- lar will in determining the question whether Kansas shall be a fti&7£ state or a free state ; and that question once de- cided, the new state being admitted into the Union would have absolute power to change its constitution in other re- spects, according to the sovereign pleasure of the people. The views of the President on this subject, as expressed in his message, will stand the severest scrutiny, and must meet a hearty response from his steadfast friends through- out the country." Hon. S. S. Marshall of Hlinois, in House of Representa- tives, March 31st, 1858. " But now, as if to add insult to injury, you have dragged into my presence a hybrid monster, conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity; the miserable offspring of con- spiracy and crime, covered with fraud, and bearing with it the marks of infamy: a bastard bantling, disowned, repu- diated, loathed, and despised by the people whose child it claims to be ; you have dragged into my presence this fetid monster, offensive to my eyes and my nostrils, labelled it ' Lecomptou constitution,' christened it by the name of Democracy, and ask me to bow down and worship it as my idol. / tell you I will, not do it. With my convictions, it would be dishonorable in me to do so. You may denounce and proscribe, pile epithet upon epithet, and hurl your anathemas until you are sick with your own folly, and it will all pass by me as the idle winds which I heed not. 1'ftere is no power on earth that could induce me to sanction Otis ivrong. "And now, let me say to my southern friends, you have carried this thing far enough. You are asking us to take a position upon which we could not and ought not to stand. Before you further heap epithets and denunciations upon us. it would be well for you to pause and study the history of the Democratic party. The sacrifices have been altogether on our side, and not yours. We have never been strength- ened one particle by any act of yours. I wish to know what concession you have ever made iu our party organization for the purpose of strengthening our hands? What do we owe you .' When have we been strengthened in our course upon this floor, or before our constituents, by any concession you have made?" Mr. Jones of Tennessee. Tf the gentleman will permit me to ask him a question, I desire to know if the Southern Democracy have ever asked Northern men, or any other men, to concede anything but their constitutional rights? If we have ever gone beyond the Constitution, we ask you not to concede it. All we ask of you is the Constitution of the country and Democratic principles. Mr. Marshall of Illinois. I am not aware that you have asked more until now. I have said before my constituents, and before the country, in public addresses, that my convic- tion is that, as far as the legislation of the country up to this time is concerned, the South has asked nothing which is not her right under the Constitution of the United States. But I am sure, if you call this Lecompton constitution a Southern measure, you are asking that which is an insult to the people both of the North and South, as I honestly believe it ought to be considered. Hon. H. Mavnard of Tennessee, in the House of Repre- sentatives, March 20th, 1858. " We may just as well come right up to the Issue. There is no use in beating about the bush. We have been told repeatedly by gentlemen on this side of the House, when pressed for a reply, that if every man, woman, and child in Kansas were in favor of admitting her into the Union as a slave state they would resist it. Therein lies all the diffi- culty. Kansas, if admitted under the constitution framed at Lecompton, will come into the Union as a slave state, and, in my judgment, will remain a slave state, although the idea is inculcated ex industries that her people alter admis- sion can change the constitution, and, if they so wish, abolish slavery in less than three months. Gentlemen have pledged themselves against the extension of slavery — have taken a vow that no new slave states shall ever be admitted into the Union. Hence the persistency of their opposition. This is the very last expression of sentiment we have heard from the honorable gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Farns- worth], who has just taken his seat, and who closed with its enunciation. I understood him to make an appeal to God — to say, with solemn emphasis, 'So help me God! I will never vote for the admission of another slave state into the Union!' There, sir, is the ground we have to stand upon, the ground we have to contest, and we might as well come right up to the point, like true soldiers, and like men meet 726 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. it. 'When Greek meets Greek then comes the tug of war.' But, sir, they must meet upon the plains of Hellas, upon the shores of the Hellespont, or the tug of war does not come. "Mr. Chairman, I might, if I chose, commend to my Democratic friends, for their consideration — just here I might show them and point to them as a warning — how their principles and policy, which they have been for years inaugurating upon the country, and which have greatly tended to change the government from a pure republic to a simple democracy, have now returned upon them to plague the inventors. This idea of submitting a constitution to the people, for the popular vote, is only one of them, perhaps the least objectionable — I do not say that it is objectionable. I have no time to discuss the subject as I conceive it should he discussed. But when gentlemen rise here, and insist that it is necessary, to give validity to a constitution framed by a conventiou of the people, that it shall first be submitted to the people at the ballot box, for their ratification or rejec- tion, and approved by them, they announce a doctrine that ■would have startled George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Roger Sherman. Benjamin Franklin, Rufus King, the Morrises and Pinckneys, and the other sages who framed our American Constitution. Those great men unanimously recommended that the Constitution of the United Stales should be submitted ' to a convention of dele- gates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and rati- fication.' The idea of submitting their handiwork to the test of the ballot-box, to give it vitality and validity, did not occur to them. They did not deem it expedient even. "Before I proceed to discuss the great question before us, I beg to be indulged in a single suggestion with regard to the Lecompton constitution. There is one feature of that instrument which, permit me to say, meets my most cordial approbation; call it 'Americanism.' • Know-Nothingisin,' or what you please. It provides that the governor and lieu- tenant-governor of that state shall be at least thirty years of age, and shall have been citizens of the United States for at least twenty years, to be eligible to office; And it further- more provides that those who are entitled to vote shall be citizens of the United States above the age of twenty-one years, and shall have resided in the state one year. That, sir, is one of the principles which has ever been regarded as among the fundamental principles of the American party." Hon. W. Porchke Miles of South Carolina, in the House Of Representatives, March 31st, 1858. " I have heard, sir. with surprise and amazement, the light and almost flippant manuer in which many honorable gen- tlemen upon this floor have spoken of changing and annul- ling constitutions, at any time and upon the least provoca- tion, by a popular vote. Nothing but the fact that the tide of party feeling is running so high that its hoarse roar drowns for the time the quiet voice of reason, can account for the rash and hasty expressions of opinion to which i allude. Do those who contend so broadly for the right of the people, at any time, without restriction, to change their fundamental organic law at the instance of every tempora- ry whim or caprice, realize the momentous consequences which may flow from such a dogma? What safeguard have the rights of property, always in tile hands of the minority, if this doctrine be true? What is to prevent the masses, inflamed by the artful appeals of demagogues, from break- ing down the barriers which hedge in property and capital, and establishing a community of goods — inaugurating agra- rianism? Beware, gentlemen of the North — especially you who live in large cities where millions are concentrated in the hands of a few, and where a hungry-eyed mob are ever Scowling at the luxury whieh tempts while it mocks them; beware how you teach the laboring class, outnumbering your millionaires thousands to one. so dangerous a lesson. What you 'teach them they may practise, and it shall go hard with you but they will better your instructions.' "I have faith, sir, in the honest instincts and just inten- tions — the desire to do right — of the great mass of the peo- ple. If I had not, I would despair of the experiment of self-government which we have instituted upon a scale, and to an extent, never before attempted. But if we desire that great experiment to succeed— if we do not wish to run into anarchy and popular despotism, if we would not become a reproach and warning to the nations — let us not flatter the people into belienng that they can do no wrong that they can put no bridle upon momentary starts of impulse and passion, and that they can at any lime shatter the whole fabric of society at a single blow. No. sir! lie is the true friend of the people— the real, constitution-loving, law- abiding people, in their second sober thought, will recognise him as their friend — who warns them against themselves, points out to them the danger which may arise from sudden excesses of popular frenzy, and urges them, in their calm moments, to put up something securely on the shelf in the inner adyta of the temple of liberty, against the gloomy day when the storms of faction and ol anarchy may threaten tt ravag* the laud. But it may be asked, ' Have not the people the right to abolish their constitution, to sweep every vestige of it away; to tear down, if it seems meet to them, their entire political fabric, and erect on its ruins any — the most fantastic structure — under which it may please them to live? Yes, they have this ultimate right — the right of revolution ; the right to resolve themselves into the primordial elements of society ; and form, without any restrictions, a new social compact. But it is a dangerous state of transition through which to pass — one too often marked by blood and fire. It should be extreme and dire necessity alone which would tempt them to pass to the blue heights beyond — fancy-painted too often — through a flood tilled with swift whirlpools and treacherous quicksands. Still there are times when it must be tried — though success- fully only then when cool heads and great hearts lead on, cautiously feeling and sounding the way. "Sir, I have been trained in a school that looks upon con- stitutions as sacred things, not to be irreverently handled or lightly changed, and, I repeat, I have been surprised at the little respect or regard which many gentlemen here seem to entertain for them. That a constitution duly formed by the chosen delegates of the people, is, so soon a* formed, and without submission to a popular vote, (especi- ally where no such submission is required by the act calling the convention,) the supreme law of the land, I firmly believe. That this constitution cannot be amended, save in the pre- cise form and mode prescribed by itself, I believe as firmly. That the constitution of Kansas, with which she now ap- plies for admission into this Union, was duly formed by the chosen delegates of the jjeople, with the strictest observance of the forms of law, has. agaiu and again, been demon- strated. That it does embody the will of that portion of the people who were willing to conform with the requirements of law and erect themselves into a state, there can be no doubt. That the only portion of it which involved any vexed question was, by the convention which formed it, fairly submitted to the eutire body of the people, is equally certain. That because any — however large a portion — of the people refuse to take part in the formation of the consti- tution, or refuse to vote upon the feature in it which in- volves the whole question which has so long distracted the territory, that therefore Congress ought not to listeu to, or treat with, those who have steadily and legally endeavored to form a state and enter our confederacy, is an argument as unreasonable as the spirit which prompts it is factious. That the provision of the constitution which prescribes the vote of the legislature necessary to call a convention for tho purpose of amending the constitution subsequent, to 1864, does, by necessary and inevitable implication, prevent a call of a convention by any vote prior to that period, is too plain to admit of cavil. The argument that because the provision says that after 18G4 a convention can only be called in a certain specified mode and by a certain proportional vote, that, therefore, previous to that time it may be called in any mode, and by a bare majority, is, with all due deference to those who use it. in my judgment a species of special plead- ing little short of puerile." Hon. John* S MlLLSOJJ of Virginia, in the House of Repre- sentatives, February 24th, 1858. '•The territory ceded to the United States by France, in 1803. was. as we all know, a slaveholding country through- out its whole extent. The institution of domestic slavery was recognised and established by law before we acquired it. It was confirmed and sanctioned by the treaty with France, at the moment we acquired it, and was protected by several congressional aud territorial enactmeuts after- wards. It would have continued a slaveholding country to this hour — a country in which slavery or involuntary ser- vitude was a fixed and legal relation between persons — but for the passage of the act of the 6th of March. 1820, known as the Missouri Compromise, by which it was enacted that in so much of it as lay north of 36° 30', slavery and involun- tary servitude should be forever prohibited. '• The simple prohibition is all that Congress then thought it necessary to do to exclude slavery from that country. It is all that was ever done until the passage of the Nebraska bill. If, then, slavery was ever abolished there, it was by that act of 1820. and nothing else. If it was not. and could not be, rightfully and constitutionally abolished by that act, then it never was abolished at all; for that was the only act which undertook to prohibit it.- '•Now, sir. the Supreme Court of the United States has lately decided that the prohibition in that :ict was unconsti- tutional, and utterly null and void; that it was wholly nugatory, and without any valid force or effect. This being so. the territory continued to be a slaveholding country ' slavery, or involuntary servitude, continued to be an esta- blished and legal relation between persons; and would have so continued to this day, but for the passage of the Kansas- Nebraska bill in 1854. If the Nebraska bill had never passed, then, as soon as the judgment of the Supreme Court was made known, declaring null and void the Missouri Compromise, which was the only impediment that had eve* APPENDIX. 72T been thrown in the way of the slaveholder, the right to hold slaves would have been secured by existing laws to the same extent precisely as before the passage of that act. But the Nebraska bill undertakes to anuul those laws, by pro- viding, in the language I have just quoted, that they shall not be revived or put in force. In other words, the effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court was to annul the Missouri prohibition absolutely, and without any condi- tions; while the Nebraska bill imposes upon the South very hard and unfavorable conditions. And yet this bill has been supposed to flatter Southern opinion and advance Southern interest. "Why. sir, now that the Supreme Court has decided the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional, their decision is of no practical value to us whatever. If we go to Nebraska and say. "here, uuder the judgment of the Supreme Court, may we hold our slaves in security and find adequate laws for our protection ;' we shall be told, ' softly, gentlemen; it is true that that judgment has annulled the original pro- hibition which legislated slavery out of the territory; but you forget that your own Nebraska bill expressly declares that it was not your intention to legislate slavery back again into the territory. You forget that your own Nebraska bill, to put that intent beyond all doubt, prevents the revival or putting in force of those very laws whose protection you are now counting upon. You forget that your own Nebraska bill leaves it to us, the inhabitants of the territory, to say whether those laws, or any other laws, for your protection, shall be revived or put in force; and we have not thought it proper to revive them, or put them in force. We shall let them sleep on.' '•If we go to Kansas we shall find that there — yes, there, after a fierce and desperate struggle, involving the most de- plorable sacrifice of property and life, estranging the people, and threatening even the destruction of the Union — we have succeeded in gettiug back to the position which we voluntarily abandoned a short time before; but only to find ourselves surrounded with such circumstances of embarrass- ment, uncertainty, and danger, that our very victory has almost undone us. "Gentlemen may tell me, as some gentlemen have told me, 'how could we know that the Supreme Court would de- cide the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional?' Gentlemen may tell me that I am attempting to justify my vote against the Nebraska bill by relying upon eveuts which had not then happened, which were not then known, and which could not be then foreseen. I know, sir. that it is no uncommon thing to excuse a false step in statesmanship by seizing upou an unexpected accident which converts the blunder into a happy stroke of policy. But, fortunately, I am enabled to show that it was not the decision of the Supreme Court which first suggested to me those objections to the Nebraska bill which I am now presenting; that these very objections formed a part of the considerations which influenced my course; and that they were, in public and open debate, communicated to the House. On the 10th day of May, 1S54. the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Seward.] now before me, in the course of a very candid speech upon the bill, in which, while he pointed out with great clearness and force many objections to it, yet declared his purpose to vote for it, made this request of me : u 'I ask the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Millson,] who spoke the other day iu opposition to this bill, to tell me, and tell the committee, how the passage of this bill could work an injury to the South. " ' Mr. Millson. Does the gentleman wish a reply ? * 'Mr. Skward. I do. " ' Mr Millson. As the gentleman desires that I should reply to his inquiries, I will, with pleasure, accede to his request; of course, I can now say but a few words. In the remarks to which the gentleman alludes. I commenced by showing that the South had always been in opposition to the organization of a government in Nebraska. I explained, to some extent, the reasons which had induced Southern gentlemen to oppose the establishment of a territorial go- vernment there. I then stated that inducements were found necessary to be held out to us to overcome these ob- jections. It was supposed that a repeal of the Missouri Compromise would remove them. I undertook to examine into the real weight and value of the inducements held out. My purpose was to show that, uuder the operation of the Badger proviso, the seeming repeal of the Missouri Compro- mise would be nullified, and that the restriction would still be in operation. And now I will state how, as I understand it. the South will be injured by the passage of this bill with that proviso, to a greater extent than by the continuance of the Missouri Compromise itself. " 'Mr. Sewark. That is what I want to know. " 'Mr. Millson. I will tell the gentleman. The Missouri Compromise simply prohibited slavery in the territory north of 36° 30', but did not undertake to repeal any law, either of Congress or of the territorial legislature, by which slavery ii.au, before that time, been protected there. 1 ' Now, sir, if this Missouri Compromise act should be declared to be unconstitutional, as many gentlemen main- tain it is, then these laws protecting slavery would imme- diately be put in force again, because nothing now interfere* with them but a law which, by the supposition, is unconsti- tutional and void. But the Badger proviso, in effect, keeps up the Missouri restriction. and repeals the pre-existing laws by which slavery was protected in that territory, by pro- viding that they shall not be put in force. Whatever may be thought of the constitutionality of the Missouri Compro- mise act, no one can doubt the constitutionality of the Badger proviso, to the extent of its application to the legift lation of Congress and the territorial government. No man can doubt that Congress have the power of repealing laws already made by themselves, or by their authority. In this state of the case, therefore, the Missouri Compromise, if declared unconstitutional, would leave the laws protecting slavery in full force, while the Badger proviso would repeal those laws, and therefore operate more injuriously to the South.' " Sir. is it not strange that the advocates of the Nebraska bill, who excuse all that is unconstitutional iu their own measure, by saying it was intended to refer it to the decision of the courts, should not have seen that the easiest way of settling the question of the power of Congress over slavery iu the territories, was to subject the Missouri Compromise itself to the decision of the courts? What was the use of passing a new law for the purpose of raising a question for the courts, when the very same question was presented by a law already existing ? If Southern gentlemen supposed that this question would be decided against us, what did they expect to gain by the Nebraska bill? If they believed it would be decided in our favor, as they say they did, and as it lately has been, how could they overlook the disad- vantages of the new bargain they entered into, in annulling all the laws which had protected slavery, and in surrender- ing the institution itself to the hazards of a popular ma- jority? Well might Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, say, in his letter to Mr. Leake, last October, that the ' bill was not such as would have been framed by the delegates from either section, if it had been submitted to them alone.' Yes, sir, it was a new compromise to supplant an old compromise. It was the Missouri Compromise superseded by the Nebraska Compromise; and I trust I have shown that the new was even more disadvantageous to us than the old. How long it will be before this will, in its turn, be superseded by some more modern contrivance for making everybody support what nobody is in favor of, of course I cannot tell.' Hon. William Montgomery of Pennsylvania, in the House of Representatives, March 19th, 1S58. "Constitutions may differ in their provisions, but still they are none the less constitutional compacts, and being the basis on which the law-making power rests, are properly called fundamental laws. The power of the legislature to pass laws must always be in subordination to the warrant of attorney contained in the constitution. The law-making power must act in strict subordination to the limitations of the constitution ; and like all other agents, when they exceed the powers granted, their acts are not binding on the people ; hence it is called a fundamental law. " But beyond this there is no resemblance between a con- stitution and a law, and the arguments founded on such resemblance have no solid foundation. The consent of the people to the laws passed by their legislature is express, and not implied, and is found in the warrant of attorney con- tained in the constitution, which authorizes the legislature to pass laws. A law is from its very nature an act of sove- reignty. A law is defined to be a rule of human conduct 'prescribed by the supreme power of a state,.' If the legisla- ture was not supreme their legislation would not be binding, and would want the essential requisileof a law. If the legis- lature were to pass a law which was made dependent on the approval of the people for its validity, such law, although afterwards approved by the people, would be void, because the power of legislation must rest with and be exercised by the legislature. Will anyone contend, however, that if a constitutional convention were to make the legal validitvof the constitution depend on the approval of the people, that it would therefore be void? No man will say so. And therein consists the difference. Legislation is the act of a supreme power; their act is a finality ; hut a constitutional convention has only the power to draw up the provisions of a compact; but its ratification belongs to the contracting parties, the people. The distinction is clear and obvious, and no unprejudiced inquirer cau be misled by reasoning: founded on analogies drawn from the acts of a legislature." Hon. Sydenham Moore of Alabama, in the nouse of Repre- sentatives, 25th March, 1858. "The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Farnsworth], says he admits this principle as regards all froperty save that of slaves. He denies that slavery exists >y the common law. but contends that it is by statute law uly ; and denies that 728 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. this property should be taken to any of the territories of the Union. " I tell that gentleman that this is no longer a question for dispute. It is the law of the land, so pronounced by the highest judicial tribunal in our country. It was also decided by twelve of the ablest judges in England — among whom was Lord Holt — "that negroes were merchandise." I refer the gentleman to Burges's Commentaries, vol. 1, p. 735; Chalmers's Opinions of Eminent Lawyers, vol. 2, pp. 2fi2, 263, 364 ; and Colquhoun on Roman and Civil Law, not hav- ing time to read them now. " We do not ask you to regard slavery as we regard it. It is not suited to your northern clime, but it is suited to ours. We of the South believe that it is recognised and sanctioned by the Almighty iu bis revealed Word. We think its intro- duction into our country has been the efficient means of civilizing and Christianizing the African race. We know them to be happy and contented. Agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, have all derived benefits incalculable from this institution. By it the world has been clothed and fed. Think of it as you will, but deny to us none of our constitutional rights; cease to molest us, and we may yet live on iu peace. We are content to assume all its responsi- bilities, both here and hereafter, and are willing to abide the enlightened public opinion of the world. And may we not hope that there is sufficient virtue, intelligence, and patriot- ism. at the North to correct this unsound public sentiment? or shall treason, folly and fanaticism be permitted to rule the day, and this Republic with all its present greatness, and its glorious promises, be destroyed, merely to gratify the thirst for power of those Black Republican leaders, iu whose hearts, as 1 believe, there lurks treason as dark as ever actuated the blood-bound associates of Catiliue's conspiracy. They, too, meditated an insurrection of the slaves in the Roman terri- tories, as one of their means of effecting their unholy pur- poses. Cicero, after detecting their plot, and arresting their persons, boldly asked, if they deserve praise who laid the foundation of the republic, do not we, also, who preserved it from its enemies? May not those now (and I allude parti- cularly to those residing iu the North), who uuite to restore peace to this distracted country, by preventing the triumphs of treason ana rebellion in Kansas, and by thwarting the designs of the enemies of the Constitution and the Union, ask in the same spirit if they, too, have uot deserved well of their country?" Hon. E. Joy Morris of Pennsylvania, March 25th, 1S58. " The infamous code of laws enacted by this legislature, and properly designated as the blade code, would have dis- graced the most absolute government in the old world. A legislature which could make it a penitentiary offence to deny the right to hold slaves in a territory, where the ques- tion of slavery was expressly made a debatable one by act of Congress, and could require all voters and officers to take an oath to support the fugitive slave law ; and its other un- constitutional, inhuman, and unchristian acts, was as unfit to pass laws for the government of a lree people as the Turkish Divan itself. The only wonder is, not that the people of Kansas refused to recognise it, but that they per- mitted it to hold its sessions at all. Whatever this counter- feit legislature did was right in the judgment of the ruling authorities at Washington; its laws must be obeyed, odious aud despotic as they were, and utterly at variance with the first principles of free institutions. Whatever the people did by way of remonstrance to its tyrannical acts, or of opposi- tion to its usurpations, the administration of Preident Pierce denounced as rebellion and treason. If Lord 'hat- ham could rejoice that three millions of American col > ists rose in arms against the tyranny of the British parlia u.-nt, I may be permitted to rejoice that the settlers of Kansas, loyal to the free spirit of their revolutionary ancestors, never could be coerced into subjection to the usurped authority of this bogus legislature. The employment of the United States troops to sustain the execution of this Dra- conian code of law was as futile in its results as the attempt to enforce the stamp act by British regulars in America." Hon. Isaac N. Morris of Illinois, in the House of Repre- sentatives, February 23d, 185S. " Mr. Chairman, another argument in favor of the ad- mission of Kansas now, is that it is necessary to keep up a Senatorial equilibrium between the free and slave states. I had supposed that the faintest hope of such a thing had long since been abandoned. You might as well undertake to poise a beam upon a pivot with three millions of pounds on one end and nothing on the other. A few facts will illustrate this. At the conclusion of peace, in 1783 (I quote from a speech of a distinguished Sou'hern Senator), there was only 164.081 square miles of territory north, and 647,202 square miles of territory south, of Mason and Dixon's line. Of course the South then bad the great bulk of the population. Now there is 882.245 square miles of slave, and 1.903.204 equare miles of free territory, showing that while slave ter- ritory has increased less than fifty per cent, free territory has increased nearly one thousand one hundred per cent. At the last census the population of the free states was 13,434,788; of the slave states, 6,413,508; slaves, 3,200,412; territories, 140,274; showing the fact that the population in the free states is more than double greater than the white population of the slave states. But this is not all. In 1811 the free states had 93 Representatives in Congress; in 1822, 123; in 1831, 141; iu 1842, 135; and iu 1852, 144. During the same periods, the slave states had a representation cf 78, 79, 99, 87, and 90; difference in favor of free states, 15, 35, 42, 48, and 54; and after the next census that difference will be more strongly marked. During the greater part of this time, the government has been in the possession of, and con- trolled by, the slave states. At its organization, there was only one free, while there were twelve slave states; and we now have sixteen free and fifteen slave states. The slave states had all (be advantages of a start, aud why have they falleu so far behind, and are they destined to laU still fur- ther? It has not. sir, resulted from the action of Congress. No state has ever been kept out of the Union because her constitution recognised slavery; and no serious effort was ever made to keep one out, except Missouri. No restrictive line was ever run between freedom and slavery except the Missouri compromise line, and no one is silly enough to believe that that line made Iowa and Minnesota free terri- tory." Hon. George W. Palmer of New York, in the House of Representatives, March 26th, 1858. " Mr. Chairman, it seems that the nation is to be called upon to determine which of the two antagonist ical systems, freedom or slavery, is to prevail, to the exclusion of the other. If the trial of this issue is insisted upon by our Southern friends, the North will meet it. Thus far. she has not forced her institutions upon the South. Whether she shall be compelled to do so, to adopt the policy of an ac/greji- sive development and extension of her system, is a question to be considered by Southern statesmen. If they will no longer abide by compromises — if they will insist upon crowding us to the wall — let them ponder the consequences. I tell them that this attempt to push slavery beyond the local jurisdiction which sanctions it, will not only fail, but it will lead, if persisted iu. to an earnest inquiry on the part of the North into the means by which au institution so fruitful of continual evil may be removed entirely out of the way. The campaign, once begun on the broad plan laid down by the South, will end only iu the settlement of the question, whether freedom or slavery is to control the desti- nies of this continent. That freedom will win, is as sure as that the battle is to be fought iu this country, and in this age of progress and reform. And that triumph will beat once the triumph of liberty and the triumph of the Union. There will be no disunion, no infringement upon state sove- reignty, no secession. Sir, this confederation of states is a partnership for life. As new members connot come in. so none can go out of it, save by the common consent. They are joined together for better or for worse, and there is no power of divorce." Hon. Marcus J. Parrott of Kansas, in the House of Re- presentatives, March 31st, 1S5S. I should like, if time permitted, to draw a parallel between these two constitutions; Topeka. the child of popular sove- reignty, aud Lecompton. the illicit offspring of popular vio- lence and presidential intervention — a wretched bastard, pretender, '"scarce half made up," that now stands with brazen mendacity at your bar, a candidate for the honors which belong to legitimacy alone. The former confessedly sprang spontaneously from the people, asking the restitution of their rights; the latter is the vile spawn of usurpation, emitted by spurious legisla- tion; and so far from having any support from the people, it slinks away, like a convicted felon, from any submission of its pretensions to the judgment of a popular verdict. Mr. Clemens. [Interrupting.] Do I understand the gen- tleman from Katssas to contend that the Topeka constitution is either legal or legitimate; and that he, a delegate of the people of Kansas, maintains, iu (he discharge of his official duty, that constitution iu preference to the Lecompton? Mr. Parrott. I said, a moment ago. that the people of Kansas bad virtually withdrawn their application under the Topeka constitution. In answer further, however, to the gentleman from Virginia, I say I do. in the discharge of my official duty, give the Topeka constitution vastly the prefer- ence. In every point of view, it is incomparably superior to the one framed at Lecompton. I was going on to say a word of the attitude occupied by the friends and framers of the Topeka constitution, in relation to the territorial govern- ment. Those who made and upheld this constitution whilst it was a living measure, so far from subverting the territo- rial government, have, in reality, rescued it from t"» odium and imbecility beneath which it was orostrats, VUey have APPENDIX. 729 lifted it from the ground, poured oil into its wounds, and infused into its veins the newness of life, through popular support. Nay, more : they are the only defenders of it again? t those who were its worst enemies, while they enjoyed it by usurpation; and its only ones, now that they can no longer wrest it to their unlawful ends. But, alas! with the de- parture of the ruftiau usurpation, has fled also those charms which once captivated the affections of the Executive bosom. The President no longer upholds this government. Enough has been said on this subject to show you that the specifications, on which the President grounds his charges against the people of Kansas, are palpably errone- ous, as illustrated by the records of Congress, as well as Otherwise. The people of Kansas have borne and forborne much for the sake of the Constitution and Union, which they revere. I could, if my time permitted, point you to some instances where they have suffered outrages at the hands of the fede- ral authorities, rather than adopt the dreadful alternative of resistance to its process. On the 21st day of May they suffered a band of drunken blackguards, because a United States marshal, in abuse of his authority, marched at their head, to overrun and desolate one of the fairest and most cherished towns of the territory. Again, in the same year, on the 4th of July, what do we see? That is a sacred day. Partisan spirit, however rampant, is generally exorcised by the shades of the immortal patriots that are evoked by the stirring memories of that anniversary of our national free- dom. It did not happen, sir, on this occasion. The people had assembled to commemorate the day, and to exercise the great constitutional right of consulting about public affairs. While engaged in their pious purposes, the sun in the meridian, the rattle of sabres is heard, then the tramp of armed men. and the assembly is dispersed by a regiment of federal dragoons. Yet we are told that the people of Kansas are revolutionary, when these flagrant acts of tyranny have been submitted to, sooner than raise an arm against the colors of our country. Who is the Presideut of the United States, that he should dare to libel and insult any portion of the people, threatening them with ostracism, if they do not bow the head and bend the knee in servile compliance to the dogmatic arrogance of his demands? But for his in- fidelity to two noted pledges, this constitution would never have vexed the peace of the country. The first was given in the presidential campaign, and was to the effect that the people of Kansas should be left free to form their domestic institutions: and the second was his pledge, through Gov. Walker, that the right of passing on their constitution should be secured to them. The infraction of these pledges has brought division and dismay to the ranks of his followers, and distrust of his designs to the country at large. Hon. Samuel 0. Peytox of Kentucky, in the House of Representatives, March 25th, 1S58. " What did this Lecompton constitution say ? Look at it as you please, and slavery is the only question of controversy which is involved. Strike slavery out of the Lecompton constitution, and there would be no objection on the part of those who now oppose it. If there had been no slavery question, there would have been no trouble about Kansas. If those meu of the North had wanted to do what was strictly right, and to make Kansas a free state, they would, in my judgment, have come forward and voted the slavery clause out. The legislature had authority, by paying their owners a fair price for them, to emancipate the slaves that would be then left in the territory. As just men. as men who desired peace, as men who desired to live in harmony with their neighbors and brethren, ought they not to have come forward at first and voted against the slave clause?" Hon. Henry M. Phillips of Pennsylvania, in the House of Representatives, March 9th, 1858. " Now let us consider what the constitution is. In the first place is there a doubt that the people may wipe away every provision of it as with a breath? What is a constitution? A state constitution differs very materially from the national Constitution. Gentlemen who cite the Federal Constitution, though upon the side I am endeavoring to sustain, are in error. The Congress of the United States can do nothing which the Constitution does not authorize. Our powers are limited; our hands are tied: and for what we do we must find our authority in the Constitution. In regard to a state constitution, exactly the reverse is the case. The members of a state legislature may do every act of legislation which the Constitution does not restrain or prohibit. There can be no doubt about that: and I need cite no precedent for such a plain and recognised principle. 'When wo came to form a Federal Constitution, it was accomplished by the surrender of certain powers by the states themselves. Dis- tributed as the powers of government usually are, the legis- lative body of a state has the sovereign legislative power of the state, controlled and limited only by the constitution. The national Constitution is an enlarging, a granting, instru- ment; not so, however, with a state constitution ; it is a re- straining instrument; and, if the constitution of Kansas has restrained either the people at any time, or the legislature until after 1S64, I have been unable to discover it. 1 aav, too. if the restraint does apply, as the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Keitt] undertook to assert, the constitution would not be republican, according to my notions. "Mr. Chairman, this clause of the Constitution, so much talked about, it seems to me has not been rightly applied. There are two or three clauses iu the constitution of Kansas which we must look at in this connexion. The clause which prohibits an alteration of the constitution until after the year 1864, operates only upon the legislature; and it inter- feres in no manner with that other clause by which tho right of the people is expressly reserved and recognised. I should contend for the right of the people at all events: but when gentlemen stand here and say that they are opposed to tho admission of Kansas because the constitution is not a good one; when they are willing that this strife should con- tinue in Kansas ; I want to say to them— not that I expect to convince anybody, for I fear that we rush too blindly to conclusions on political matters for that — that there is in this constitution of Kansas an express recognition of the people's right to change their constitution when they please. Those gentlemen who undertake to say that they are restrained from doing so until 18G4, fall into an error iu confounding the application of that section with the section which applies solely and exclusively to the people. This right of the people is recognised everywhere. It is recog- nised in the Declaration of Independence, which declares the self-evident truth: " ' That all men are created equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit ot happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem rucst likely to effect their safety and happiness.' " The constitution of Kansas recognises it in the fullest pos sible manner, and that clause which relates to 1S64 is opera tive only upon the legislature, and in language so plain that no man can doubt, except those who choose wilfully to do so. '• Now, sir. those two clauses are not inconsistent. The one applies to the people and the other to the legislature. This enumeration of rights, says the constitution, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. I have said that this clause is operative only upon the legis- lature, but I mean to show that it is inoperative until after 1864. Will the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stanton], lawyer as he is, undertake to say that he is not familiar with law after law beginning, that after such a day such and such shall be the law? And will he rise here and assert that it will be the law until the day specified arrives? I will show the gentleman the language which is used when the object is to prohibit anything being done before or up to a given day. I read from the Topeka constitution, this Republican instrument which it is iusisted shall be the basis of the admission of Kansas : "'Sec. 4. No convention for the formation of a new con- stitution shall be called, and no amendment to the constitu- tion shall be, by the General Assembly, made before the year 1805, nor more than once in five years thereafter.' " They recognised the difference between the two — the people and the legislature. When conventions want to pro- hibit the exercise of that power, they use language that can- not be misunderstood. If any one takes up the statute books of the United States he will find hundreds of laws beginning, that from and after a particular day there shall be such law. and surely no member will argue before this body that befirre the time specified the law is operative or in force. I sav that this clause in the constitution of Kan- sas is not of any effect whatever till 1864. It then takes its place there, if not previously altered or expunged. It may not have been so intended. The Topeka constitution is very different. It prohibits the amendment of the con- stitution effectually be/are (he year 18G5. If this chaise w«i intended to have a different effect, its framers have over- reached themselves. If it was intended for good. 1 can very well understand the argument that, having made anew con stitution, and infallibility not being allotted to man, legisla- tive amendments should be encouraged up to 1864; so that, by that time, experience might show its merits or defects. But at that time, the constitution having been six years in existence, jt was thought should not be changed by hasty legislative action, nor except by two-thirds, and in a more deliberate manner than previously. If the motive was bad, then these men have signally overshot their mark. I say 730 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. you cannot take up '..he statutes of state legislatures, or the acts of Congress, without finding laws enacting that after a day such shall be the law; and if that has been construed to meau that the law should uot go iuto effect till that time. I want to see the judge who would construe duYerentij a restriction coutained in this clause upon the legislative power. '• I hold the doctrine that the legislature of a state has all the sovereigu legislative power, except such as is for neces- sary purposes reserved, either expressly or by implication, to the people. It is not new doctrine that I am enunciating here ; but I have been astonished at the ground taken by some members in this matter. I do not know that they want, wilfully, to pervert the condition of things; but the idea is absurd that, because a certain clause in a constitution declares that the legislature shall be restricted, after a cer- tain time arrives, from amending it, except in a particular way, that it is to be construed so as to restrain their action before that time arrives. Until after 1804 it is inoperative, as though it had been said that the clause should not be in- serted in the constitution till that time arrives." Hon. T. Polk of Missouri, in the Senate, March 11th, 1858. " The article in her constitution which was to fix the con- dition of Kansas as a slaveholding or non-slavebolding state, was the sole point of contest. This was the question that had agitated that territory from the period of its first organ- ization. Indeed, it was this that had populated her with emissaries sent out by the Emigrant Aid corporations. And this it was that had drawn to Kansas the attention of every section of the entire country. '• This question was submitted to a fair vote of the people ; and that, too. in the fairest mode in which it could be done; that is, it was submitted alone, as an isolated issue. If it had been encumbered with other questions there would not have been so fair an expression of the popular will upon it. A man might have voted for or against the slavery article. in order to reach some other object. And, sir, this submit- ting a particular provision of a state constitution, as a single question, to be voted on by the people, is no strange pro- ceeding. It has been done in the case of Oregon, whose constitution is now before this Senate. And it has often been done in other states. u Mr. President, in the estimation of those who profess to consider this action of the Lecomptou convention a great outrage upon the rights of the people of Kansas, the people Of Indiana must have been most deeply aggrieved by Con- gress when that state was admitted into the Union; for. I am told, by one of her Senators on this floor, that an article establishing slavery in that state was voted out of her con- stitution by a majority of two votes only; and yet that con- stitution was never submitted to a vote of the people of that state. Still she was admitted iuto the Union as a non slave holding state. Sir. when that vote was so very close in the convention, it is altogether possible that the result would have been different if it had been submitted to a direct vote of the people. But Congress did not stop to make this a condition precedent, which must be met before the state should be admitted. "So, too, the same was true in Illinois. There, an article proposing to establish slavery by her constitution was voted down, in her constitutional convention, by but a small majority of votes; and that constitution was never sub- mitted to a vote of the peopte. Yet the people of Illinois have never found out tnat their rights were trampled on by Congress, when that state was admitted iuto the Union." Hon. John P. Potter of Wisconsin, in the House of Repre- sentatives, March 23d, 1S57 . "Such are the demoralizing influences of slavery, which seeks to establish and extend its power throughout the length and breadth of this continent — a power which ex- hausts the life and vigor of commonwealths; destroys the prosperity of nations: corrupts the principle of parties; debases and brutalizes its victims, and drags down to its own level of barbarism all that yield to its embrace. Under the system of territorial government adopted by our fathers, and which has prevailed for more than half a century, a system which asserted the right as well as the duty of Con- gress to exclude slavery, the will of the majority has always governed, and was always respected. The; history of our country does not furnish an instance of civil commotion, or even of an attempt ou the part of a minority, to usurp the power in the establishment of a territorial government, pre- vious to the enactment of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Let us, then, return to the original policy of the government, and peace and harmony will follow. Let us dare to do right, because it is right. Let us indignantly spurn from us the atheistic sentiment that there can be property in mau. Let us declare before the world that no constitution, which recognises mau as a chattel, can be 'republican' in form. Let us have the courage aud the manhood to declare our- selves the friends of the down-trodden and oppressed, though the victims of oppression may be of another color, or of another clime. With us. sir, the Constitution of our country has deposited a high discretionary power in relation to the admission of new Mates into the Confederacy — a power which devolves upon us the most important aud solemn duty which we can be called upon to discharge. That power we shall soon be called upon to exercise. The instrument before us, purporting to be the constitution of Kansas, we know to be that of a small minority of her people, the great mass of whom most solemnly and earnestly protest against its im» position upon them. It recognises the right of property in man — a principle which her people abhor." Hon. Charles Ready of Tennessee, in House of Repre- sentatives, March 29th, 1858. "But suppose at the election on the 4th of January, all the votes were given by legal voters, and that there is actually a majority in the territory against the Lecompton constitu- tion, ought the bill for the admission of Kansas under it to be rejected? I answer, no. The constitution, as I have shown, was regularly, legally, properly made, according to law, to the forms, nature, and practice of our governmental system. It was ordained by the convention, clothed with Vie entire sovereignty of the people, as the constitution, subject to the approval or rejection by the people of the slavery clause. In the exercise of their sovereign power they prescribed in the constitution the time and manner of its approval or rejection ; and they could not be altered by a legislative assembly, the mere creature of the organic law of the ter- ritory, without any sovereign power. If they had power to do it, they had the same power to alter any other provision, section, or article iu the constitution. The establishment of such a doctrine would sap the foundation, and, at one blow, strike dowu all constitutional government." Hon. Wilson Reilly of Pennsylvania, in the House of Representatives, March 25th, 1858. •• If the people of Kansas shall desire to alter, amend, or abolish the Lecompton constitution, if the state shall De- admitted with that constitution, all they have to do is to get an act of the legislature passed, calling a conven- tion to alter or amend the same; and if the people, by a vote, either adopt or acquiesce in the constitution so altered or amended, no people in any other state of this Union can interfere. 1 will venture to say that there is not a member on the other side of the House who will say that if the legislature, at its first, session, shall pass an act calling a convention and the act is approved by the governor, and the convention should strike out all the Lecompton consti- tution, which recognises slavery as one of the domestic insti- tutions of Kansas, and if the people adopt the amended constitution, it would not be valid and binding on all people residing there. If this can be done, why not abolish the whole constitution and make an entire new one? If they do so, no power under heaven can interfere with them and their rights under that constitution, as long as it remains unaltered. This may he called revolution. If it is. it is a peaceful revolution, under form of law, aud destroys no man's rights." Hon. John A. Searing of New York, in the House of Representatives, March 20th, 1858. " The game of the Republican party has been the anti-law and-order game from the beginning to the present time. They refuse to act and vote unless iu the way and at the time prescribed by them as a political party, and then only when they can insure to themselves the whole game. At one time pronouncing the acts of the territorial officials and legislature as bogus and not binding, and at another recog- nising them and acting under them, in the election of offi- cers, just as the move seemed to be the one conducive to their ascendancy. But in the midst of all these erratic movements, a legally constituted territorial legislature passed an act to take the sense of the people of Kansas on the subject of forming a state government, and asking admission into the Union. At this election the vote was almost unanimous of the people of Kansas in favor of a con- vention; and afterwards the territorial legislature, by a two-thirds vote, passed a law providing for the election of delegates to a constitutional convention. Under that law delegates were elected, who met in convention and made this constitution, submitting to the people of Kansas, at a special election, on the 21st of December, 1857, the question whether the slavery clause should be stricken out or not. At this election the majority of votes cast w.ere in favor of the constitution as it was passed by the convention; and now this constitution comes to us, and the question is, can we refuse to admit Kansas uuder that constitution or not?" APPENDIX. 73; Hon. W. K. Sebastian of Arkansas, in the Senate, March 10th, 1858. "I have treated this clause in the constitution as if it was B restriction imposed by the people ou themselves, and a suspension of the general right of amendment to the consti- tution until the year 18C4. There are certain fundamental principles of Amerericau organic law, which I hope and trust are, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, unalter- able. There are other provisions which find a place in our constitutions which should be subjected to change and re- form when the will of the people, duly expressed, demands it. This great and universal principle of American organic law is contained in the bill of rights. It declares 'that all political power is inherent in the people, and all free govern- ments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and therefore they have, at all times, au in- herent and iudefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government in such manner as they may think proper.' This is one of those fundamental principles of whieh 1 have said that they should be eternal. It is a logical necessity of our form of government. If it is wrong, then representative and republican government.; are wrong. The right is essential to self government; and while I would deprecate a too frequent resort to its exercise, and would always limit that, in subordination to the forms of law, yet it is one which is first in importance, and it is better that it should be subject to abuse than to limitation. This right is theirs to exercise 'at all times,' and caunot be postponed or suspended for a moment. If it can be suspended for a period, it can be indefinitely postponed; and thus constitu- tions would be perpetual and forms of government immor- tal. If this language of the constitution is hostile to, or inconsistent with, the bill of rights, it must to that ex- tent yield to its superior authority. This is one of those original and reserved rights of the people, not delegated or alienated by the people, neither surrendered nor suspended. but withheld from the grant which makes up the just powers of government, and which are enumerated in the constitu- tion. In this contest for supremacy between reserved rights and delegated power, it is easy to determine which is the higher and which the subordinate law." Hon. Wm. H. Seward of New York, in the Senate, March 3d, 1858. '•The ease and success which attended the earlier policy of intervention in favor of free labor and free states, and the resistance which the converse policy of intervention in favor of slave labor and slave states encounters sufficiently establish the existence of the antagonism between the gov- ernment and the nation which I have asserted. A vessel moves quietly and peacefully while it descends with the cur- rent. You mark its way by the foam on its track only when it is forced against the tide. I will not dwell on other proofs — such as the more rapid growth of the free states, the rup- tures of ecclesiastical federal unions, and the demoraliza- tion and disorganization of political parties. - Mr. President, I have shown why it is that the Kansas question is attended by difficulties and dangers, only by way of preparation for the submission of my opinions in regard to the manner in which that question ought lo be deter- mined and settled. I thiuk, with great deference to the judgment of others, that the expedient, peaceful, and right way to determiue it, is to reverse the existing policy of in- tervention in favor of slave labor and slave states. It would be wise to restore the Missouri prohibition of slavery in Kansas and Nebraska. There was peace in the territories and in the states until that great statute of freedom was subverted. It is true that there were frequent debates here on the subject of slavery, and that there were profound sympathies among the people, awakened by or responding to those debates. But what was Congress instituted for but debate? What makes the American people to differ from all other nations, but this — that while among them power enforces silence, here all public questions are referred to debate, free debate in Congress. Do you tell me that the Supreme Court of the United States ha~ removed the foun- dations of that great statute? I reply, that they have done no such thins; they could not do it. They have remanded the negro man Died Scott to the custody of his master. With that decree we have nothing here, at least nothing now. to do. This is the extent of the judgment rendered, the extent of any judgment they could reuder. Already the pretended further decision is subverted in Kansas. So it will be in every free state and in every free territory of the United States. The Supreme Court, also, can reverse its spurious judgment more easily than we could reconcile the people to its usurpation. Sir. the Supreme Court of the United States attempts to command the people of the United States to accept the principles that one man can own other men, and that they must guaranty the inviolability of that false and pernicious property. The people of the United States never can, and they never will, accept principles so unconstitutional and so abhorrent. Never, never. Let the court recede. Whether it recede or not, we shall reor ganize the court, and thus reform its political sentiments and practices, and bring them into harmony wilh the Cou gtitution aud with the laws of nature. In doing so, W6 shall not only rcassume our own just authority, but wt shall restore that high tribunal itself to the position ir ought to maintain, since so many invaluable rights of citi zens, and even of states themselves, depend upon its iru partiality and its wisdom. Do you tell me that the slave states will not acquiesce, bul will agitate? Think first whether the free states will ao quiesce in a decision that shall not only be unjust, but fraud- ulent. True, they will not menace the republic. They have an easy and simple remedy, namely, to take the govern ment out of unjust and unfaithful hands, and commit it to those whieh will be just and faithful. They are ready to do this now. They want only a little more harmony of purpose and a little more completeness of organization. These will result from only the least addition to the pres- sure of slavery upon them. You are lending all that is necessary, and even more, in this very act. But will the slave states agitate ? Why 1 Because they have lost at last a battle that they could not win, unwisely provoked, fought with all the advantages of strategy and intervention, aud on a field chosen by themselves. What would they gain? Can they compel Kajisas to adopt slavery against her will? Would it be reasonable or just to do it. if they could ? Was negro servitude ever forced by the sword on any people that inherited the blood which circulates in our veins, and the sentiments which make us a free people ? If they will agi- tate on such a ground as this, then how, or when, by what concessions we can make, will they ever be satisfied ? To what end would they agitate? It can now be only to divide the Union. Will they not need some fairer or more plausible excuse for a proposition so desperate ? How would they im- prove their condition, by drawing down a certain ruin upon themselves? Would they gain any new security for slavery ? Would they not hazard securities that are invaluable? Sir, they who talk so idly, talk what they do not know them- selves. No man when cool can promise what he will do when he shall be inflamed; no man inflamed can speak for his actions when time and necessity shall bring reflection. Much less can any one speak for states in such emergen- cies." Hon. Otho R. Sixgletojj of Mississippi, in the House of Representatives, March 23d, 1858. " Mr. Chairman, I shall make no issues for the people of my state or district touching this subject. I shall undertake to pledge them to no course of conduct. Mississippi, in 1S51, through a convention of delegates elected by the people, after declaring that, although not satisfied with a series of acts called the compromise, yet she would acquiesce in them, resolved that a violation of the rights of the people of the state might occur, 'which would amount to intolerable oppression, and would justify a resort to measures of resist- ance,' among which was designated the following: "'The refusal by Congress to admit a new state into the Union on the ground of her tolerating slavery in her limits.' '• The convention which passed this resolution was not composed of Fire-Eaters, as the Statesrights men of Missis- sippi are called; but of Union men, who look upon them- selves as the peculiar friends and guardians of the govern- ment. These positions were taken by the people in no spirit of vain glory, I apprehend, nor with a view to intimidate any party or section of the country ; but with solemn de- liberation, and from a sense of duty. Georgia, and other southern states, stand upon the same platform ; and unless I have misapprehended the views and feelings of the people of these states, unless I have miscalculated as to their spirit and determination, in the execution of their pledges and resolves, there is strong reason to believe that, if Kansas is refused admission as a state under the constitution now pre- sented, measures will be taken to dissolve their connection with this Union. No power on earth can make the people of the South believe that Kansas is to be kept out for any other sufficient reason than that her constitution allows slavery in her limits. Cover up your designs as you may; make a feint in this direction or tl at; fly what colors you please at your masthead ; the South is not to be wheedled, cajoled, or deceived any longer by your movements. Self- proud and self-confident, she is watching your manoeuvres; hoping for the best, yet prepared for the worst. Now that her numerical strength has departed, and the strength of principle only remains to protect her from federal aggres- sion, whenever this barrier is broken down, and she is left to trust to her own resources, I give the pledge here *o-day, that her rights and her honor will ha fully vindicated. Tell me not that strength lies alone in numbers. A sense of right, united with the indomitable will, makes heror* of men." 732 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Hon. S. A. Smith of Tennessee, in the House of Repre- sentatives, February 26th, 1858. " I need not enlarge upon this, because, as I before stated, there is an enabling act for the formation of a state govern- ment for the territory of Kansas, dated anterior to the pass- age of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. I know, sir, that some, who heretofore belonged to the Democratic party, are of opinion that there ought to have been an enabling act — such as the distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. Doug- las] — but at the same time admit that an enabling act is not necessary to the formation of a constitution. Upon examina- tion, I find that the treaty between the United States and France, of the 30th April, 1803— that treaty which is the Bupreme law of the land — provides : what? That Congress shall pass an enabling act? No, sir; but it provides that the people of the territory of Kansas, which is a part of Louisiana territory, shall be admitted into the Union as a state or states, as soon as practicable. "The following is the article of the treaty referred to: '"That the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and ad- mitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities, of citizens of the United States; and in the meantime shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess.' " Hon. John W. Stevenson of Kentucky, in the House of Representatives, March 31st, 1858. " It is warmly insisted on, that the Leeompton consti- tution was not submitted to the people as a whole for then- ratification, and, therefore, it is not the act of the people. This argument, if it proves anything, proves too much. It upturns the whole system of representative government; it limits the circle of free institutions; it denies to the peo- ple of a state or territory, the right to select agents to make a constitution for them without their subsequent ap- proval. If the right does not exist to select representatives, then it follo%vs, that the people must act themselves. Where they cannot be collected to deliberate and act in the forma- tion of a constitution and laws, their popular government must eud. If the people cannot select agents to make con- stitutions and agree to abide by their action without a sub- mission, how is it that the state laws are valid without a submission ? This. .Mr. Chairman, is a new phase of popular sovereignty. I acknowledge the people to be the source of all power, and that every free government must rest for its support on the consent of the governed. But how is this power to be exercised? Are constitutions and laws to be en- acted in mass meetings? Is sovereignty to be carried about the streets, and are the popular musses to act per capita? I had supposed it was 'that marvellous felicity of our repre- sentative system.' under the operation of prescribed forms of law. that entitled ours to be justly styled the Model Re- public of the world. I bad been taught by Mr. .Madison (the father of the Federal Constitution) to believe that the effect of representative government is "'Tc refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant, to public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.' " Mr. Chairman, it would not be difficult to show that one of the advantages in the scheme of representation in a re- public, as contradistinguished from a pure democracy of numbers consists in its power to control a faction. I rei'er to the tenth number of the Federalist, where Mr. Madison. in defence of the Federal Constitution, goes fully into this argument. " It does not pertain to Congress to inquire why the whole of this Kansas constitution was not submitted? While as individuals we might all desire, and. perhaps, as members of that convention, we should all vote fir the submission of that entire constitution to the people. it was the sole right of the Lecompton convention to judge of the propriety of a submission or non-submi>i ! -n of the constitution, in whole, or in part, to the people 'br ratification. The vali- dity of the instrument could not be impaired by a failure to have submitted any part of it to the popular vote. The people, through their legislature, had, ill the convention act, a perfect right to have required the constitution to be submitted, and the act was. as we have already shown, vetoed by Governor Geary, because it did not contain a pro- vision for its submission tc the people. The %ct was passed by a two-thirds vote of the legislature over his veto, and thus became a law. " Popular sovereignty was then, as it would clearly ap- pear, against a submission of this constitution to the peo- ple; for it can hardly be supposed that two-thirds of th» legislature misrepresented the popular will." Hon. James A. Stewart of Maryland, in the House of Repre- sentatives, March 20th, 1858. "Well, sir, in relation to the admission of a state into th« Union, we find under the Constitution of the United States that Omgress has the power to admit new states. I hold that it is not the primary consideration whether a people proposing to be admitted have a constitution or not. The great question here is whether we shall admit Kansas into the Union. The Constitution of the United States does not say that when a state is admitted into the Union that she shall have a constitution ; and you do not find in the clause authorizing Congress to admit new states, anything said about a form of government. lu another clause you find the language, that the United States shall guaranty to every state a republican form of government. It is not Cemgress. but the United States. It does not say that the United States shall admit new states into the Union, and the Congress shall guaranty the states a republican form of government, but that Congress shall admit new states, and the United States shall guaranty to the states republican forms of government. Now, when Kansas comes here is she compelled, as a pre- liminary, to have a republican form of government? How can you guaranty this until she is in ? It seems to me to be untenable to require that when a state comes in she should necessarily have a republican form of government, because she must first be admitted as a state before you can guaranty to her a republican form of government. The word ' gua- ranty' is one of peculiar import. It does not say that the state shall have a republican form of government before admission: but that the United States shall guaranty a republican form of government. Rhode Island came into the Union under the British charter; and she did not deter- mine for a considerable time after the adoption of the Con- stitution of the United States, whether she would come into the Union or not. When she came in no question was asked as to her constitution. She had not a republican constitu- tion when she came into the Union, according to our theory. She had not a constitution of that form, because she was living under the charter which she had derived from King Charles II. 1 therefore hold that it is not absolutely mate- rial whether a state, when she comes into the Union, has a constitution or not. She may, in fact, have a republican form of government without a constitution. She may settle all her proceedings in mass convention or in a Legislative Assembly." Hon. M. W. Tappan of New Hampshire, in the House of Representatives, March 31st, 1858. " Slavery, in other constitutions and in legislative enact- ments, may have been recognised as an existing institution ; but never before, to my knowledge, has the attempt been made, by express terms in a written constitution, to put property in man upon the same ground of natural right as that by which other property is held. Sir, this doctrine is anti-republican— a gross libel upon the common law, and upon the progress, philanthropy, civilization, and spirit of the age in which we live. It is a wanton departure from the early faith of the fathers of the republic on the question of slaver3', and will be a stigma and a reproach upon the country in all coming time." Hon. Charles E. Stuart, of Michigan, in the Senate, De- cember 23d, 1S57. "What sort of demand have they made to begin witht They demand one-ninth of all the land in Kansas, for school purposes; they demand seventy-two sections for a univer- sity: they demand all the salt springs, and all the mineral lands, and all the lands adjoining, necessary to use them; and also alternate sections for twenty-four miles wide through Kansas, east and west, and north and south. This is their demand for relinquishing the right to tax the government, land within the borders of Kansas. Before I make this bargain. I desire time for consideration. Before I vote to give Kansas four times as much school laud as Michigan has bad. I shall want to know the reason. B«for«- I give them twice as much land in width, for railroad pur- poses, as 1 have voted to any other state, I shall want to know why. Before I shall vote to give them all the mineral lands, and all the salt spring lands, and all the adjoining lands necessary to their use. I shall want to ascertain the boundaries, and see whether anything will be left to the United States. I have had prepared a table showing the number of acres which an agreement to the terms of the convention will require us to give. APPENDIX. 73*d Estimated area of the Territory of Kansas, and number of acres of land for Railroads, Schools, and Universities, in said Territory. Degrees. OS 9 ~~ 198 736 193 Square milue. « a o •3 □ a HI t- ■4 h O s g *3 ■;» « u w z » > 6" as 3 o -•3 So 2 B~ S c w ?• Total acrea In Territory. a V it O a . ft .« 3 - *S *- « £* Kxtreoie length from cast Average length from east to Average length troin north Lands for railroads, vis*. Length of railroad from Alternate sections twelve miles on each side Length of railroad north Alternate sections twelve miles on each side Lands for schools, viz. Four sections in each township, or oue-ninth of whole number Lauds for universities 3 of 66 stat. m. 133,056 • • 85,155,840 . . . . ■ . 85,155,840 13:j.056 8,832 2,3T6 5,652,480 7,173,120 1,520,640 9,461,760 46.0SO *16,6SO,900 .... 68,474,880 7,173,120 9,507,840 16,680,960 85,155,840 68,474,880 " I have not mentioned this matter to discuss the effect of admitting Kansas under this constitution, hut to show the enormity of the proposition — the intention that seems to have been in the heads of these Lecomptou conventionists. My opinion is that they have undertaken a larger work than they can accomplish. In the first place, they not only undertake to violate the rights of the people of Kansas and put them under their feet; but. in the next place, they undertake to coerce Congress into a bargain that is mon- strous in its character. If it is the duty, as I have endea- vored to show, of Congress to protect the people of Kansas in the enjoyment of their rights it is no less the duty of Congress to protect the rights of the United! States. Con- gress will be liberal, as it always has been liberal with the new states, in grants of laud for educational and internal improvement purposes; but it will not adinit.it never can admit, that lands which belong to the United States, which it has been so often said were acquired by the common blood and common treasure of all the states, are transferred, with the right and title, to a new state, on its being admitted into .he Union." Hon. George Taylor of New York, in the House of Repre- sentatives, March 10th, 1858. " They could have had no objection to the constitution, except as to the slavery clause : and I challenge the Repub- licans of this House to point out a single objection to it, beyond that single one of slavery, which is. in their opinion, objectionable. It is very like most of our state constitu- tions; aud is equal to the best of them. The question of slavery was the only one at issue, and that was fully and fairly submitted. On this point, 1 desire to refer to the speech of the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Growl, made on the 30th day of June, 1S56. in favor of admitting Kansas under the Topeka constitution. He says: "'Does the constitution meet the sense of the people to be affected by it* Th ) existence of slavery was the only ques- tion upon w!: : ■'> the people were divided, and the vote for delegates to mention (Topeka) settled that by a majority of legal votes.' — (See Appendix to Congressional Globe, first session thirty-fourth Congress, page 719.) •' It appears from this extract that the honorable crentle- man did not t'len think it necessary to submit the constitu- tion, or any part of it. to the people. He must have believed that the people could delegate a portion of their sovereign power to the convention, and that they were bound by its acts. In this I fully agree with the honorable gentleman. This doctrine of submission to the people is of modern growth; is neither ratified by time, experience, nor sound judgment. Sir. ours is a representative government, and not a democracy." Hon. Macs Taylor of Louisiana, in the House of Repre- sentatives, March 29th, 1858. "I do not claim the spirit of prophecy, but I will venture to say this: that in my day. and before half a dozen years shall have passed by, it will have become the settled policy of the people on the Pacific slope to refuse to permit the individuals of the Asiatic races who come among them to become members of their political society: to deny to them the right to enjoy any of the political privileges or immuni- ties accorded to citizens of the United States. There will be a discrimination against them because of their race. They will, in all likelihood, be subjected to the operation of the same system of laws which England has established in the Mauritius and Trinidad and the West India Islands, and which France is seeking to establish everywhere. "What is that condition of society? The position of the people who are the subjects of this system of policy is one of inferiority ; it is one of vassalage; it is one of quasi slavery. But whatever it may be, and however philanthropic Eng- land and imperial France may expatiate upon its civil advantages and moral beauties as contrasted with slavery, one thing is certain : the people among whom it exists will have no sympathy with that feeling which has displayed itself in many portions of the North. It will be found that among these people a new spirit will be born. And that spirit, sir. will be nourished by the streams of emigration and by the tide of commerce setting in on these shores, until it has swelled and expanded itself so as to fill the whole Pacific coast. It will ascend the valleys of the western slope. Hwill climb the Rocky Mountains: and when it has reached its summits, and its colossal proportions and its glorious features are displayed to our gaze as it casts its first glances to the eastward, the demon of fanaticism will stand rebuked, and the fell spirits of sectional hate and civil discord will cower under its majestic presence, and flee for ever from our confines. Then. .Mr. Chairman, and then alone, will we again become a united people." Hon. J. R. Thomsox of New Jersey, from speech of, in the Senate. "The constitutions now in force, of the following named states, were nut submitted for ratification to the people, but adopted in convention : " Vermont adopted her constitution July 4. 1793, in con- vention at Windsor. (Compiled Statutes of Vermont, page 15.) "Connecticut, by convention, in 1S18. (See Compilation of Statutes of Connecticut, 1S54, pages 29 and 45.) "Delaware, by convention, in 1831. (See Acts of 1831, page 49; and Revised Code, page 43.) ■• Pennsylvania, by convention, in 1838, with- a provision for future amendments to be ratified by the people. (See Purdon's Digest, page 17, section 10.) " North Carolina adopted her present constitution in 1776, by convention; amendments in 1835. " South Carolina, in 1790, by convention. *This number does not include mineral and salt spring lands. In addition to this, the state of Kansas will be enti- tled to five per cent, of the proceeds of the sales of the pub- lic lands in the state. 734 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. " Georgia, by convention, on the 23d of May, 1798. "Alabama, in 1819, by convention under enabling act. (See Code of Alabama, page 26, section 5, page 28 ) "Mississippi, by convention, in 1817; and revised in like manner in 1832. " Tennessee, by convention, in 1836. "Kentucky, by convention, in 1799. " Arkansas, by convention, without enabling act. (See Revised Statutes of Arkansas, pages 17-18.) " Missouri, by convention, in 1820; and not submitted to the people. " Illinois, by convention, in 1818; also appears not to have been submitted to thu people. " The following were compelled by statute to submit the constitutions framed by the conventions to the people : "New York, constitution adopted in 1846. (Section 9, Act of 1815, providing for the convention, required its ratifi- cation by the people.) "New Jersey, Act of 1844, approved February 23. Section 9 required its submission to the people. It was submitted and ratified in 1844. "Maryland, formed in 1851. and ratified by the people, in accordance with previous act of legislature. (See Act of 1849, chapter 346, section 8.) "Virginia, formed in 1851. Act March 13, 1851, required its ratification by the people. " Indiana, formed in 1851, ratified by the people, as re- quired by the law authorizing the convention. (See Act of 1850, approved January 18, sections 14 and 15.) The section relative to the exclusion and colonization of negroes was submitted as a distinct proposition. (See Revised Statutes, volume 1, page 72.) " Wisconsin, 1848. Section 9 of schedule required its ratification by the people. (Revised Statutes, 1849.) In April, 1847, the constitution was defeated by over seven thousand majority. (Niles's Register, volume 72, page 114 ) A new constitution was then formed, and the state admitted under it .May 29, 1848. "Iowa, formed in 1846. Previous laws of June 10, 1845 (over the veto of the governor), and of January 17, 1846, re- quired ratification by the people. "Ohio, the first constitution, formed under nn enabling act of Congress, adopted 29th October. 1802, was not sub- mitted to the people; that of the 10th March, 1857, was sub- mitted to the people and approved by them. " Louisiana, formed 1852. The constitution was. by pre- vious enactment, required to be submitted, and was ratified by the people. " Michigan, formed 1850. Act of March 9. 1850. required it to be submitted to the people. (See Laws of 1850, No. 78, section 6. page 66.) "Maine, formed in 1819, by convention (Mickey's Consti- tution, page 432) ; amendments submitted to the people 1834, 1837, 1839. " New Hampshire, formed 1792. (See Compiled Statutes, page 15.) Approved by the two-third vote of the people, and established by convention September 5. 1792. " Rhode Island, formed 1842. Ratified by vote of the peo- ple, in pursuance of act of the legislature. "Massachusetts formed 1780. Convention adjourned till constitution was ratified by two-third vote. • "Texas, formed 1845. Submitted to and ratified by the people. "The constitutions of the following states were submitted by conventions to the people, without their being required by law to do so : " Florida, formed in 1S3S. Territorial act of 1838 (see Act of 1838, page 5) did not require the ratification of the con- stitution by the people. There was no authority of Congress. The convention (see Digest of Laws of Florida, page 9) re- quired ratification by f he neople. "California, formed in 5849. Convention required the ratification of the constitution by the people. There was no authority of Congress or legislative act to frame a constitu- tion. (See Statutes of California, page 24, sections 5, 6, and 7.)" Hon. Cydnor B. Tompkins of Ohio, in the House of Repre- sentatives, February 18th, 185K. " I have said there is now to be a contest between freedom and slavery; and [ am proud to say that the great Republi- can party of the country, of which I am but an humble member, stands forth as the champion of freedom and the rights of man. I will say now, that I claim no right to interfere with slavery in the states where it exists; neither does the Republican party, as a body, claim any such right. I do not desire to interfere with it in the states. Rut I avow that 1 have a legal, constitutional right to resist the extension of slavery into any free territory belonging now to this government; and no earthly power in existence can deprive me of it. 1 have already iuid that I am free from all national obligations to vote for the extension of slavery into any of the territories belonging to this government; and I will resist its extension whenever aud wherever I choose to do so. This is the doctrine, I believe, that was inaugurated three years ago. and is now contended for by a very Itrge majority of anti-slavery men in this country. I avail myself of this opportunity to say that there really are but two parties in this country. There is the slavery party and the anti-slavery party. There really is no Democratic party. There is a party that, out of personal respect and courtesy, we call the Democratic party. Rut it this day has" no separate and distinct existence. It has been swallowed up, utterly absorbed, by the slavery party. I do not, say this by way of insult, or to make myself offensive to any one, but I say it because truth and candor require it — because things that are transpiring every day before our eyes carry this couviction home to the heart." Hon. Rohert P. Trippe of Georgia, in the House of Repre- sentatives, March 31st, 1858. " Mr. Chairman, if Kansas is admitted under this consti- tution, and there be this great overwhelming majority of three to one, what great harm can practically ensue ? More especially is this question pertinent when that majority has the whole machinery of the state government. I know the replj' is made to this that the Lecompton constitution does not provide for any change until 1864; and that it is only a revolutionary right which the people have to change that constitution before that time. I will not, Mr. Chairman, assume any formal position now on that question, as the brief time I have does not allow me either fully to state it or to fortify it. I cannot concur in what the President has said on this point; but practically as applicable to this case, I will say that there is nothing in the Lecompton constitu- tion that in terms prohibits any change before 1S64. And if the majority in Kansas in favor of a change is so great, being ten thousand out of thirteen thousand three hundred, and that majority has now the whole government, no one can doubt what the result will be. With all official power, and that power willing; with such numerical power, and that power anxious: no government on earth ever did or could siand six. or five, or four years against it. If it be revolutionary it would of course be a peaceable revolution, for one government would simply abdicate in favor of the other; and that other sustained by three to one of the people. What I mean is. that it would, all this being true, obey the great law of human nature, and change itself. I speak of what, in all probability, would be the practical end of this whole matter, and not of constitutional right; nor do I believe it to be competent for Congress in this bill to pass upon that question." Hon. W. L. Underwood, of Kentucky, in the House of Representatives, March 30th, 1858. "Your President, sir, had. in a labored argument, in his Kansas message, announced the doctrine that ' a majority can make and unmake constitutions at pleasure.' It would be absurd to say they can impose fetters upon their own power which they cannot afterwards remove. * * * If, therefore, the provision changing the Kansas constitution after the year 1864 could, by possibility, be construed into a prohibition to make such a change previous to that period, this prohibition would be wholly unavailing. The legisla- ture already elected may, at its very first session, submit the question to a vote of the people, whether they will or will not have a convention to amend their constitution, and adopt all necessary means for giving effect to the popular will.' It was necessary, therefore, to insert these provisions in the bill; but lest an outspoken expression of them should justly offend the public ear, and justly alarm the settled and conservative elements of society, they have been couched in the covert and ambiguous phrase quoted in the law. But they will not the less confidently be appealed to as the expression of the legal right, in the abolition portion of the people of Kansas, to abolish the few remnants of slavery that exist in that devoted territory on the instant, should Kansas be admitted under the Lecompton constitution. And then will come, sir, in the event Kansas is thus admitted into tbo Union with her Lecompton constitution, under the provi- sions of this act of admission, one of those struggles, wvak and feeble perhaps it may be. compared with others which I yet contemplate in her eventful history, a struggle in which her peace may be seriously jeoparded, and the rights of the slaveholder — rights which I feel it my duty here to fore- warn, if 1 cannot forearm — will inevitably be sacrificed. According to the programme thus suggested by the Presi- dent, and sign'-^cantly and obsequiously intimated to Kan- sas by the Senate bill, a new constitution will be adopted prior to 1864. in disregard of the Lecompton constitution. It will abolish slavery; the slaveholders in Kansas will assert their rights under the Lecompton constitution, wrong- fully overturned, in violation of the provisions for its own amendment; and I do not hesitate to declare my opinion that there is not an enlightened jurist in America but will APPENDIX. 735 recognise their claim That agitation, bitterness, and strife will result, even from this comparatively minor conflict, no one can doubt ; and, I ask, is it the part of statesmanship thus to legislate in blind disregard of such inevitable conse- quences ? " Mr. Chairman, the great excellency of American liberty is, that it is the liberty of law. The President, in the prin- ciples which I have thus deduced from his Kansas message, proclaims the European idea of liberty, which is the liherty of license. The one is peaceful, the other rebellious. He attempts to fortify his specious conclusions by a reference to those grand fundamental principles of human liberty which underlie all free governments, and which, in proper eases, are the last resorts of nations. No people so well as ours knows the right of revolution, and none, thank God. in a most righteous cause. God being our helper, have asserted it so triumphantly. I trust, however, that no legislative or political necessity will ever compel any portion of our beloved country again to resort to this terrible arbitrament. And if I had no other reason for voting against the admis- sion of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, I should be justified in doing so, in order to avoid the dread expe- dient approximating revolution, to which the President refers the people of Kansas, whereby to extricate themselves from the difficulty in which his policy has involved them, by a change of their constitution, regardless of the forms and methods prescribed in the constitution itself. "The second of the motives which are urged upon us is, that it is the shortest way to make Kansas a free slate. The President, in his Kansas message, after correctly stating that Kansas is now a slave territory, tells us, in this remarkable language: 'Slavery can, therefore, never be prohibited in Kansas, except by means of a constitutional provision, and in no other manner can this be obtained so promptly, if a majority of the people desire it, as by admitting it into the Union under its present constitution.' " Mr. Chairman, when I consider this opinion of the Pre- sident, in connexion with the means he suggests of effecting tho object of making Kansas a free state, to wit : by the un- authorized alteration of her constitution in the manner I have stated, I cannot forbear the expression of my surprise at the support which his purpose and his policy receive at the hands of the south. For myself. I am free to declare that I am not anxious to pursue that path which shall most promptly admit Kansas into the Union as a free state — not that I would throw obstacles in the way of the admission of a state, whether slave or free, into the Union, when justly entitled to come in — but when I consider how rapidly the number of free states has increased and is increasing; that the safe equality that so long existed between the free and slave states has passed away, giving place to an existing preponderance in favor of the former, to be augmented by other free states pressing at our doors for admission ; more than this, when I consider who are likely to come, as the Senators of Kansas, to take their places here — Lane and Robinson, perhaps, reeking with bitterness and wrath against the institutions of the south, from the fierce con- flicts and raids in which so long and recently they have been engaged — I confess to no indecent haste for the admis- sion of Kansas; and the last thing, I think, that ever I shall be guilty of doing will be to dissolve the Union of these States because she is not admitted ' so promptly' to swell the tide of political ascendancy that beats already so heavily against the south." Hon. John A t an Boren of New York, at Tammany Hall. New York, March 4th, 1858. " I say that that convention had full power to make that constitution without submitting it to the people. And When it does not so require, then they not only are not bound to submit it, but their act in submitting it is irregu- lar on the part of the convention. It is true the people may go on and make a constitution, if they choose, which is in- dependent of the action of the convention; but the act of the conventio-n. as their act, is irregular, and. so to speak, illegal. Now, if you look at the two laws calling the con- ventions that framed our constitutions of 1821 and 1845. you will find both of them require the convention to sub- mit the constitution to the people. You will find the con- stitution reads differently when it is submitted to the people from what it does when it is not. When it is made by the convention, the constitution says: 'The convention ordains aud declares' thus and so. When it is submitted to the people, it reiwR with a preamble: ' We. the people, ordain and establish the following constitution.' Hut this idea that a constitution is not valid until it is submitted to the peo- ple — which is the subject of the resolutions of Ohio and In- diana by our Democratic friends — is one that we desire to understand, because they may he coming to Charleston, two or three years hence, at the Presidential convention, with resolutions to that effect; and I say it is a preposterous proposition There is not a shadow of foundation for it. If it is true of the people of Kansas, it must be true of the »* pie of New York. Suppose the people of this state should call a convention to frame a constitution, and should not direct them to submit it to the people. They go on and frame a constitution and put it in operation, and tho gover- nor uuder the old constitution holds on. That is a case where you may apply to the President to put down a domes- tic insurrection. Does anybody doubt that he would be bound to sustain the new governor in that case, and that he would he bound to put down the old governor who claimed to hold over on the ground that the constitution had not been submitted? Why, if submission was required, the Constitution of the United States is involved. That ne- ver was submitted to the people to this day, and we have lived under it ever since 1788. (Applause.) That is the so- vereign Constitution of all of them, and to this day it never was submitted to a direct vote of the people — not even by states. It was adopted by a convention elected by the peo- ple in each of the different states, and never was submitted. How preposterous, then, is it to assume, as they do, that a constitution must be submitted to the people in order to be valid. It may be made in either way. But, fellow-citizens, Governor Wise, who has been kind enough to address the Democracy of New York through a letter directed to Tam- many Hall, and the Democracy of Pennsylvania through a letter to Colonel Forney, in Philadelphia, tells us that it is true that the convention had perfect power to make a con- stitution; but as they submitted a portion of it to the peo- ple in an improper, and, as he says, dishonest way, therefore it is invalid. What! The convention having power to frame a constitution do frame it; they submit to the people the right to change a part of it ; the people do not change it, and that same constitution thus made by the convention, without crossing a t or dotting an i, is sent to Washington; and because this informal process, which amounted to no- thing, has been gone through, Governor Wise thinks the whole constitution is invalid." Hon. Henry Waldron of Michigan, in the House of Re- presentatives. March 20th, 1S58. " I now reach the last point of inquiry : Is this Lecompton constitution republican in its provisions? Let me read one of them. The first section of the seventh article declares : '"The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction ; and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase is the same, and as inviolable as the right of the owner of any property what- ever.' " Now, I assert that a constitution endorsing and avowing such a principle is not a republican constitution, in any true signification of the word. I deny that the institution of slavery is founded on natural right, or that it has a sanction before and above any constitutional law. It is a monstrous doctrine, contravening every fundamental principle of our government, and falsifying the testimony of the living and the dead." Hon. Elijah Ward of New York, in the House of Repre- sentatives, March 31st, 1858. " I have heard much during this debate of ' reading mem- bers out of the party.' Sir, no formal prnnunciamienlo is required for that purpose. They are out by the operation of their own act ; they are in the position of the soldier who, in the hour of battle, deserts to the enemy ; the penalty follows. It is idle to suppose that, when gentlemeu pro- claim the result of their act will be to break down the national party, and elevate a sectional one with its attend- ant consequences, and are doing all they can to attain that object, they can remain, when the act is completed, in full communion with the party they seek to destroy. Their proper place is with the opposition, and time will soon place tbem in that association. History is full of examples of conflicts between individuals and the party ; but each instance has resulted in a signal failure of the assailant. The contest in such cases is as unequal as that between a mere guerilla band and a powerful and well-organized army. Men. as individuals, are apt to exaggerate their power when directed against organizations. In struggles with the Demo- cratic party, men are but pigmies contending with giants. They may be compared to the fiy on the wheel : the fly is crushed, and the wheel rolls on. Whenever a great issue, as in the present case, arises, involving perht ps the very existence of the Union, it is the duty of every man having at heart the welfare of the nation to sustain the administra- tion in its patriotic course, and more especially those who hold their seats in this honorable body, and were elected upon the same platform with the present distinguished chief." _ Hon. Elihu B. Washburne of Illinois, in the House of Representatives, March 25th, 1858. "I cannot, however, pass over the extraordinary first section of the seventh article, in regard to slavery, which declares that — 736 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. " ' The right of property is hefore and higher than any con- stitutional sanction, and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase is the same, aud as inviolable as the right of the owner of any property whatever.' " Here is a declaration that the Congress of the United States is called upon to endorse by voting in Kansas as a state, as is now proposed, under the Leeouiptou constitution. that property in slaves is higher than any constitutional sanction ; and every Senator or Representative who votes for Kansas with this constitution, must be held as admitting that there is nothing in that constitution incompatible with the proper institutions and just policy of a state. This pro- vision, it must be perceived, is fundamental, and goes to the very foundation of civil polity of the inchoate state. If the proposition contained in it be correct, there can be no objec- tion in admitting a state under it; but if incorrect and unsound, it is so important and vital as to form an insuper- able objection to its admission. By voting to receive the state, we declare it is not objectionable, and that we do recognise the correctness of the declaration of the principle enunciated in the section. It is not like the ordinary pro- visions of a constitution, which we might deem impolitic and unwise, and over which we cannot control, as being entirely within the province of the people of the new state; but it is of that description which goes to the very foundation of the state and determines its character, and recognises a principle which, if sound, affects the people of every state in the Union : for if we admit that it is true in Kansas, it is true in and for every state in the Union. We cannot admit Kansas as a state without thereby asserting that slavery is sanctioned by an authority transcending that of the people of the states, and which it is not competent for them practi- cally to deny. The Senator from Georgia votes to admit Kansas, and he thereby declares that it is the right of Kansas to build its institutions upon this central idea. This idea is well founded, or otherwise. If well founded, the state may properly be admitted under it; but if not, it is so great an error, of such sweep and importance, that no man can be justified in voting for it. It is manifest, therefore, from what I have said, that a vote fur the bill does, in effect, affirm the doctriues which are contained in the Lecompton consti- tution." Hon. I. W'AsnnrjP.N". Jr., of Maine, in the House of Repre- sentatives, January 7th, 1S5S. '■The President and his friends in the Senate, Mr. Bigler and Mr. Fitch, admit that the question of slavery should be submitted to the people. But even this has not been done. The people are not to say whether they will have slavery or not, but only in what way they will have it ; only in reference to the future sources of supply ; or, in other words, they arc to be allowed to say ivhether or not they will give to the. business of slave-breeding, wit/tin the state, the advantage of absolute protection agaimt foreign competition. Vote any way the people can, and slavery is fixed in the state, and forever, or until the constitution shall be overthrown by a revolution. The increase of the slaves in Kansas are protected by the ' constitution with no slavery,' and there is no provision by which, under the constitution, any changes can be made, hereafter, to affect the condition of the slaves now within the territory, and their descendants. Not only till lSfi-l. but to the end of time, is the existence of slavery secured by this constitution. Though the 'constitution with no slavery' be adopted, it will be with the condition ' that the right of property in slaves, now in this territory, shall in no manner be interfered with;' and as it respects the future, under this constitution, ir is provided that, after 1S6+, when the constitution maybe altered in all other respects, ' no alteration shall be made to affect the rights of property in the ownership of slave-.' Thus the penpie c.-c to be bound, hand and foot, and a few interlopers and miscreants, assembled at Lecompton, in liSoT, will control the millions of people who are to inhabit that broad and beautiful land, for ages and ages." Hon. Henry Wilson of Massachusetts, in the Senate, February 3d, 1858. •■ I think there will soon be a general union in the North, as there is now in the South. We are fast coining to it ; and let me tell the Senators on the administration side of this chamber, that if they consummate, if they support — whether they succeed or fail — the bringing of Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton constitution, with a know- ledge of all these monstrous frauds scattered over the land, comprehended by the whole country, they will do more to unite all honest, liberty-loving. God-fearing men in the North, than has been accomplished by any act ever adopted by this government. Your Kansas-Nebraska policy of 1854 shivered to atoms that great Whin party which had battled, sometimes successfully, fiir power here, under the lead of some of the most accomplished statesmen of the country. Another party sprang up — the American party. It paused, it faltered, aud it went down under the general judgment of the people of the free state*. The, Republican party rose in one year from a few thousand men, and gave at the last Presidential election one million three hundred and forty thousand votes. It came much nearer than you wished it to do, taking the control of this government — of this country. Goon, gentleman of the slaveholding states, in your avowed policy of slavery expansion and slavery supremacy, by forcing Kansas into the Union under tho Lecompton constitution, against the known will of the people of that territory, and their earnest appeals to your sense of justice, truth, and honor, and you will arouse the people of the North, already deeply incensed by your policy, by the violence and frauds your creatures have perpetrated in Kansas, to rise in the majesty of conscious power, thrust your subservient allies from power, take the government, and overthrow forever you and your policy. I tell you here to-day, that your support of this gigantic crime against the liberties of the people of Kansas is bringing upon you the condemnation of the country and the world." Hon. James Wilson of Indiana, in the House of Repre- resentatives, March 29th, 1858. "But I object to this constitution for another cause — that is, slavery. And what of slavery in the Lecompton consti- tution ? Why, sir, it comes to us in its most detestable form ; not bold and defiant, aa if right, but shielding itself behind the forms of law, and skulking behind fraud and forgery for its protection. What further? At the very outset it announces a proposition, so untrue, and utterly at variance with justice and humanity, that had it not been preceded by the opinion of the Supreme Court, I should have come to the conclusion that all human fanaticism aud refined indif- ference to the rights of man had found an appropriate refuge in the Lecompton convention. What is the proposition t The inviolability of property in humau beings; and you and I, and all of us, have so to declare, or reject this con- stitution. And not only is property in a slave, and his increase for ever, inviolable, but before and higher than any constitutional sanction. Approve this proposition, and what follows? Universal slavery. State lines will be no protection; state constitutions will be no shield; state rights no guard; slaves as property will be as secure in the sixteen free states as in the fifteen slave states; for it assumes that slave property is not, and cannot be made, an exception or governed by different rules than any other property. I dissent wholly. " Why. sir, if slavery and the right to hold slaves ar« before and higher than any constitutional sanction, why not make that issue? Why evade it by claiming, wherever it can be done, 'constitutional sanction?' Come, we accept the challenge. Erase from this Lecompton constitution the 'constitutional sanction' of slavery, and you will disarm, to a great extent, opposition to its reception. Erase from the constitution of Arkansas, South Carolina, and other slave- holding states, the 'constitutional sanction' of slavery, and you will offer a tribute to humanity. Erase from the Con- stitution of the United States the ' constitutional sanction' of the recapture of fugitives from service, and, sir, the con- science and the duty of the North will no longer conflict Ah ! gentlemen of the South, I advise you to cling to ' con- stitutional sauctions,' and not trust yourselves and your property upon the uncertain tenure of inviolability. Now, I hold this to be true : that slavery is merely a local insti- tution, and that slaves are held and governed by the laws of the several states that recognise its existence. With them, I and we have nothing to do. It is conceded that slavery in the states is beyond the interference of the Federal Government, or the states, or the people of the states which do not recognise its existence. It is conceded that they are property in those states — made so by legislation. But. sir, state legislation cannot make them property everywhere. Its light is restricted — it is limited. It cannot go beyond state lines. Beyond those limits, the slave is a man, and no longer property. Such I understand to be our laws, our judicial decisions, and the rule of action in the free states and of the civilized world; and. sir, it is too late 'o attempt to promulgate any other and a different doctrine, ll cannot be done. The inviolability of slave property is against the universal laws of right, humanity, and justice, and cannot prevail. But slavery is in Kansas, established by this con- stitution; and, as far as this constitution is concerned, as firmly established as in any slave state in this Union. And, now, what is demanded? Why, sir, that Kansas, under the Lecompton constitution, shall be admitted into this Union — admitted, too, against the will of her people, with slavery perpetuated in her limits, and the inviolability of slave pro- perty written in her constitution. Shall it be done? Repre- sentatives of the American people, will you tamely yield to the Executive demand? Justice forbids, the people forbid; let their voice be respected. I ask you, sir [addressing Mr. Gilmer, of North Carolina], Southern man as you are- honorable and high-minded as I know you to be— shall it be done? Does Southern honor demand it? Do Southern rights demand it? No! Then why, for even a single hour, impose upon a people, an American people, a constitution they abhor?" APrENDIX. 737 Governor Wise of Virginia, in his letter to the Philadelphia meeting, February Gth, 1858. " And why impose this constitution of a minority on a majority? Cui bono? Does any Southern man imagine that this is a practicable or sufferable way of making a slave state? Who believes now that Kansas will be made a slave state, or kept one for any time, by the admission of tins constitution? Who will carry a slave there now, to become a bone of contention in a border war: the sport of violence and fraud, and force, like that which has so long endangered person, and property, and political franchise, in that unhappy battle-ground of sectional feuds? To what end is this thing to be done, if speedily it is to be undone with state autho- rity, created to drive 'slave property from the territory ? - We have proudly, heretofore, contended only for equality and justice; but if this be wantonly done, without winning a stake— the power of a slave state thereby— it will be worse than vain. It will be snatching power per fas aut nefas, to be lost • speedily' with the loss of something of far more worth than political votes— our moral prestige. If we are not willing to do justice, we can't ask tor justice; if we can't agree to equality, we must expect to be denied it. It is our bull goring the anti-slavery ox. Suppose we had had a majority of slaveholders in that territory ; suppose a minority of abolitionists had gotten the ceusus and registry into their hands and had kept fifteen out of thirty-four counties out of the convention; suppose they had formed a constitution with a clause prohibiting slavery, and had sent it to Con- gress without submitting it to a majority of the legal voters; or suppose they had submitted all parts of the constitution to the popular vote, except the one clause prohibiting slavery, knowing it would be voted down if submitted to the majority of the people ; suppose such a ' boot on the other leg' had been submitted to Congress, and we bad then heard the absoluteness of a convention contended for by Black Repub- licans, demanding of Congress to sustain the doctrine of ' legitimacy,' I tell you that every Southern man would have been in arms, and would be roused to the shedding of blood, rather than submit to Congress fastening upon a majority of pro-slavery people an arbitrary rescript of a mere convention, unauthorized to proclaim its constitution without an express grant. This is the same principle, accom- panied by trickery and fraud. 'We are willing to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.' The Southern people ask for no injustice, no inequality.'' Hon. J. R. Woetexdtke of New Jersey, in the House of Representatives, March 23d, 1858. -One word more, and I will dismiss the whole case for the present. It is said that this constitution cannot be altered before 1864. I think differently. I have no space for argument on that point now. If it can be altered, as I behave it can be, it wiil be done in some legal way. If it cannot be done, as some say it cannot. I cannot help it. I did not make it. and am not responsible in this behalf. ?>ew Jersey once had a constitution which was upon its face declared to be 'firm and inviolable.' But it su happened that, in 1844. a constitutional convention was called by the legislature, and a new constitution made, under which we now live and have our being, all secure and safe, as we think. That constitution was submitted to the people, as the legislative act which railed the convention required it to be done. It was ratified by a majority of all the votes cast, the whole of which votes, for and against it, being 2S.870, all told; while at the Presidental election, held the same year, 76.207 votes were cast. It was adopted by a small minority of voters i:i the state. So our constitution was changed, notwithstanding its declared firmness and in- violability, and that by a minority of voters in the state. I suppose the same thing may be clone elsewhere, although I do not meau to dictate that it shall be done elsewhere nolens volenti." lion. Jons V. Wr.ionT of Tennessee, in the House of Re- presentatives, March 20th, 1858. "It has been said, that because the whole constitution was not submitted to a vote of the people for their ratifica- tion or rejection, the great doctrine of popular sovereignty was violated; and that for this reason we ought to refuse to admit Kansas into the Union. I do not agree with those who argue thus; for, sir, whilst I do not object to the prin- ciple of allowing the people of any territory or state to vote directly on their fundamental law. yet 1 can. by no means, come to the conclusion, that because they have seen proper to do otherwise, and delegate to their representatives the power to form their constitution, the doctrine of popular sovereignty is violated. Our governments, state and fede- ral, are representative in their character. Can it be said that the laws which we enact here do not embody the will of our constituents, because they are not all submitted for their ratification, after we have enacted them? And is it true that the legislatures of the various states, in regulating the domestic concerns of the ncople, do not represent the popu- 47 lar judgment? Are not their enactments in fact the acta of the people? It may not be true, sir, anil doubtless it is not true, that every law which has received the sanction of the legislature does reflect popular sentiment properly and entirely; but in the meaning of the phrase, when applie 1 to our system, it is true in theory, that the representatives of the people are the people. Sir, it was the business of the people of Kansas, not ours, whether they would have their constitution submitted to themselves for ratification. Tli. y did not see proper to do so. If sovereignty resides with tlm people, the right to delegate their authority is inseparal from their sovereignty. The right to delegate their pov i is as important to the people as the right to act for them- selves. The people of Kansas, through their lawful agents, the delegates, framed their constitution in their own way. and ratified it in their own way, as was very forcibly argued by my friend and colleague [Mr. Avery]; and, in my hum- ble opinion, if we complain that they have formed their con- stitution in their own way. as they had a right to do undei the wise provisions of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and demand of them before they are admitted that they shall form it in our way, or as we may choose to dictate to them, or that they shall ratify it in a manner prescribed by a majority of Congress, we violate the great doctrine of non-intervention, and open afresh the wounds which have so long afflicted the country. A majority of the states that have been ad- mitted into the Union since the formation of the Federal Constitution, came in without having had their constitu- tions first submitted to the vote of the people. Many of them did thus vote upon their constitutions, and ratify them ; and to that plan I offer no objection, where the peo- ple of the territories themselves see proper to take that course. " But shall it be said that all those states which have been added to the confederacy, which did not take that course, committed great outrages and violations of sacred princi- ples? Does any one assert that an outrage was committed when my own native state was admitted into the Union, because her people had confidence in the integrity and honor of the delegates who moulded her fundamental law; and because they saw proper to abide by its provisions with- out having first voted on it themselves? It strikes me, sir. that it would be going very far for any one to assume that position; and that it, cannot successfully be maintained by any course of reasoning. Sir, they who are the real friends of popular sovereignty, and who honestly believe that the doctrine, when fairly and properly construed, leads to a submission to the vote of the people of every question in- volved in the fundamental law, may be excused for their course, to some extent, on this question. If they believe that in no other manner can the popular will be made manifest. I say, sir. that in my heart I can find some excuse for their action, were this tue only consideration involved in the question; but I can find no excuse, even for them, when I consider the other great results which a wrong step may bring about. But, as for the Black Republican party— _ thM party which has for its fundamental doctrine that Con- ' gress has full and entire authority to legislate in all things whatsoever for the people of the territories, and which denies to the people thereof the right to govern themselves in their own way — it has no excuse for its pretended love for the will of the majority ; and I confess that I can hear them prating about popular rights and the freedom of the people with no other than feelings of disgust." Hon. V. K. Zollicoffer of Tennessee, in the House of Representatives, March 31st, 1858. "It is said that the convention ought to have submitted the whole constitution to a popular vote. It appears to me that this was not at all necessary. The people had already twice voted — once upon calling a convention, and secondly upon the election of delegates to form the constitution— in which they had a fair opportunity of electing, and did elect, delegates reflecting and embodying their will. They had the right to instruct those delegates, had they seen proper, to frame a constitution and submit it to them for ratification. But they did not see proper so to do. On the contrary, the delegates were expressly instructed to 'frame a constitution and state government' 'for admission into the Union,' with- out a word as to submitting it to the people. This was well understood at the time the delegates were elected; and this mode was adopted upon the well-established theory that the people can as legitimately make a constitution through their delegates, clothed with full power to carry out their will, as by a direct vote of the whole people. Such mode hsd been pursued in the adoption of the first constitution of more than one-half of the states of the Union. It was the republican mode, and that which is most compatible, perhaps, with the common usages in a representative, government. Whether it is the better mode or not, unquestionably it is one of the most stereotyped processes known to the institutions of our country. '• Indeed, in the organic act of Kansas, Congress had pledged itself to leave the people ' perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to 738 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. the Constitution of the United States.' If they have chosen a way of their own. satisfactory to themselves — the instru- ment being republican and not violative of the Constitution r-t the United States— what right have persons, outside of the territory, to object to it? What right has Congress to interpose, and prescribe to the people of a state a mode dif- ferent from that they themselves select for forming for themselves a state constitution ? What right to say to the people of Kansas — • True, you have adopted a constitution under the full sanctions of the organic law, without violating either the principles of that act or the Constitution of the United States; but you have not proceeded in the mode we think preferable, and therefore we say to you. your work shall be done over again?' It is conceded that this repre- sentative mode, adopted in Kansas, has been pursued in a majority of the states without complaint — and who can doubt that but for slavery in this case, this objectiou would not now be heard:" The Kansas Conference Bill. The following present the opinions of leading men on the Kansas Conference Bill, taken from the debates iu Congress, letters, speeches, &c. : — Hon. John A. Bingham of Ohio, in the House of Repre- sentatives, April 2od, 1858. "I do not find fault with this bill because it asserts the power of Congress to annex conditions precedent upon which •ilone the state of Kansas is to come into the Union. I And fault with this bill because, iu my judgment, it is a great crime, not only against the people of Kansas, but against the Constitution of our common country, and against the sacred rights of human nature. "Gloze that bill over with what words you may, it is a written crime; enact it into a law, and it will be a legislative atrocity engrossed upon parchment. Dignify this act with what, title you please, history, stern, truthful, impartial history, will entitle it 'An act to take away the liberties of American citizens.' That this bill is a crime, I will try to show. In the first place, this bill does not submit, as the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Stephens] very frankly acknow- ledges, to the people of Kansas the question, whether they will approve or reject the Lecompton constitution. '• instead of that, sir, it submits to them a bribe in the way of lands and mouey, and says to them, ' if you will vote for this proposition you may come into the Union under the constitution framed at Lecompton on the 7th day of Novem- ber, lt>07 ; but if you reject this bribe the penalty which will follow shall be that you shall not come into the Union as a state until you shall have a population equal to the ratio of representation at the time of your subsequent application.' I say such a thing is without precedent iu the legislation of the country ; is unauthorized by and in direct contravention of the Constitution of the United States. There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States which gives color- able authority for such legislation. There is nothing in the past legislation of this country that gives colorable authority for it. It is a simple act of despotism attempted to be enacted here by the Congress of the United States under cover of that Constitution which bears the peerless name of Washington. It were better, sir, that that sacred instru- ment should perish as though smote by the lightning of heaven, than that any such act as that now proposed should be placed upon our statute-book. What is it? Why, that the Congress of the United States shall dictate to freemen that they shall accept under pains and penalties a bribe, and thereby become subject to a constitution which they never made, which they abhor, and which they have con- demned ! 1 say. and say it without the fear of contradiction, that the genius of our Constitution is this: that new state constitutions must emanate from the people within the limits of the propose! state, and from no other source. In framing a stale constitution, they are subject to the limita- tions of the Federal Constitution, and the limitations or restrictions imposed by acts of Congress. They may do any- thing in framing their constitution that is not inconsistent with the provisions of that instrument, or of such restrictive enactments. The moment they violate these provisions, their constitution ought to be rejected by Congress. That i^ our poMtion. "But this bill assumes the very contrary, and provides that Congress shall adopt a constitution which was framed by conspirators at Lecompton. '1'be people of Kansas never framed it. by delegates or otherwise. On the contrary, on the 4th day of last January, ten thousand of the lawful voters of that territory, a large majority of all its qualified electors, condemned this instrument at the ballot-box. They never framed that instrument. It was framed, I admit, by delegates at Lecompton: but, as I had occasion to say on a former occasion, they were delegates whom the people had never chosen, nor authorized to be chosen, and they only sat in safety at Lecompton uudcr cover of federal bayonets. * * * ****** "Do you not impose an unjust and unfair condition hy this bill when you therein declare that, if the people accept this bribe, they shall come into the Union under the £e* compton constitution, although they have only fifty thou- sand population; but if they reject the bribe, the3 should not come in under a constitution of their choice till they shall have a population of ninety-three thousand four hun- dred, the present ratio of representation, or a still greater number, if before that time the ratio be increased? "But. sir, there is another objection to this measure. Suppose that the people of Kansas were permitted to vote directly upon this constitution — I say that the Congress of the United States has duties to perform which it is not at liberty to waive; aud one of these duties is to see to it that no constitution shall go into operation with the con sent of Congress which denies the right of a majority of the qnali fied voters to amend, alter, or change it at their pleasure. Such a constitution is not. republican. * * * "There is another provision in this constitution to which I desire to call attention; and that is, the provision that it shall never be so amended as to affect the ownership of property in slaves. What becomes of ^gentlemen's notions. of state sovereignty, if the Congress of the United States can give force and effect to such a law as this? Does not every man here know that even if my construction of the consti- tution were wrong, and a majority of the qualified voters of Kansas were to attempt to amend their constitution so as to abolish the ownership of property in slaves, after this atrocious thing had become the fundamental law of the state by the assent of Congress, such amendment would be held by that citadel of slavery which is located iu the base of this Capitol to be in violation of vested rights, and there- fore void? The whole power of the general government would be arrayed to sustain that vested right, if you please, against the expressed will of a majority of the people of Kansas. " Sir, this is the first instance in which the Congress of the United States has attempted, by formal enactment, to give perpetuity to this institution of slavery within the limits and jurisdiction of a sovereign state. As a state-rights man, standing here, pledged as I am to maintain the rights of the people and the rights of the states, I protest against this dangerous assumption of power, and claim that it is tho right of the sovereigu people within the limits of a state to abolish the institution of slavery at their pleasure. Does any representative from the South assert this power to be iu Congress ?****** " By this bill, sir, we are not only to sanction the mon- strous atrocity of chattel slavery, but we are to say, if the majority will accept the bribe, that atrocity shall be per- petual. We are to agree that the children of wrong and oppression in Kansas shall have no deliverance in the future ; that they and their children shall, from generation to gene- ration, toil on in the house of their bondage: in the words of this instrument, that no alteration shall be made therein to affect the ownership of property in slaves. Sir, the Ameri- can Congress, by this enactment, is to declare that if the majority will accept the bribe, the Congress of the United States will perpetuate the horrid lie that one man may of right sell his brother for thirty pieces of silver: — as Judas sold our Lord ! '•I say to gentlemen, you may pass the bill, but you can- not make the lie perpetual. A lie cannot live for ever, it has no vitality in it. Sooner or later it must perish. Perpetuate the atrocity that a majority may of right enslave the mino- rity, or drive it into returnless exile! Make this rule of wrong perpetual! There is nothing perpetual but God, His truth. His justice, and the creatures of His hand. I say to gentlemen on the other side, you have it in your power to save our country from this foul dishonor. Why do you hesi- tate to deny your assent to this great wrong? Is it because you believe with the ['resident 'that slavery exists in Kan- sas under and by virtue of tiie Constitution of the United States?' Is it because you believe, with certain political economists of our day, that slavery is the natural and nor- mal condition of tho laboring man? If that be your con- viction, act it out; say so in words. It is your right and your duty to declare it. And by an open, manly avowal of it, you will command the respect of those who differ frcm you for your candor, if you cau never hope to command thew approval of your principles. Declare openly your true pur- pose and intent. For God's sake do not shirk this great issue under false, and. if I may be allowed the expression without meaning to be offensive, fraudulent pretences of state rights and popular sovereignty. Why do you hesitate to say openly what your support of this bill manifestly imports — that it is your purpose to establish and uphold chattel slavery in Kan- sas under the forms of law and at all hazards? Why do you hesitate to avow this purpose? Is it not because you feel and know that its distinct avowal would electrify the nation, and summon it to a stern, united, defiant resistance? "I say to gentlemen on the other side, who compose the majority of this House, you may pass this bill into a law; you may induce the majority to accept its proffered bribe; you may thereby impose upon that young territory the APPENDIX. 7o9 shame, and crime, and curse of this brutal atrocity ; you may thereby shake down the pillars of this beautiful fabric of free government, and drench this land in fraternal blood, hut you can never give permanence to such an actof perfidy, to such a system of wrong. If is too late for that; it is the hi^h noon of the nineteenth century. The whole heavens are filled with the light of a new and better day. Kings hold their power with a tremulous and unsteady hand. The bastiles and dungeons Of tyrants, those graves of human liberty, are giving up their dead. There is a pause in the world's great battle. Its banners of conflict, which but yes- terday streamed from Paris to St. Petersburg, are furled; aud to-day the mighty heart of the world stands still, await- ing the resurrection of the nations, and that final triumph of the right foretold in prophecy and invoked in song, when the Angel of Deliverance shall lead captivity captive. In this hour of the world's repose, and the world's hope, shall America, the child and the stay of the earth's old age, prove talse to her most sacred traditions, false to her holiest trust, and by this proposed enactment, consent to strike down liberty in her own temple, aud forge chains for her own children?" Hon. Henry Bexnett of New York, in the House of Re- presentatives, March 25th, 1S58. "The first section of this act offers the people of Kansas two sections of the public lauds in each township for schools, (equal to one-eighteenth part of all the public lands ;) seven- ty-two sections for a state university ; ten sections for pub- lic buildings; twelve salt springs with six sections of land adjoining to each, and five per cent, of the proceeds of the sales of all the public lands in the territory. I have pro- cured from the land office a statement of the amount : Area of Kansas, 126,283 sq. miles. Kqualto S0.S21, 121 acres. School grant 4,490,002 acres. 104 sclented sections 9S,5t30 acres. Grant in lands 4.5SS.622 acres. Worth at least (say) . The five per cent, (say) $20,000,000 4,800.000 Value of proposed terms $24,500,000 "Estimating the population of Kansas at forty thousand (a fair estimate), here is a bribe offered out of the public property of more than six hundred dollars each, to every man. woman, and child in the territory, to induce the peo- ple to change their votes, and make Kansas a slave state! A bribe in case the people surrender their right of adopting such a constitution as they approve, and accept the one dic- tated to them by the slave power, which they have once rejected, by a vote almost unanimous! To be paid, if they accept the price and change their votes, otherwise to be withheld! If an individual had offered a voter five dollars to change his vote on the same subject, he would justly be subjected to criminal and infamous punishment! Yet this act proposes a wholesale system of bribery, for the purchase and sale of a majority of all the voters in the territory! And that, too, without auy regard to the ordinary rules of economy. -This act does not submit the constitution to the people, it requires the people to submit to the constitution! The only thing to be voted upon is. whether the people of Kan- sas will accept a gift worth S24.500.000? Every voter in Kansas is in favor of that proposition! And if accepted, they are to be admitted as a state. That is a still stronger inducement. But the law enacts, that if the gift is accept- ed, and the state admitted, it must be as a slave state, under the Lecompton constitution .' If that is refused, they are not to have the gift, and are not to be admitted. Admission as a slave state, under that constitution, can never be con- sented to, let the consequences be what they may. That should he the unalterable determination of the people of Kansas and of the free states. While the people of Kansas would gladly accept the gift, and while they earnestly de- sire admission, yet not for this — nor for any offered price — will they abandon their principles, or surrender their just rights!" Hon. M. L. Bonham of South Carolina, in the nouse of Representatives, May 9th, 1858. "The first objection to the hill is. that it submits the whole Lecompton constitution back to the people of Kansas for adoption or rejection, in despite of the declaration of the people, in convention assembled, that they desired admission, at. once, under that constitution. The first section of the bill provides that the admission of Kansas shall be depend- ent on 'the fundamental condition precedent,' that the people of Kansas shall accept a specific proposition contained in six clauses of the bill respecting lauds, taxes, &c. The bill provides further, that on a majority voting 'proposition accepted.' at an election to be he Id. ' the President of tile United States shall announce the same by proclamation : nnd thereafter, aud without any further proceedings on lb of Congress, tlie admission oj tht stall of Kans Union, npon an equal footing with the original -mi s. in all respects whatever, shall he complete and absi Into.' w bilst, on the other hand, if • a majority of tbe votes cast be for proposition rejectcd.it shall be deemed and held that the people of Kansas do not desire admission ini >the Ohi i Said COnStitlU mi. under the conditions set forth in s:ii position.' And then, regarding the adoption by Kansas of this last alternative as a rejection of tlie constitution, the bill goes on to authorize the people to form a new constitu- tion. Does this statement alone not make it palpable to tie plainest understanding that, though not in so many words, this is virtually a submission of the constitution? It not matter whether the voting be on the land grant, the taxing power. &&, or on some totally indifferent question : still, if the result be that Kansas, with the Lecompton con- stitution, would, on the one hand, be admitted, and on the other rejected, by reason of that vote, unquestionably the constitution is virtually submitted back to the people for ratification or rejection. '• Besides, if it were intended to submit the propositions growiug out of the ordinance alone, why introduce into the hill the words ' admission of the state of Kansas into the Union.' &c, at all?- " Again, the Douglas Democrats, as before stated, based their opposition to the Senate hill mainly upon the ground of the non-submission of the whole constitution to the people. What other feature, then. I ask, is it in the conference bill that commended that bill, rather than the Senate hill, to the support of the English branch of the Douglas Demo- cracy? Surely not that feature which proposes to admit Kansas under the Lecompton constitution upon the people, at the approaching August election, giving a majority for 'proposition accepted;' but if, on the contrary, they should give a majority for ' proposition rejected,' proposes to keep them out. indefinitely? ■• But. sir, as to the construction which the English branch of the Douglas Democracy place on this bill, we are not left to inference alone. 'The naked and unqualified admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution,' said Mr. Euglish. in presenting the conference report to the House, ' he could not vote for;' that • before Kansas is admitted her people ought to ratify, or. at least, have a fair opportunity to vote upon, the constitution under which it is proposed to admit her;' that 'he would make reasonable concessions provideil the substance be secured; which is the making of the constitution, at an early day, conform to the public will, or, at least, that the privilege and opportunity of so making it, be secured to the people beyond ail question.' It would puzzle human ingenuity to discover any other meaning in these words, than that Mr. Eunlish considered the Conference bill as in effect submitting the whole constitution to the people for acceptance or rejection. Would Mr. English, or any other advocate of the bill, have voted for an amend- ment declaring it was not a submission? I apprehend not. Mr. Groesbeek and Mr. Cox. of the same wing of the Douglas party, and Mr. Gilmer of the Southern Americans, sail they regarded it in effect a submission. All the opposition say, that it is a virtual submission. Other distinguished mem- bers of the committee, it is true, say that there is no sub- mission of the constitution to a vote of the people. The members of the committee disagree. We are, therefore, free to place our own construction upon the bill. To my mind. it is a virtual submission of the constitution back to the people for acceptance or rejection, which view I think I hu\ e shown to be correct. •• The most plausible argument in favor of the conferen ■■• hill, which I have heard or seen. is. that if Kansas, 1 j rejecting the proposition in the conference bill, should be kept out of the Union; still, if she had been unwilling to accept our proposition, in the Senate hill, she would, in that event, also have been out of the Union ; and thai wo could not compel her to come in. That is true. But. it was a I- mitted on this side of the House — denied by no Democrat ■< far as my knowledge or information gees — that Kansas would have assented to our proposition contained in tin Senate hill. It was reasonable — the same that was made ti Minnesota — and Kansas could ask no more. Her pi i tion was unreasonable, and such as no State ever laid claim tc before. It was never questioned that, on the passage Senate bill, the legislature of Kansas would he convened: that her Senators would he elected: anil that they and the member elect, would, as soon thereafter as practicable, take their seats. Now, the instant, that these delegates should have taken their seats. Kansas would, I submit, with con- fidence in the view, have been in the Union with the Le compton constitution — there would have lien an aceeptam a Of our proposition, and an unconditional assent to the tcrir.s of the Senate bill, by such sending of delegates — a v. to all intents and purposes, of all right to tax the public lands; and an abandonment of any oiaiui to lanU i self <40 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. beyond the four millions of acres. No one, up to the failure of the Senate bill, saw any difficulty as to the ordinance, which was in fact no part of the constitution ; and there was no reason to suppose there could be any; for Kansas had herself proposed to come in with the Lecompton con- stitution, and would have been iu, an,d been received by Congress as a member of the confederacy, by the act of sending her Senators and member here to take their seats ; and need never again (and probably would not) have alluded to her ordinance. No vote by her people, in such case, would have been necessary to admission. Or, she might, if she had preferred so to do, through her state legislature, have assembled a convention, and through that have aban- doned her ordinance, and have accepted our proposition. In the other case, by the conference bill, the people of Kansas must vote again, before they can get into the Union under tho Lecompton constitution. Her remaining out, under the Senate bill, would have been ' voluntary ou her own part; but her being out, under the conference bill, is compulsory on ours. "But suppose Kansas had said, Wo will come into the Union, and will send our delegates to take their seats, but will negotiate as to the questions of taxation, the land grants, &c. She would unquestionably have thus been in the Union. You could not have refused her admission. If. then, the terms of adjustment could not have been agreed upon between the parties, who would have been the arbiter? The United States courts, who could have done nothing more nor less than have decided that Kansas had acquiesced in our proposition. If Kansas had been content with the decision, that would have been the end of the matter. If she had insisted upon her proposition, she would thereby have placed herself out of the Union, and would have had * to forego the benefits thereof. " But suppose she had said, upon the passage "of the Senate bill, she preferred staying out of the Union to accepting the terms of that bill? The South would have lost nothing, as it turns out, and Congress could then, with much better grace than by applying such rule to Kansas in the confer- ence bill, have passed a geueral law to exclude all new states till they should have the federal ratio to entitle them' to ad- mission. "It is supposed that the right to tax the public lands is an attribute of sovereignty of which Kansas could not be deprived, or deprive herself, and yet be 'admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original thirteen states in all respects whatever.' It must be borne in miud that the difference between the original thirteen states and the territories is very marked. Those states were independent sovereignties, possessed of the right of eminent domain out- side of the Union, and anterior to the adoption of the Federal Constitution. The sovereignty of the territories, on the con- trary, is in the states of this Union — the right of taxing the public lands along with it. Now it seems, as has been done again and again, that Congress may reserve this sovereign right of taxation in the enabling act, or in the act admitting a state, carved out of these territories. But if we grant the position to be true, that the withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States confers upon a new state at once this sovereign .right of taxation, still Kansas, as many of the other states have done, might waive the exercise of it in consideration of the land grants and other advantages arising from incorporation into the Union. "It is further said for the conference bill that its first clause admits Kansas into the Union. That clause is as fol- lows : — ' That the state of Kansas be and is hereby admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever.' The Crittenden-Montgomery amendment does the same thing in the same words. But what is such admission in the conference bill worth when the bill goes on to prescribe a condition precedent which must he fulfilled before she is admitted, and failing to fulfil which, she will not be admitted, and will never have been admitted* There is a condition to be performed, precedent to admission. How can the state be said to be now admitted into the Union when she is told in the bill, your people must vote again, and if they don't vote ' proposition accepted' you must stay out of the Union till you have the federal ratio, after which you may form a new constitution, and then ' be entitled to admission into the Union as a state under such constitution V Does any one pretend that Kansas is now actually in the Union? This bill in truth subjects the con- stitution to a vote of rejection. Indeed, its adoption by Congress was the adoption of a measure of exclusion, for the result of the vote of the 'people of Kansas under the conference bill, in August next, is scarcely now problemati- cal. No, sir, so far from Kansas being admitted, we are no nearer the end of our difficulties now. than we were before the passage of the conference bill. Kansas will send up to ns next winter, in all probability, a free state constitution, formed by a convention called by the territorial legislature, having the other sanctions of the Lecomptou constitution (except so far as it will be restricted by the conference bill as to the federal ratio), with the addition of having been submitted, entire, to tho people for their approval. And I now ask, gentlemen, will that constitution be rejected by Congress? I think not. This conference bill will thus secur'w to the opposition within one short year, and if not so soon, at some day not very distant, the victory for which they have from the first contended, and the South he shorn of the triumph of principle in having a slave state admitted. "It is claimed, moreover, that the conference bill recog- nises the right of a slave state to admission. The Crittenden- Montgomery amendment can lay claim to equal merit; for that bill provides for the admission of Kansas under tho Lecompton constitution, if upon ' that constitutional instru- ment' being first submitted to a vote of the people, a majo- rity shall assent thereto. But to what end is this recognition in either bill? What Republican would ever have sup- ported the Crittenden-Montgomery amendment but for the certainty that the Lecompton constitution would never again have seen Congress? And what Douglas Democrat would ever have supported the conference bill but for its securing virtually to the people of Kansas the opportunity of voting down the Lecompton constitution? "This bill is further objectionable as not being a manly, straight-forward measure. It is to be construed one way in one section of the Union, and a different way in the opposite section. This double construction prevails here, already, as I have shown. It is a mode of legislation I cannot admire — one which can never result favorably to the establishment of sound principles, or in benefit to the weaker section. To preserve the constitutional rights of the South in this Union, the legislation should be plain — unmistakeable. " I further object to this bill because, in accepting that, instead of making our stand upon the defeated Senate bill, we abandoned the question, in this case, of the admission of a slave state north of 36 degrees 30 minutes — a conces- sion which, it strikes me, the South should have avoided even the appearance of making. It is no answer to say that the Southern States, which were committed to secession in the event of the rejection of a slave state, would have re- ceded from their position because of the fact that the anti- slavery party in Kansas so greatly outnumbers the pro- slavery party. Those states would have been then in no worse condition than they are now. The people of the whole South would have felt indignant at the rejection of the Senate bill ; for it had been made plain to them that if re- jected, it would be owing to the slavery clause contained in the constitution. The conference bill faintly purports to recognise the principle that a slave state may be admitted, and thus furnishes the ground, though such was not the purpose of its advocates, upon which the tone of the South will. I fear, be let down from its former elevation. " But gentlemen say the conference bill is a better bill than the Senate bill. Had it been submitted as an amend- ment to the Senate bill at the time we expected to pass the Senate bill, by a Republican, or even a Democrat, I doubt if it would have received the support of ten Southern Dem- ocrats. It would have been regarded as involving the aban- donment of the positions taken in the Senate bill. What makes it abetter bill? Is there anything in the bill itself, or in its passage, from which the most sanguine can augur the future admission of a slave state from the territories north of 36 degrees 30 minutes — or even south? Bather the contrary. "As for myself. Mr. Chairman, I see no reason to doubt the correctness of my convictions, but much to confirm it. I voted against the measure with regret at separating from my colleagues and so many other true Southern men; but with my views I should do the same thing again, under the same circumstances. The bill commands no more my appro- bation now than it did at the time of its passage. I voted, it is true, with my honorable friend from Mississippi, for the motion to lay upon the table, a motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; thus indicating our in- disposition to protract a contest in which wo differed from so many of our friends. But if any practicable good could have been attained by the amendment of the conference bill, or by the substitution of the Senate bill, or something more desirable, of course we would have voted for the recon- sideration. I do not recognise mere party success and party supremacy as paramount to all considerations of principle. I would concede much for the harmony of the party I am acting with — a great deal for the harmony of the party of the South — but what I would concede must fall short of the concession of principle involved, in my conception, iu the conference bill." Hon. A. V. Brown of Mississippi, in the Senate, April 29th, 1858. " How much is there in the bill, to forbid our taking it? First, it is said by some of those who vote against it. that it is a submission of the Lecompton constitution to the people of Kansas. And then again others vote against it because it is not a submission. 1 mean to state my own views with perfect candor and with entire fairness. I do not under- stand it to he the submission of the constitution to the people, but I do understand this to be true, that you sub- APPENDIX. 741 mit collateral questions — the land question, and others in- volved in the Kansas ordinance — to the people of Kansas; and that if in voting upon those questions they choose to determine that they will not come into the Union under the Lec>//npton constitution they have a right to do it. ••They pass no judgment directly at the polls on the con- stitution, one way or the other, but each voter can control his own \ote by his own reasons; and if he chooses, under cover of voting to sustain the ordinance, to vote against the whole constitution, and against coining into the Union, he can do so; and R' a majority take that view of the subject, the state is not in the Oniou. "That much is fairness and candor, for thus stands the question if 1 properly comprehend it. "Now what just ground have we Southern men to object to that? What just reason is there for our oppo.-iug it? We took tin- ground in the beginning, and maintain it now, that wo would not and will not sustain a submission of this constitution to the people under the circumstances of its coming here. But we took the ground at the same time that wo would not sanction tins ordinance, making as it did exorbitant land demands upon the Government, and setting up other pretences which had not been tolerated in the admission ot'other new states. From the beginning the friends of the Lecompton constitution struck at that ordi- nance, determined nut to receive il, and not to give it their sanction. The original .Senate bill dec hired that it was no part of the constitution, and could not be so recognised by Congress. After we made that declaration, 1 apprehend, if the bill had passed, it would have rested with Kansas to decide whether she would organize under the constitution or not; whether she would come iuto the Union, or be con- sidered a member of it. You had stricken olF her ordinance. You chose not to regard it as a part of the constitution. But did Kansas so regard it? She did not. You struck it otf without her consent. She thought it a material part of her proposition. •' Then, was she iu the Union? She was not. until, either by silent acquiescence in your action, or by some positive declaration of her own, she placed herself into the Uuion. 1 hold that if you had passed the regular Senate bill, and Kansas had refused to organize a state government under the Lecompton constitution, and under that bill, there would have been no power iu this government to force her, aud therefore that she would not have been in the Union. She would not, because you had not met her pro- position, aud she had not accepted yours. Your minds had not agreed. She would not accept the proposition you had sent toller. You had changed her proposition so far as to strike otf her ordinance, and she had not agreed to have it stricken off. "Then it rested with her to say whether she was in the Union or not; aud what does this proposition amount to? It simply declares . that Kansas may determine for herself whether she is in or out of the Uuion — a right which she had without your saying so; and which she would still have, whether you said so or not. You do not. by this de- ilaration, cooler any right on Kansas. Yott simply recog- nise a right which already exists, and which, if she chose. 1 repeat again, she could have exercised without your consent, just as well as with it. When this debute first opened, the Senator from .Michigan [Mr. Stuart] employed this language on this poiut: 'They' — meaning the people of Kansas — 'are arming; they are determined to resist an admission under this constitution, by any and every power with which God has clothed th in; and yet we are to sit here and say, ' we admit you iuto the Union of the United States.' As well might you take a prisoner, under tin- sentence ol'a court of justice, handcuffed, with your officers surrounding him by force, to the prison, and say to him, "there is no coercion; we admit you iuto the penitentiary.' ' ••I thought then. sir. and so declared, that there was no power to force Kansas into the Union. If she proposes to come in, aud you accept her upon the terms which she pro- poses, then she is iu. and she cannot recede. But if she proposes to come in. and you alter her proposition, then it depends upon her to say whether she accepts or rejects the alteration. That right, I repeat again aud agaiu, she has, whether you admit it or not. "To reduce it to a simple question of law, suppose you and I, Mr. President, have dealings in reference to an estate, and we agree upon terms; 1 draw the bond of the deed, and attach to it a memorandum, or condition, or ordi- nance, explaining what 1 understand to he the meaning of the paper, how 1 expect to see it executed, and send it to you, and you sign it, but strike out the memorandum, or condition, or ordinance: I ask any lawyer whether the con- tract is binding on me until, either by silent acquiescence, as fy proceeding to execute it. or by some positive declara- tion, 1 make it my own deed? Just so with Kansas, she sent you a constitution; she sent along with it her ordi- nance, the memorandum which explained the reasons why, and the terms upon which she proposed to enter into the bargain, and become a member of the Uuion. You choose V strike the ordinance out; you choose to strike it from the constitution. Then I hold, as a simple legal proposition, she had a right to say. -you have changed the terms upon which 1 pivpo.se to come in; 1 will not come il ; I choose entirely to recede from the proposition. 1 it dors not depend on you, sir. as one of tue contracting parties, to say whethei she .-hall recede or not; the right exists independent of you. If you meant to bind Kansas absolutely, you should have accepted her proposition in totidem verbis. You could not strike out what you did not like, stand by what you did like, and still insist that Kansas was bound by her propo- sition. ******* " Under this bill, as I have admitted, and as other Sena- tors have claimed in broader language thau 1 have, the people of Kansas may, if they choose, accept or reject the Lecompton constitution. The Senator thinks they ought to have a right to reject or accept, it; or, if that be denied them, that the people be authorized to form a state consti- tution only when they have the full ratio of representative population. Very well ; this bill takes both horns of the dilemma; and yet the Senator rejects it. For myself, I am free to say, I hope the people of Kausas will, if this bill passes, adhere to their ordinance, and insist on remaining out of the Union. If they come in, they must come iu under the Lecompton constitution; if they stay out, they must stay until they have the population to entitle them to one representative in Congress. That suits me. I close in with that oiler. " But, says the Senator from Illinois, this land grant is a bounty held out to the people of Kansas to accept this con- stitution — a bribe, as it has been elsewhere termed. How, sir? It reduces the. amount of the grant claimed in the ordinance by more than twelve million acres. The Senator from Michigan, in a carefully prepared table, which he intro- duced into Ids speech, delivered on December 23d last, shows that the whole grant was upwards of sixteen million acres; that the railroad grant alone was upwards of seven millions. I uuderstaud from the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Green], wdio brought forward this bill, that he has had a calculation made, and that the grant proposed for all purposes is about four million acres. And yet. when you reduce the grant from sixteen millions to four millions, the Senator from Illinois comes forward and says that is a bribe held out to these people to accept the constitution. It is a queer way of bribing them to offer twelve million acres of land less than they claimed iu their ordinance." Hon. J. R. Cockekill of Ohio, in his letter to his consti- tuents. " This hill secures to the people of Kansas all their politi- cal rights; they are not compelled to come iuto the Union against their consent; they are not required to live under a constitution which they abhor; the popular voice is to be consulted, and to them at the ballot-box is committed the arbitrament of the whole question. The question of admis- sion with the constitution is fairly submitted, and there is no difference between submitting the question of admission with the constitution, and the constitution and admission. The substance of everything that has been claimed in their behalf is granted, aud the sovereign people can now decide for themselves.'' Hon. Jacob Collamer of Vermont, in the Senate, April 27th, 1S5S. " Now, Mr. President, I come to the next step : the pro- position which is offered as a substitute for both those bills — the proposition of the committee of conference. 1 do not propose to go into its details; but let us see whether it gives to those of us who voted against enforcing the Lecompton constitution upon the people without their consent, and who voted for the proposition of the House of Representatives, those leading features of security, and those objects which we desired to attain, which were given to us iu the latter proposition. I will state its leading provisions. The first is. that the Lecompton constitution shall be presented to the I pi of Kansas for their acceptance or rejection. ' ( Hi. no.' suys tile honorable Senator from Virginia [Mr. Hunter], ' it Joes not submit the constitution to the people. 1 The majority of the Senate, by the bill they have passed, decided tiiat it was a constitution perfect, so fir as Kansas was concerned, not to be passed upou any further by the people; aud he says this bill so treats it. If I understand it, it does not so treat it. It submits a certain question to the people; that is. whether they will accept those laud grants: and it pro- vides that, if they accept those land grants, then, and in that case, Lecompton shall stand as the constitution; but it further provides, that if they reject that proposition in regard to the laud grants, they reject the Lecompton consti- tution. Now, I ask, is it true, as the Senator from Virginia says, that that is consistent with any former action of the Senate? Does it not submit a question to the people by which they may reject the Lecompton constitution? Cer- tainly it does. Did not the Senate say, in the former bill, to those people, ' it is all perfected on your side and you shall 742 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. have no opportunity to rejpct Lecompton?' Yes, they did, unconditionally; and I say they now propose a question to the people by which the people may reject Lecompton; and yet you say that you do not subject the Lecompton consti- tution to their vote! The two are utterly inconsistent: and there is no Ingenuity or sophistry, though the gentleman may have much of the former, if not of the latter, which can by possibility disguise or blink this ont of sight. "But, sir, as I said, this proposition provides for submit- ting to the people of Kansas a question in relation to land grants — whether they will accept a certain proposition in relation to lands. It further provides that, if they will not accept, that, then, and in that case, Lecompton goes aside, and the people of Kansas are to remain in their territorial condition for a length of time entirely indefinite. It says they may have a convention when they have a sufficient number of people to entitle* them to a Representative in Congress. That number is now ninety-four thousand ; but, after the next census, in 1860, it may be one hundred and twenty or one hundred and fifty thousand ; we know not. When that time will arrive, we know not. Then, the amount of it is, that it is an indefinite delay ; it shall be indefinitely deferred. " Besides, it is as much as saying to them, ' we make you this offer of land, but if you will not take this offer of land, liberal as it is, now, see the danger you run of never getting it.' Again, this same bill provides that a different board shall be created to direct and supervise the election. It pro- poses to add a member, the district attorney, appointed by the 1'resident, to the governor and secretary, so that they shall have three — a controlling majority of that board over the presidiug officers of the two Houses of the legislature. We view this as entirely unfair. "The first objection that occurs to my mind is the form in which this question is attempted to be presented to the peo- ple of Kansas. This has been very well defined by the honorable Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Crittenden]. It is to put to them one question, by the answer to which they are to decide another question that has no relationship to it. You might as well put the question to that people, ' will you Tote that you will be freemen?' and now we say to you, 'if you vote that you will be freemen, you shall have the Topeka constitution; but if you vote that you will not be freemen, then you shall remain in a territorial condition.' There is no more relationship between the acceptance of this grant of land and the character of this constitution, than there would he between the question proposed and the result that was to follow in the case I have just put. There is no necessary legal sequence or connection between the two questions. The proposition is therefore artificial, de- ceptive in its consequences. You put to a man the question, 'Sir. will you take such grants of land; as a citizen of Kansas, are you willing to receive such grants?' ' Yes,' says he, • I am.' ' Weil, will you vote so?' 'I do not see why I should not vote so.' ' Well, we tell you now, if you will vote to accept these grants, you shall take the Lecompton consti- tution that you have rejected.' In short, "if you will not vote against a favorable offer, you shall have imposed upon you a constitution to which you are opposed, and you must ■vote against a favorable offer in order to get rid of an obnoxious constitution. You must vote against what you desire, in order that you may get rid of a greater evil. If you vote for these grants which are acceptable to you. and liberal in their character, you do it at the peril of taking upon you a constitution that you detest.' It is the very manner in which the question is put to the people which is objectionable. It is artificial in its character; it is calculated to mislead. '•We lcive complained a great deal that the Lecompton constitution was submitted to the people in regard to the question of slavery, in a certain manner, which was unfair, deceptive, and dealing in duplicity. That submission was this: 'You may vote for the constitution with slavery, or for the constitution without slavery; but you have to vote for the constitution, at any rate, which has slavery in it in either case.' Now, how is it here? We put to you the ques- 1 1 ii. 'Will you vote for these land grants? But, now re- member, if you vote for the land grants you are to have this slave constitution, And if you vote against the land grants you are to have slavery in your territory without, a constitu- tion.' That is. you are to have a constitution with slavery. or slavery without a constitution, but slavery at any rate. That seems to inc to be tin' way in which the question is put to them ; because you hold that, under the Dred S< ott decision, it is a slaveholding territory, and therefore, if the people vote for these land grants, they are to take a slave- holding state constitution, and if they vote against them, they are to endure slavery under a territorial form of govern- ment. That is the alternative. "The next objection I have to the manner in which this new bill presents the question, is to the provision in regard to population. It seemed to be agreed on all h;mds. ami it was provided in the bill pa'S"d by tic Senate, that the num- bers of the people of Kansas were sufficient to justify their mdmission. They had numbers enough to admit them two years ago, if they would make a constitution to suit you You thought they had numbers enough to admit then, under the Lecompton constitution. There are number* euough of them now to justify their admission as a state, if they vote for this constitution ; but you give them to under stand that there are not numbers enough, if they vot< against this constitution, to make a free one. We h.vv,. here a proposition that Kansas shall be admitted if she will have a slave constitution, and shall not be admitted if she will not have a slave constitution. There are people enough to hold slaves, but not people enough to* enjoy freedom! This, it seems to us. is a palpable injustice — an entirely different affair from the House amendment. "In the next place, the proposition which is now before us produces no finality: it makes no settlement. It only makes a settlement provided they adopt the Lecompton con- stitution, by voting in favor of these grants of land. That will make a finality ; and that is the only finality under this proposition — a finality in one result. If the people do not vote to accept these grants, it provides for no finality, no settlement, but leaves things in statu quo by declaring that the people of Kansas shall remain under a territorial form of government fir an indefinite and unlimited period of time. I do not know that that part of the proposition will really have much practical effect. It seems to me to be rather brutum fulmen. because 1 suppose Congress can at any time admit them, notwithstanding this declaration , but, after all, that is the effect it is intended to have on the minds of the people of Kansas. It is intended if this 1 ill passes, that they shall understand that if they do not. accept this proposition, this shall be a bar to their coming in until they have a certain population. " Another objection, and one to which I have alluded before, is that we are not content with this newly-constituted board to supervise the elections; we are not willing to take results produced under such supervision, so as to say that the President, upon the returns being made to him, shall issue his proclamation, and Kansas become a state, without those returns being submitted to our examination. If a board were constituted in the manner provided in the House amendment, we hail so much confidence in that manner of constituting the board that we were willing to pass it ; but we are not willing to have a board constituted in the manner provided in this bill, and trust in the result. The history of affairs in Kansas is such as leads us to be cautious on that subject. We all cannot but know, at any rate a large por- tion of us are convinced, that the elections in Kansas have been, either by violence at the polls, or by fraud and false returns afterwards, so conducted that a small minority of the people have been kept in power. I need not go over the evidences of this. The history of the transaction is full of them at every step. " There is another thing that we cannot but remember. Whatever officers, especially leading officers, who have been appointed in that territory by the Executive of this govern- ment, the President of the United States, have favored any degree of fairness to the majority of that people, have desired to secure them at all against the influence of violence and fraud, have incurred the Executive displeasure. This re- mark will apply, I think, to all the government officers there who have evinced any fairness, whether we refer to Governor Reeder, Governor Geary, acting Secretary Stanton, or Go- vernor Walker. In all cases where there has been mani- fested a disposition to do fairness, and to get rid of frauds, the officers who have manifested such a disposition have certainly incurred Executive displeasure in its consequences; and therefore we suppose fhat whatever officers are appointed by the Executive will read the history of their own fate in that of those who have preceded them, and will consult their own security in what they are doing. We believe we effh- not find any safety in this proposition, when the majority of the supervising board who have charge of the elections is given into the control of officers created by the government of the United States; superseding and overriding the officers appointed by the people of Kansas. This is a feature which we regard as of vital importance, and to which we cannot consent. When I say that. I speak for myself, and not by authority from any of my associates, any further than I derive it from the action which 1 have already witnessed at their hands. I have no direct authority to speak for them. " Now, sir, the whole of this proposition amounts to this it is saying to the people of Kansas, you may vote for the Lecompton constitution, but if you do not have that, you shall have nothing. We are calling npon the people of Kansas to act on the great question of forming their consti- tution — of forming, ratifying, or putting in operation, if you please, by their votes, the constitution of their proposed state government. It is fundamental, it is the first great principle of self government. Now. you call upon that peo- ple to act on that subject, and do you secure to them even what was promised in the Cincinmiti platform? Its pledge was, that in forming a state constitution the people should be left perfectly free to mould their institutions in their own way. Now. the people of Kansas are called upon to take action about the adoption of a constitution, to pass a APPENDIX. 713 vote which shall put that constitution in force, or reject it; and are they left true? They are trammelled up to that one siugle act. whether they will have the Lecompton constitu- tion or have nothing. They are not left free to form any constitution they want, to shape any constitution as they may desire it to be, in relation to any of their institutions. In short, the vote seems to he very much like the ca e "I Napoleon III., who allowed the peop! - of France to rote, nut whether you will have an emperor, not who will yon have as emperor, but will you have me for emperor? That is a U * * * * ****** ••This proposition is subject to all the exceptions I have made to it, and yet more. It proposes to submit the ques- tion to the people of Kansas at such a time, in sucli a form. a.id under such peculiar circumstances, that we must see that it is intended, at least it is well calculated and ingeni- ously devised, to secure, if possible, the success of the Le- compton constitution, whether the people really desire it or not. Among the other means which may be counted upon for possible success in this vote, is the improbability of get- ting the people to vote against a proposition for lands, which proposition they like, because a constitution may fol- low. Is it not operating as a blind on the people? 'Here is a fair and liberal proposition of land to you : do you not like it.'' Every man may say, ' I like it.' Then comes the ques- tion. 'Will you vote for it?' 'No; I will not vote for it. because I will have to take such a constitution with it.' Is It t" be expected that every man in Kansas will understand that? Is not the very manner in whieh the question is pre- sented to him calculated to disguise the real question, and to delude him? " Again, we know that that people have been harassed and dragooned, and continued under all sorts of violent oppres- sions which the forms of law would allow, for many years in succession. I need not go over the story of the violence and the wrongs which they have suffered ; but they have suf- f -re 1, aud that long and severely. They very much need rep Be. Now, you propose to them that they may have re- pose. How? If they will take slavery. Otherwise they are to have no repose, no security, but are to be suhjected to a still longer continuance of their sufferings, and to endure longer tribulation. ******* '• There is another consideration to which this proposition addresses itself, calculated to give it success. The people of Kansas have been told by the Executiveof the United States, that if they would only get to be a state, especially if they would get to be a slave state, it would bo the shortest and quickest road to obtain a free state, because they have the right any clay to alter the constitution, aud can do it imme- diately. * The President told them so. The report of the Committee on Territories, who presented the bill passed by the .Senate, substantially endorsed the same doctrine; and gentlemen here say it is contained in the Lecompton consti- tution, although that constitution provides for one mode of amendment, whieh mode is, that it may be amended after 1864, by a two-thirds majority in both houses of the legisla- ture, and then submitting the amendment to the people — an impracticable mode. '■Now, the people of Kansas are to be presented with this question, in the form of which I have spoken, under this sort of assurance. I have no doubt that it is expected, cer- tainly it is very well calculated, to induce that people to vote for the constitution: and. indeed, in a recently-pub- lished letter of Governor Robinson, he says, that if there was no doubt as to how the certificates would lie given to the officers chosen at the election which has already taken place, he thinks it would be well even to have the Lecomp- ton constitution put on them, because they would have the controlling power; and he says that people are fatigued with their long political agitation, and in need of rest, aud desirous of going about their industrial pursuits. Is not this whole proposition well calculated to secure a vote of that long-oppressed people, desirous of peace, even for what they do not want? The truth is, it addresses them on mo- tives of that kind. If they follow it. they will certainly be deluded. Just so sure as the Lecompton constitution is put into effect and operation, it will not be altered and amend- ed. If they attempt to amend it immediately upon its be- ing put into operation by the action of the newly-elected legislature, the governor would veto the act. The free state people have not got two-thirds of the legislature, and they are not to have it anyhow. The attempt to amend the con- stitution will he stopped; but if it were to go on, whenever that resolves itself into a judicial question, as it may at any time, and is presented to the Supreme Court of the United States, it will no doubt be decided that the people cannot alter their constitution contrary to the provisions of that constitution. It will be held that it is a sort of national compact by which people hare come into the government of the majority on that condition; and being thus in the nature of a compact, it is incapable of being changed, ex- cept agreeably to the terms of the compact itself. They will be deluded in that; and I suppose, indeed I know, that this is well calculated to delude them. Whether it will do so effectually, time must determine. "I have very little hesitation in saying that, whatever may take place, if this question ol ar< i pting the land -rants is presented to the people under this i ill. n 1 . upon it, Mr President — I speak merely fi im tfa ir-to- tj of Kansas has taught mi — a majority will b • retur favor of accepting the laud grants. 1 Bay I will be returned for it, in all human proba the actual votes may be. I do not agree with the hon Table Senator from Kentucky, that the result will .vi - and that the proposition will be rejected. 1 d i not saj thai I do not believe a majority of the pei pie will \ it: but I say the returns "will show a majority (tie .alter way; and when I say that. I speak merely from the lessons taught me by the history id' Kansas itself ••There is another matter that equally bear- On this pro- position, and addresses itself to us on this occasion. An election has been held under the Lecompton constitution; and if the people accept these land grants with this condi- tion, of course, then. I take it. they are to alii le by that election. Now, can anybody tell me what is tin- result of that election? Does not the final and ultimate determina- tion of it rest with a certain .Mr. Calhoun to-day ? Is it not altogether within his hands and under his control ? Most unquestionably it is. If the people do as they may do under this proposition, and as it is calculated to have them do — accept the Lecompton constitution under the belief that the certificates of ejection are to be actually issued to a majority of the representatives of the free state people, thev will certainly be deluded. "I have attempted to show that all these motives and purposes are presented, by the arrangement of this bill, cal- culated, not to carry into effect the true wishes of the peo- ple of Kansas, but to frustrate and evade them, and obtain, in point of fact, from these motives and considerations, a vote of that people, by which they shall take upon them- selves this slave constitution, abhorrent to their feelings." Hon. J. J. Crittenden of Kentucky, in the Senate, April 27 th, 1858. " The committee of conference, abandoning, as I say, the enforcement of the Lecompton constituti n as an absolute one, and the admission of the state as an absolute admis- sion, come to our ground, so far as to agree that that instru- ment shall be submitted to the people. The committee of conference say it shall be submitted to the people; but how submitted? In the fair, open, unencumbered manner that it was to be by the bill of the House of Kepresentativea ? No. sir. "I have said that this new amendment proposes the sul>- mission of the constitution. I am substantially correct in that statement. Literally, however, it is but a submission of certain grants of land which have been habitually made by Congress, upon the formation and admission of new states — grants for school purposes, grants for a university, grants for establishing a seat of government. It submita these grants and the condition upon whieh they are made, to wit, that the state accepting them shall not be at liberty to interfere with the disposal of the public lands or to impose taxes upon them — it refers this formal part of the instru- ment of admission to the people. It submits to them the question, are you willing to take these grants of land or not? That is the only question to be submitted to the people, but by legislation a consequence is to flow from their action perfectly* arbitrary in its nature, and altogether illo- gical in the conclusion. If they are willing to take the land, it is to be inferred that they are willing to take a constitu- tion which is known to be obnoxious to tbem: and if they reject the grants of land for any reason, or without any reason, then they are to be considered as rejecting the con- stitution. Ilere'is a side issue, or a collateral consequence, infinitely more important than the direct question pro- pounded to the people. ■• Now. sir, why is this? It is in effect, I grant, for I do not wish to stand on mere formalities or technicalities, a submission of the constitution to the people. It is a sort of feigned issue out of Congress. That issue the people are to try. The world, looking tit that issue, might say : -Well, what of this; what do you say about the constitution : there is nothing here about it?' Oh, well, but we will annex by law, a legal consequence, though no man would ever think of deriving it as a legitimate and logical consequence; end that consequence shall be. if you take the land, you take another thing entirely distinct from it — a certain constitu- tion. You agree to waive all your objections to what you regard as its obnoxious character or obnoxious parts, if you take the land. If you do not want the land, or if you reject it because it is not as much as you desire or as much as you hoped for. then you shall be considered as rejecting the con- stitution, though you may, in fact, be satisfied with it. Is this a fair submission of it to the people? You say to them, in effect, ' vote for this obnoxious constitution ; agree to put this little yoke on your necks; and you shall be rewarded for it with lands without limit almost.' "Sir, is not that offering a temptation? They are to have 744 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. the land if they accept the constitution: if they do not. they are not to have it. Does it mean to hold out the idea that, by possibility, this is their last chance for obtaining that land; and that having once rejected it in due form of law, this form of law shall be set up aga.nst them as an estop- pel — I think the word we have heard so often is estoppel— against their ever having any more land? Will the world consider it fair? Will the people of the United States con- sider it fair? If the people of Kansas are entitled to vote upon the Lecompton constitution, they are entitled to it in virtue of their right of self-government; they are entitled to it in virtue of that great sovereign popular right, by virtue of which every government that we represent here stands. We have no right to diminish, no right to control, no right to encumber it. It is their right, and you have no right to annex penalties or conditions to the exercise of it. Although I have no idea that it is the intention of Congress to withhold from them, at any time hereafter, these lands; yet read this bill, and see if that is not the impression it may make. At any rate, this is a great bonus offered to them for immediate admission. This is calculated to take away from the submission the complexion of fairness and equality; it is calculated to take away from it the face of justice. ''More than that: not only is this reward to accompany one vote that they may give, but there is another conse- quence. This measure says to the people of Kansas : ' If you choose to take this Lecompton constitution, with all its im- perfections on its head; if you choose to silence all the com- plaints and all the denunciations which you have made against it; if you choose to humiliate yourselves as freemen by a confession of as much baseness as that would imply, then, no matter what your numbers are, we shall make no inquiry, but come into the Union at once, with all the dowry of land which we give our newly-admitted and infant states ; you shall come in at once to the great family of sovereign states; you shall come into the Senate of the United States; you shall come into the House of Representatives; and you shall sit side by side with those great and mighty states which achieved the Revolution, and achieved the liberties which we here enjoy — come in and share with us the crown and the sceptre; accept these grants with this constitution, and you shall do it instantly, and we will make no inquiry as to your numbers. Only accept this constitution, ami ail these things are yours; but reject it, and you shall not only not come in now as a sovereign state, but we will inquire into your numbers, and you shall not come in now under any form of constitution, nor shall you ever come in, under any form of constitution, until your population shall amount to that number which is fixed by the general law as the ratio of representation throughout the country.' " Here, sir, are the benefits, and here are the penalties that are to attend upon the vote to be given in Kansas. Is this a fair submission? Is it for us — guardians, if of nothing else, of the political morality of the country — to put such a temptation in the way of our people, those who are subject to our laws, aud must follow our bidding? If these are un- fair encumbrances upon the right of suffrage, is it not wrong in us to place this great free principle under such trammels and encumbrances as we are now doing? So it seems to me, and, in my opinion, those who consider it candidly will come to the same conclusion. If my friends, who have been in favor of the Lecompton constitution, and especially those who have been opposed to its submission to the people, shall look candidly at it, they will see, not only that the submis- sion which they oppose has been granted, but see that that submission, and the vote which is to be given under it, are encumbered by conditions, by trammels, and by temptations, which ought not to be presented by us to any portion of our people. Must not that be their conclusion? " Mr. President, anxious as I am to see this subject entirely settled, and this Kansas volcano extinguished, closed up, filled up for ei er. I would rather that these measures should all fail, and Kansas be left just where you found her, than where this bill would place her. To do nothing would place her where this bill would; but it would place her there without this injurious and unjust legislation on our part. This bill, if she refuses to accept the Lecompton constitu- tion, remits her to a territorial condition. She is now in a territorial condition. She will remain in it if no legislation be adopted by Congress. What good, then, is this to effect? Is not every gentleman here morally certain that all these temptations will fail, and that this constitution will be re- jected? I am perfectly certain that it will be rejected ; she will be a territory then, under the force of this legislation. She is a territory now ; and she will contiuue to be a terri- tory if this bill passes, and she rejects the constitution. Then, what have we gained by it? Nothing; nut a straw: not the dust in the balance in' which the peace of the coun- try is weighed. •' Another and further distinction between the House bill and this bill is. that the House bill provided, in case of the rejection of the Lecompton constitution, an immediate remedy f.r that, by calling another convention, which con- vention, before the next session of Congress, the bill sup- posed, would have formed a' constitution, which wonld have been acted upon, and we should come here finding Kansas a state in the Union — at any rate, the question put out of our hands; for if they rejected this, we provided the means of their making another. This bill says, if they re- ject this, there is no means of their making another, and they shall not have another; it shall be postponed indefi- nitely; and we here authorize them, when they have ob- tained a certain amount of population, hut n3t till then, to make a constitution, thus leaving this vexed and vexatious question open, to pour out further troubles on the bind. "It abandons, then — and that is all it does in concurrence with my ideas of the proper course on this subject — the Lecompton constitution, by agreeing to submit it to the people. It does no more than the House bill did on that point. In all the rest it is faulty; in all the rest it is a poor, maimed imitation of the bill of the House, worse for every change that has been made, and by these very changes creating insuperable obstacles to prevent .those who \ iew i; as I do from giving their concurrence to the report of this committee. 1 rejoice at it, so far as they go to abandon the Lecompton constitution; but. sir, how strangely are the views changed upon this subject, which will be satisfied with this report of the committee here? The President, in his special message, after arguing the question and recom- mending and urging us to adopt the Lecompton constitution, among other reasons, says it is the shortest and quickest way to close up this Kansas question, and all the agitations that have grown out of it. That is one of the President's inducements. He tells us, that will be the consequence. He tells us. if we do not agree to it, dangerous results will follow. This was the argument here. What. now. do the committee of conference propose? They abandon the Presi- dent, they abandon all his reasons, they abandon his re- commendation, his authority is set at nought — and what do they do? After having given the President much reason to believe that, to this extent at least — that is, of shortening the method of settling the Kansas question — they concurred with him in opinion, as the arguments of gentlemen did on the original bill, they now turn round and say it is far from their purpose to adopt the shortest and the quickest way for the admission of Kansas, to quell all these disturbances, and to quiet the land, by admitting her into the Union; that is not their purpose at all; now they say to her. if sho does not take this thing, she shall not come into the Union ; she shall wait, how long I do not know — the President does not know. All the celerity of movement to a particular goal is laid aside; and now, if the President concurs in it, as if it were in resentment on his part, which I would not attri- bute to him — but resentment itself could not have dictated a course more calculated to avenge the wrong of refusing the Lecompton constitution absolutely, than the one which is now proposed, that unless they take it they shall not come into the Union for an indefinite time — by the adoption of this amendment his friends say to the President, aud by this report the committee of conference say to him, ' we do not care whether that time is long or short; we do not agree with you. sir. ou the question of the Lecompton con- stitution, or a continuation of all difficulties, and all the disturbances, and all the perils which have grown out of it in the country.' That is the action, that is the legislation, of Congress, if this report be adopted. * * * * " I ask my friends of the South, if the case were reversed between the North and the South, what would the South say to such a mode of submission ? What would the South say to the North, if the North proposed to her 'we will sub- mit this constitution; we will say that if 3'ou accept it we will give you land; we will give yon immediate admission into the Union as a state; we will say to all the aspirants in the territory "you who want to be Senators, you who hope to obtain that honored place, you who want to be representatives from the new state (and these are generally the first and influential citizens), to you we offer immediate admission, and the immediate opportunity of obtaining these cherished and hoped-for honors; but reject it, and you shall be indefinitely postponed." ' That is not fair. What would the South say if the case were reversed, and the North were to put this form of question to a proposed slate that had a majority in favor of slavery and a slave state? Would they not think it very hard? I would. I would spurn it; I would resist it — resist it to the uttermost! I would demand for those of my section a fair election upon equal terms. " You have waited too long for the application in this case of a rule requiring a certain population before Kansas can be admitted. I believe, as far hack as the list Congress, the bill of my friend from Georgia [Mr. Toombs'] proposed to authorize them to come into the Union with the numbers they then had. I voted for it: and we made this exception in respect to Kansas, on the ground not merely of right on her part, but because she was the source of so much trouble, and so much agitation throughout the land, that we desired fo suppress the evil, and her admission was thought to lie the best mode of doing it. 'The proposition for her admis- sion in that bill, I am certain, was founded upon aud moved APrENDIX. 745 by these patriotic and just considerations, on tbe part of my friend fmm Georgia, even then. As long as there was a hope Of establishing the Leeomptor. constitution arbitrarily on these people against their will, did anybody hear any serious objections made to it on the ground that they had not the requisite population ? No, sir. It is now only announced; and, coming in this way, it does come as a pen- alty upon the people. All our legislation has been based on the idea that in this exceptional case, to guard against the mischiefs that Kansas had created throughout the country, we would take her into the Union, bind her in the Federal chain, and leave her to herself, to drag that chain along as she could or might; to have upon her all its obligations, to govern herself, and to govern herself at her own hazard; and thus, to use a familiar expression, localize all the trou- ble she might create among her own people, and confine it to them. We have pursued that policy; we have proceeded upon that concession upon every side, and by every one; we have legislated upon it throughout, up to this moment; and now, for the first time, after these long concessions, dis- franchisement is threatened ; the penalty of being remitted indefinitely to a territorial condition is held out, if the peo- ple do not accept a constitution that we know is obnoxious to them. ****** •■ We bear. Mr. President, a great deal about this section and that section, and a man's allegiance to one section and another section. Within a certain limit and scope, this lan- guage is allowable enough; but, s>ir, take my case. What is the position of my state? I know, in the sort of political geography which has been made of our country, in spite of its natural geography, the extremes of North and South have swallowed up all the states; but what propriety is there in this? Is there not a great western section, geogra- phically, as well as a northern and a southern section? In my country we call ourselves western men. Geographically we have that position in this Union. You have an extreme to the north, with its peculiar employments and its peculiar opinions. A different state of things exists at the extreme south. You are both upon the ocean; but where are we? We are in the Great West — we are the Great West. Though not equal at this time, in point of population, to either the northern or the southern section, we are destined to be more in population than both of them put together— des- tined to have more of the surplus of the products of the earth in our hands than all the rest of the United States; occupying the most fertile region of the world in all that is necessary for the subsistence and comfort of mankind; and, in the language of that famous French writer, De Tocque- ville, occupying a region the finest and the most glorious that the Almighty ever made for the habitation of man. That is our country in the west. We touch no ocean; we are interior. We lie in no connexion with the north; we are far from the south. "What peculiar interest does this geographical position of ours give us? North and south may occasionally have their passions excited to think that one or tbe other would be better off in the case of a dissolution. We know that; we have seen some symptoms of it. unhappily for us all. We have heard the expression of such sentiments. These are the sentiments of extremes, far separated, with different institutions, and, to some extent, different interests, leading occasionally to harshness of feeling on either side. When a tariff is refused, perhaps northern men think they would be better uff without the Union. The south has occasion- ally thought, you know, that she would be better off with- out you. All these opinions inay be honest, but all these variances of sentiment lead to one deplorable effect — the breaking of our great Union, the destruction of the might- iest hopes of man. the destruction of the mightiest hopes that all mankind might derive from our example of public liberty and public prosperity. " For the reasons I have mentioned, North or South may be occasionally of opinion that their interests would be benefited by a separation — opinions honestly, it may be patriotically, entertained; but what must everlastingly be the sentiment of that great western region of country to which I have alluded? Their interest, if I may call it so, their peculiar interest, is the Union. There never can be a time when any one of us in that sec- tion can think it is our interest that this Union should be destroyed. 1 ask gentlemen here, coming from the region of which I speak, bow many men are there that you have found in that region, who countenance for a moment the idea of disunion? They are all of one mind — instinctively of one mind. Instinctively they understand their interest; and that is the great pervading motive of mankind, on which alone durable relations can be established. What is your interest, you of the West? I have painted your condition feebly, and your productions. What are you to do? Are your products to rot upon your hands, and to be t'he cause of pestilence among you? No; but it must be so, unless you can find vent for them somewhere. Where are you to go? If a dismemberment of the Union takes place between the North and South, you are opposed to that, for ever opposed '" * because it is to take away from you one of the means of access to the ocean, and to the world, and to the marts of the world, for tbe Bale of your productions. If there was a division between the North and South, the West might be occluded entirely either from going to the markets of New York or going to New Orleans, without being subject to tolls aud taxes; and could that be borne? It would be a mighty burden for them to bear. It i- their in- terest to avoid that burden. It is their interest, their pecu- liar interest, and must ever remain so, to keep the Union together, in order that they may have that mighty scope of free trade which they now enjoy. They will always have more to sell than any other equal number of people on the face of the earth. They have more than would glut New Orleans, more than would glut New York, if it could all be poured there. We want all these accesses. In our very position there is a local, a natural, a destined patriotism, so far as the Union is concerned. We must be found in it. Ourpios- perity, I may say, if not our existence as an agricultural people, depends on the preservation of the Union, and all the means for exportation and for commerce that both the Northern and Southern sections afford. We must go through both sections in order to find markets abroad for those pro- ducts which are not to be consumed in our own country. We are enlisted and bound by an everlasting and perpetual bond of interest to stand by and protect the Union for tho sake of the commerce, and for the sake of the freedom of trade which it, and it alone, secures to us. This is our pecu- liar interest. The Njrth may have its; tbe South its; this is ours. Y'ou of this region ought to consider yourselves as bound by this interest, if possible, to superior care and vigi- lance over its preservation. We, having this interest always to guide us, an instructive as well as a judicious guide, standing between these two extremes, ought to take care that justice be done by one extremity to the other. We have no interest, gentlemen of the North and South, that is not yours, so far as mere union goes; but we have an interest beyond that; we have a material, a peculiar interest in the preservation of the Union of these states, for the sake of the trade and the market which it gives us. This ought to govern our actions. We should consider ourselves as the appointed guardians of this particular interest, having a deeperstake than others in the preservation of the Union, and bound to stand together in every fretful moment of discon- tent between the North and South, to see that equal justice be done to both and to all." Hon. Samuel S. Cox of Ohio, in the House of Represen- tatives, May 31st, 1S58. During the course of my colleague's [Mr. Leiter] speech, I asked leave to propound this question : whether, notwith- standing all his repudiation of the Lecomptou constitution, and after all his statements that the people had repudiated it, he did not record his voice in favor of the preamble of the Crittenden-Montgomery bill? That preamble is as follows : " Whereas the people of the territory of Kansas did. by a convention of delegates called and assembled at Leeompton on the 4th day of September. 1857. for that purpose, form for themselves a constitution and state government, which said constitution is republican, and said convention having asked the admission of said territory into the Union as a state, on an equal footing with the original states — " My colleague denied having so voted. I referred him to his vote in the Globe, page 1437. lie insisted on saving that he did not thus vote. I told trim, as 1 thought very charitably, that he no doubt did so vote for the preamble, under a mistake. My colleague replied that he made no mistakes in legislation, lie knew what be did when he v.~*ed. I take him. then, at his word. 1 confess, for myself and many anti-Lecompton Democrats, that we did not know we were voting for that preamble; though I do not consider preambles of much legislative force, liut my col- league makes no such mistake — not he. Let us see, then, what he did knowingly. Mr. Leiter, We were entitled to a separate vote on that preamble. Mr. Cox. Did you get it ? Did you ask ft r it ? Mr. Leiter. That preamble was never adopted by thif House. Mr. Cox. I will refer to the record. The gentleman, it must be remembered, never votes by mistake. I have the Congressional Globe before me. Turn to page 1436, w hers Mr. .Montgomery offered his amendment : "Mr. Montgomery. I move to amend the bill by striking out all after tbe enacting clause, and insert the following:" After voting down Mr. Quitman's amendment, the amend-- ment of Mr. Montgomery was voted in. Then Mr. Camp- bell, an old legislator, who knew well the effect of the vote, called for the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill. What was that bill? I have it before me. It has a preamble before the enacting clause. All after that was stricken out; jut the preamble remained. Mr. Campbell called fctr the 746 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. yeas and nays on the preamble and amendment of Mr. Montgomery, which constitute the entire House bill. On that vol," my colleague's name is recorded fur the preamble and amendment, page 1437, fourth line from the bottom of the last column. Mr. Leiter. It must he remembered that resolutions and bills are always passed before the preambles. Mr. Cos. We wi 1 come to that in a moment. He did not vote for thai preamble; and he never votes by mistake, be ■iys. There is no escape for the gentleman from this ilet.mia. J would not call attention to it. but for the fact liat my colleague's political friends in Ohio, in the course of leir unexampled abuse of my vote for the conference bill, :ive quoted the sa.ni • preamble which all the Republicans I'Oted for. for my c mdemnation. I do not profess to under- load Ibis lhing as well as the gentleman. He never votes y mistake; therefore, he must have sustained that bill as it went from the House to the Senate; and that bill, as it ass il tli' House, had the preamble in it. How could it '.ave got through this House without his vote? for on this ■ill he voted every time with the majority! Cau there be any doubt about it ? Turu over to page 1438, and you will cue that .Mr. Montgomery, after " the bill, as amended, was passed.'' moved to ''strike out of the preamble a part of the language used." Mr. Leiter. We ought to have had a separate vote on that preamble. It, was poorly engineered. I looked on Hie management then as bungling. Mr. Cox. Whether it was good engineering or not, my colleague voted for the preamble; and he never votes by mistake. If it was bad engineering and bungling, iny col- league is in for it,: and cannot help it by his deuial. Ah ! the gentleman is beginning to understand the matter. If it was all right, and he made no mistake, and he did not vote for the preamble, where is there any bungling? Where the bad management ? If my colleague did not vote for the preamble, there is no bungling, none at all. Why should Mr. Mont- gomery move to strike out a part of the preamble, if the gentleman [Mr. Leiter] voting with the majority did not vote for it? Allow me to quote from the Globe, page 1438. " Mr. Montgomery. Is it in order to move to strike out of the preamble a portion of the language? '• The Speaker. The Chair is of opinion that it is not. The question has been suggested within the last few minutes The proper time to have moved any amendment to the pre- amble was. in the opinion of the Chair, before the bill was ordered to a third reading." So that it was then too late, as it is now too late, for any of us to get rid of that vote for the Montgomery bill. I have no such desire I think, before the fall election is over, certain gentlemen will be sorry for their attacks upon members who honestly voted for the conference bill, which, as Mr. Mont- gomery himself says, is the same thing in substance, except, perhaps, a "few verbal alterations." How, then, can the gentleman say there is a preamble to the House bill, unless he voted for it? lie never gave a vote against the bill in any shape. The preamble was voted for by him when he voted for the bill as amended. Mr. Leiter. It was permitted to remain there, when it should have been (tricken out. Mr. Cox. Very well. I have said all I desired to on that point. That, remark of my colleague is enough for him. I do not refer to this matter now fir any other purpose than to advise gentlemen that they are not to be allowed to put the Democracy of Ohio to the defence of that which they themselves did — knowingly did — did under no mis- apprehension. And when we are charged with voting, by way of preamble, that the "people of Kansas" made Lecompton " for t hem-elves." we point to the entire Repub-' lican record to show that gentlemen, under "no mistake," recorded the same thing as their opinion. Hon. Aaron II. Cragin of New Hampshire, in the House of Representatives. May '24th, 1858. "I can think of but, one transaction in sacred or profane history with which to compare this [the English Confer- ence hill |. The Bible records it, as follows : — '"The ri - v i 1 taketh him up into an exceeding high moun- tain, and slioueth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them : "'Andsaitli unto him. all these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. '"Then saifh Jesus unto him, get thee hence, Satan.' "The slave power, in this latter transaction, personates the devil, and says to the ] pie of Kansas, ' All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall d >wn and worship me.' "The people of Kansas will make the same reply — 'Get thee hence, Satan.' " Letter from the Hon. .Jefeerso.n Davis, to F. Eostick, Esq., of Yazoo city, Mississippi. Washington City. May 14. 1858. "Dear Sir: It gives me pleasure to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st instant, to « Men, being still unable to write, I must reply by availing myself ol the hand of another. "You ask my views as to what the South should do in the eventtbat Kansas should be finaily refused admission into the Union under the Lecompton constitution. Your inquiry shows that you had not. at the dale of your letter, learned the action which Congress has taken upon the question of the admission of Kansas under the constitution framed at Lecompton. "The questions which agitated the people of .Mississippi, when I was last among you. were as to the course which the administration would pursue in relation to the action ol the convention in Kansas, and whether the Congress would apply to the application of Kansas the dogma of -.No more slave states?' Fortunately for us. neither of the issues ou which I took position before my fellow-citizens of Mississippi remains now for consideration. "The Executive, so far from opposing obstacles to the admission of Kansas, because the convention had not sub- mitted the constitution formed by it for the ratification of the people, by a popular vote, has used all of bis inliuence to promote favorable action by Congress upon the applica- tion of the new state; and the Congress, barring all side pretences, and overthrowing all opposition to the constitu- tion of Kansas, because it recognised the right of property in slaves, have decided to admit Kansas into the Union with the constitution framed at Lecompton; thus, at the same time, deciding that the recognition of slavery in the consti- tution of a new state should not exclude her from admission into the Union, and that the inhabitants of a territory, when assuming the powers and responsibilities of the people of a state, have a right to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way — framing their fundamental law either by delegates assembled in convention, by the people convened in mass, or by an)' other mode which to them may seem best. " Appended to the constitution as a coudition connected with the application for the admission into the Union, the convention of Kansas submitted an ordinance which set up extraordinary and inadmissible claims in relation to the public domain, and demanded exorbitant grants of land for educational, railroad, and other purposes. These the Con- gress refused to recognise as a right, or to grant as an endowment, at the same time proposing to the people of Kansas terms which, though more moderate, were quite equal to those which had been granted to the most favored state at the date of her admi.-sjon. The only question, then, which remains is. will the people of Kansas accept the terms proposed by Congress, or not? If they accept the terms, then the action of Congress is complete; the constitution having been already received, approved, and the state admitted under it: and the President of the United States, upon notification of the acceptance of the grants conferred, having been authorized, by proclamation, to announce I be fact that Kansas is a state in the Union. If the terms offered by Congress be declined, then Kansas remains a territory of the United States, and, as provided in the act for her admission, must so remain until she has a population which will entitle her to at least one representative in Congress. "The mode in which the acceptance or rejection of the grants offered by Congress in lieu of those claimed by Kan sas should be decided, was specified in the act for admission. This was a mere question of policy or convenience, for no- thing can be more clear than that, when the conditions annexed to their application for admission had been changed by the Congress, the people of Kansas were not bound by their proposition, and had a right to withdraw it, if they believer! it to be so materially affected by the change of "the condi- tions as to render admission into the Union no longer desir- able to them. "By the act of admission a territory becomes an equal in the sisterhood of states, and those who claim the right of Congress to modify the constitution of a state asking for admission, or to coerce her to enter the Union under terms unacceptable by the community, offend against the doctrine of state rights, and deny the freedom and equal- ity, which are inseparable from the idea of .state sove- reignty. "The consequences of admitting a state without a recogni- tion precedent of the rights of the United States to the pub- lic domain, are, in my opinion, the transfer of the useful, with the eminent domain, to the people of the state thus admitted without reservation. "The bill first passed by the Senate, like that which be- came a law, covered the two points Which, in my opinion, contained all that was important to the South: First, the recognition of the right of the people to exercise entire con- trol over the mode in which they would proceed to form their constitution; second, that the recognition of the right APPENDIX. 747 to hold slaves should not be a barrier to the admission of a new state into the Onion. As a question of preference be- tween the bill of the Senate, which failed in the House, and that of the Committee of Conference, which became a Jaw, m\ judgment is iu favor of the latter, because it distinctly reserves the rights of the United States, and does not at- tempt to construe, or seemingly to suggest any modification of, the constitution, or to offer any j ustificatiou for hiving • admitted the state, but leaves it to stand as the sim] ition cf the right of the people— they having formed a itution -epubiican in its character — to be admitted into the Union. •'The importance which I attached to the success of the measure, and my willingness to incur any responsibility which attached to a pa-ti -ipation in it. may he inferred from the fact that, though an invalid, wh se condition rendered it less than prudent that he should leave his Chamber, I went to the Senate for two days in succession, that 1 might have an opportunity to vote for the bill. Its passage was then, and is now. regarded by me as the triumph of all for which we contended and the success of a great constitutional princi- ple, the rec ignition of which, though it should bear no pre- sent fruit to he gathered by the South, was an object worthy of a struggle, and may redound to our future advantage. By the same means the country was relieved from an issue which, had it been presented as threatened, our honor, our safety, our respect for our ancestors, and our regard for our posterity, would have required the South to meet, at what- ever sacrifice. ••I have thus thrown out rather hints than complied with your request to give my views fully, which you will please attribute to the physical embarrassment under which I reply. •■ Very respectfully and truly, yours, &c "Jeff'n Davis." Hon. Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, in the Senate, April 29th, 1858. "The question now arises, is there such a submission of the Lecompton constitution as brines it fairly within that principle? In terms, the constitution is not snhmitted at all ; but yet we are told that it amounts to a submission, because there is a laud grant attached to it. and they are permitted to vote for the land grant, or against it; and, if they aceept the land grant, then they are required to take the constitution with it; and, if they reject the land grant, it shall be held and deemed a decision against coming into the Union under the Lecompton constitution. Hence it will be argued in one portion of the Union that this is a submis- sion of the constitution, and in another portion that it is not. We are to be told that submission is popular sover- eignty in one section, and submission in another section is not popular sovereignty. "Sir, I had hoped that when we came finally to adjust this question, we should have been able to employ language so clear, so unequivocal, that there would have been no room for doubt as to what was meant, and what the line of policy was to be in the future. Are these people left free to take or reject the Lecompt >n constitution? If they accept the land eraiit. they are compelled to take it. If they reject the land grant, they are out of the Union. Sir, I have no spe- cial objection to the land grant as it is. I think it is a fair one, and if they had put this further addition, that if they refused to come in under the Lecompton constitution with the land grant, they might proceed to form a new constitu- tion, and that they should then have the same amount of lands, there would have been no bounty held out for coming in under the Lecompton constitution; but when the law gives them the six million acres in the event they take this constitution, and does not indicate what, they are to have iu the event they reject it. and wait until they can form ano- ther. I submit the question whether there is not an induce- ment, a bounty held out to influence these people to vote for the Lecompton constitution? " It may be said that when they attain the ninety-three three thousand population, or the population required by the then ratio — which may be one hundred and twenty thousand — and form a constitution under it, we shall give them the same amount of land that is now given by this grant. That may be so. and may not. I believe it will be so: and yet in the House bill, for which this is a substitute, the provision was that they should have this same amount of land, whether they came in under the Lecompton consti- tution, or whether they formed a new constitution. There was no doubt, no uncertainty left in regard to what were to be their rights under the land grant, whether they took the one constitution or the other. Hence that proposition was a fair submission, without any penalties on the one side, or any bounty, or special favor, or privilege on the other, to influence their action. In this view of the case, I am not able to arrive at the conclusion that this is a fair submission, either of the question of the constitution itself, or of admis- sion into the Union under the constitution and the proposi- tion submitted by this bill. " Again, sir. there is a further contingency. In the event that they reject this constitution, they are to stay out of the Union until they shall attain the requisite population for a member of Congress, according to the then ratio of repre- sentation in the other House. I have no objection to mak- ing it a general rule that territories shall be kept ovt until ih y have/the requisite population. I have! proposed it over an I over again. I am willing o> to it and make it applicable to Kansas if you will make it a general rule. But. sir. it is one thing to adopt that rule as a general rule and adhere to it in all cases, and it is a very different, and a very distinct thing, to provide that if they will take this constitution, which the people have shown that they abhor, they may come in with forty thousand people, but if they do not. they shall slay out until they get ninety thousand; tint- discriminating between the different character of insti- tutions that maj he formed. I submit the question whether it is not Congressional intervention, when you provide that a territory may come in with one kind of constitution with forty thousand, and with a different kind of constitution. not until she gets ninety thousand, or one hundred and twen'y thousand? It is intervention with inducements ta control the result. It is intervention with a bounty on the one side and a penalty on the other. I ask. are we prepared to construe the great principle of popular sovereignty in such a manner as will recognise the right of Congress to intervene and control the decision that the people may make i'£i the question ': '• The great principle for which we have all contended, in the language of the Kansas-Nebraska act, is to leave ' the people perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. subject only to the Constitu- tion of the United States.' If you hold out large grants, and pecuniary inducements, to influence the affirmative vote, and the terror of staying out of the Union to influence the negative vote, I submit the question, whether that peo- ple are left perfectly free to form and regulate their institu- tions? 1 insist that where there are inducements on one side, and penalties on the other, there is no freedom of election. The election must be free. The electors must be left unbiassed by the action of the government, if you are going to have fair elections, and a fair decision. "For these reasons I do not think that this bill brings the question within that principle which I have held dear, and in defence of which I have stood here for the last five months, battling against the large majority of my political friends, and in defence of which I intend to stand as long a3 I have any association or connexion with the politics of tho country. I must repeat, sir, that I do not think this brings it within the principle thus laid down, nor do the Demo- cracy of Illinois think this bill comes within that principle. [Here Judge Douglas alluded to the late Democratic State Convention in Illinois, and read its platform] "It was not satisfactory to me to have Congress, in pursu- ance of the recommendation of the President, intervene and r gnise, by any implication, the right of the people to change their state constitution in a manner different from that prescribed in the instrument itself. I deny the right of Congress to exercise any such power. I deny the right of Congress to intervene and authoritatively construe the constitution of a state. If the constitution was their act and deed: if it embodied their will — it was sacred, and it ought not to be touched by Congress in any respect what- ever, except to receive it unconditionally, or reject it uncon- ditionally. That concession was made; but still it did not reach the point which I had felt it my duty to make. It did not come to my principle. I do not claim that Senators are under any more obligation to come to me than I am to go to them. I claim the right to determine for myself, according to my T own judgment and my own conscience, what my duty is to a great fundamental principle; and if Senators cannot bring the bill within the principle. I must exercise my right and duty of dissenting from it. I did not think that concession brought it withlu the principle, or obviated any of my objections. It only made the hill more obnoxious to me by violating another principle equally sacred in our political system — that of the sovereignty of the states. " Next came the declaration that the Free-State legislature was elected: and hence, if Kansas was forced into the Union with a pro-slavery constitution, against the will of her people, it would not last long, for the reason that there was a Free-State legislature, who would immediately take steps to change it and abolish slavery. That argument did not address itself favorably to my judgment, for the feasor: that it did not affect the principle involved. What difference did it make, so far as the principle was concerned, whether thee was a majority of Free-State men or a majority of pro-slavery men in that legislature? What difference did it make to me, whether there was a majority of Democrats, or a majority of Republicans, or a majority of Americans in that legisla- ture, provided they were fairly and honestly elected? If the people of Kansas desired a pro-slavery legislature, they had a right to it. If they desired a Republican legislature, they had a right to it. If they desired an American legislature, 748 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. they had a right to it. If they desired a legislature purely Democratic, elected without reference to the question of slavery, it was their right to select such a one; and, sir, it ■was the duty of Mr. Calhoun to declare those elected who had received a majority of the legal votes, fairly and honestly returned. The declaration of that result could not change the principle involved in this discussion, for the great prin- ciple was, shall that people be left perfectly and entirely free to form and regulate their own iustitutious iu their own way ? " These various concessions could not control votes enough to carry the hill. What next? Then comes a disagreement between the two Houses of Congress. The Senate insisting upon the bill which it had passed for the admission of Le- eompton unconditionally, except what is called the Pugh- Green amendment; and the House insisting on the bill which it had passed as a substitute, known as the Crit- tenden-Montgomery hill. This committee of conference provide for a question of submission to the people, but what do they submit? The chairman of that committee of conference, the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Green], has in- formed you that the constitution is not submitted ; the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Hunter], who was his colleague on the committee, has informed you that the constitution is not submitted; and I believe both of them have added that they would not vote for the bill if the constitution was sub- mitted. I understand that similar declarations have been made in the other House of Congress by the members of the committee of conference there, showing that this was their Understanding and their construction of the bill. '•Then, if the constitution is nor submitted: if the people are not allowed to vote for it or against it. freely, without a bounty on the one side or a penalty on the other, how can it be said that it comes within that great principle of popular sovereignty which, I insist, ought to be carried out in all the territories? It is no answer to this objection to tell me that because men have conceded so much. I ought to con- cede. No matter how many and how great their concessions are. if they have not conceded the principle for which I con- tend. I cannot take what they propose. It is not for me to say whether these concessions are right or wrong, whether they are wise or unwise. It is enough fur me that the prin- ciple for which I insist has not been clearly and distinctly recognised in this bill. I dislike the indirection by which the submission is proposed to be made — made to depend on a land grant. In order to enable the people of Kansas to reject the Leeompton constitution, you compel them to vote against a land grant, which every man, woman, and child in the territory would desire to have. You will not allow them to take the land grant unless they take the constitution with it, and you will not allow them to proceed immediately and make a new constitution, with the same population, and have the same land grant, if they reject this. If you did that, then the principle would be fairly carried out; but unless you do allow that to be done, I insist that the prin- ciple is violated. " Now, Mr. President. I can say to you very frankly, (hat if there were two amendments made to this bill, although it would still be somewhat objectionable in its equivocal features, I could and would take great pleasure in giving it my support. One would be to strike out the land grant altogether, and the other to strike out the limitation as to population. Then the simple question presented to the people would be, will you come in under the Leeompton constitution or not? and if you do not, you may proceed im- mediately, with the same population, to make a uew consti- tution. In that there would be perfect fairness; there would be no cougressional intervention with its inducements to control the results. Or, if you wanted to leave the land grant in, why not make it applicable to the new constitution as well as the old one. as the Crittenden amendment did? Then they would get the same amount of land under the one as the other. In other words, if you wish to make this proposition fair, you must give Kansas the same land, under any new constitution she may form, as you do under this one, and you must allow her to come in with the same population under the one as under the other constitution. Then there would be fairness, then there would be equality. " I appeal to my friend from Virginia to know whether he, as a Southern man, desires to see the principle of con- gressional intervention to control and influence the voting of the people carried out hereafter in the admission of new states? The time may come when the case will be reversed. The time may come when there will be an anti-slavery ma- jority iu both Houses of Congress. When that time comes, it may so happen that a bill may be brought forward with a land irraut of ten million acres for a free state, and five mil- lion for a slave state; or allowing a free state to come in with a population of forty thousand, and providing that a slave state shall not come in without ninety thousand. Would our Southern friends regard that as being a fair interpretation of the principle of popular sovereignty? Would they not say that was the most dangerous and unconstitutional system of intervention that was ever devised, when the Federal Goverumeut steps into the ter- ritories, and by its bounties on one side, and its penalties on the other, attempts to influence and control the action of the people? " I do not regard this as a matter of much consequence to Kansas; I do not believe there is enough in this bounty, or enough iu this penalty, to exercise any material influence upon the people of Kansas in this election; but il involves the great fundamental principle, it involves the prineipli of freedom of election, and it involves the great principle of f ,.|f- government, upon which our institutions rest. With all the anxiety that I have had to be able to arrive at a conclusion in harmony with the overwhelming majority of icy political friends in Congress. I could not bring my judgment or con- science to the conclusion that this was a fair, impartial, and equal application of the principle. '•There is another objection to this proposition, one that looks badly upon its face. I take it for granted that it was intended to be fair and just; but it gives cause for appre- hension, and will generate suspicion among the people that the election under it will not be, aud cannot be. fair. I allude to the provision as to the board of commissioners. By the bill framed by the eminent Senator from Kentucky, and passed by the House of Representatives, there was to be a board of four commissioners to superintend the electiou on the constitution; two representing the people of the ter- ritory, being the presiding officers of the two branches of the legislature; the other two representing the Federal Government, being the governor and secretary, appointed by the President and the Senate. In that way. two com- missioners would necessarily be of one class of politics, and the other two of another class of politics. Under that state of the case, it is not probable that unfairness would have been perpetrated in the election. Under that board, as pre- scribed by the Senator from Kentucky, you would have the assurance, from the very law itself, that one-half of the judges of election would belong to one party, and one-half to the other; that one-half of the clerks would belong to one, and one-half to the other. " But how is it when you add a fifth member to the board, and provide that the board shall cousist of five, the two presiding officers of the legislature, and then the gover- nor, secretary, and the district attorney, making three United States officers, and declare that three shall constitute tne board ? Is it not clear that if these three gentlemen choose, they can have all the judges of election and all the clerks of election and all the returning officers of one class of po- litical faith, the same as Mr. Calhoun did at the elections which took place on the 21st id' December and the first Monday of .January? Does not the change in this respect give ground for apprehension that you may have the Ox- ford, the Shawtiee. and the Delaware Crossing and Kickapoo frauds reenacted at this election? I should have been bet- ter satisfied if it. had been left as the House bill left, it, with the four commissioners, two from each political party in Kan- sas, two representing the Federal Government, two repre- senting the people of the territory, requiring three to be a quorum, thus rendering it impossible for partisan politics to control the action of the board. The very fact that it was deemed necessary or wise to change this feature, is to me a serious objection to this proposition. "Then, sir, what is my duty upon this question, under this state of the case? I have but one line of duty, and that is to vote against the bill; because, in my opinion, there is not a fair submission to the people under such cir- cumstances as to insure an unbiassed election aud fair re- turns. I have indicated two amendments, which, if they had been made, would have enabled me to support thi< bill, notwithstanding other defects in it. I will indicate another. I am willing to subscribe to the principle that a territory shall contain the requisite population for a member of Congress before admission, provided it is made a general law. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Pugh] yesterday cited me as autho- rity for that provision of this bill. He referred to my re- port, as chairman of the Committee ou Territories, and the bill accompanying it, in 1856, in which 1 then provided that Kansas might proceed to form a constitution when sic- had the requisite population, to wit, ninety-three thousand four hundred and twenty, under the present ratio. That was my judgment then of the true rule upon the subject. He quotes also a proposition that I have brought in at this very session as a substitute for the Arizona bill, providing a gene- ral law that no territory shall ever form a constitution and state government until it has the requisite population for a member of Congress. I am for that proposition now; and if Senators will consent to any arrangement by which you can strike out the whole of this bill, and in lieu of it. insert a provision that neither Kansas, nor any other territory of the United States, shall proceed to form a constitution and state government for admission into the Union until it hag the requisite population for a member of Congress, accord- ing to the existing federal ratio, I will give it my support. '• But, sir, if I require it in Kansas, I wish to require it in other territories; and if I am to apply that limitation to the uew constitutiou that is to be made. I wish to apply it to the one that is in existence. 1 am not willing to pre- AITENDIX. 749 scribe one ratio tc one kind of constitution, and another lotio to another kind. Make it uniform, and it, can have my support. I have on all proper occasions indicated that as the proper rule — in ISob, as the Senator from Ohio proved; at this session again, as he proved yesterday by read- ing the bill offered by me ; and I repeat now that, if you will strike out all of this bill but the clause that Kansas shall not come in until she has the requisite population for a member of Congress, and then say that this section is in- corporated into and made part of the organic law of each of the territories of the United .States, and that none shall come for admmission until they have that population, I will give it my support. ••In other words, Mr. President. I desire to carry out the jwinciple of leaving the people to decide for themselves in perfect fairuess. 1 will support no rule applicable to the North that does not apply to the .South. I will make no rule applicable to the South that I am not willing to apply to the North. I will not intervene either for slave constitutions or against slave constitutions by an act of Congress, holding out bounties on the one side or penalties on the other. Stand on the great principle of equality; leave each state on an exact footing with every other state; never inquire whether her institutions are of this character or that character; never inquire whether the state is in the North or in the South, and I will stand with you and apply the rule with exact justice and impartiality in every instance. •• Mr. President, I say now, as I am about to take leave of this subject, that I never can consent to violate that great prin- ciple of state equality, of state sovereignty, of popular sove- reignty, by any discrimination, either in the one direction or in the other. My position is taken. I know not what its consequences will be personally to me. I will not inquire what those consequences may be. If I cannot remain in public life, holding firmly, immovably, to the great princi- ple of self-government and state equality, I shall go into private life, where I can preserve the respect of my own con- science under the conviction that I have done my duty and followed the principle wherever its logical consequences car- ried me." Remarks of Mr. English of Indiana, Chairman of the Committee of Conference, in the House of Representatives, when reporting the Conference Bill. " Mr. Speaker, in view of the state of the public business at this advanced period of the session, and of the fact that this subject has already been more thoroughly discussed than, perhaps, any other ever before Congress, I do not propose making any extended remarks; but I am authorized by a majority of the committee of conference on the part of the House to submit some of the views which they enter- tain in relation to the pending question, and which, in part, have influenced their action. They assumed the duties intrusted to them by the House, deeply impressed with the heavy responsibilities resting upon them. "A great question — perhaps the greatest of the age — one which has agitated and engrossed the public mind fir the past four years — has at last come to a crisis; and its probable solution is brought directly to the decision of the represen- tatives of the states and the people. " Whilst adhering to what they believe to be correct prin- ciples, the committee endeavored to discard that spirit which would endanger the passage of a great measure, and probably hazard the peace of the country, for the sake of an unimportant point or unmeaning word. •• The amendment proposed as a substitute is the very best that the committee were able to agree upon in view of the embarrassing circumstances surrounding the question. •• It is true that it proposes the admission of the state on a condition; but in this respect it does not differ from either the Senate bill or House amendment. Both of these measures propose admission on conditions varying in their character and object. Nor does it differ from several precedents in other cases, such as those of Michigan and Iowa. The reason of the propriety, if not necessity, of a condition in the case of Kansas grows out of the peculiar nature of the appli a- Hon. This is fully exemplified in the Senate bill : for the admission in it is on an ■ express condition.' which, however, makes no provision for the acceptance by the people of Kan- sas of the terms therein prescribed. * * This asserted right she [Kansas] proposes, on admission, to surrender, in consideration that the Congress of the United States will make her the following grants, namely: [nere Mr. English read the 1st. 2d. 3d, 4th. and 5th sections of the Land Ordinance in the Lecompton constitution, hereinafter inserted.] <: The proposition made to Congress by this ordinance is of the most extraordinary character, and wholly inadmis- sible. A carefully prepared estimate made at the General Land Office at the request of the committee, shows that Kansas would receive an aggregate in lands, under her ordinance, of twenty-three million five hundred and ninety- two thousand one hundred and sixty acres, worth, at the minimum government price, $29,490,200; and this is exclu- sive of other benefits claimed, and of what she might receive for lands containing mines of the useful and precious metals, except coal lands. The amendment agreed to by the committee pn poses to give her the usual grants which have been made to most of the new states, and which embrace precisely the same quantity prop 3ed to be given by the Crittenden amendment. Pnder this amendment, Kansas would receive Rome twenty million acres of land less than she would receive and -r her ordinance : making a difference in fuer nf tie- United States, estimating the land at the minimum price, of $2' ,000. "The amendment, in the nature of a substitute, agreed upon may nut be perfect; hot. if ibis fail, it is tair to pre- sume that all available parliamentary expedients for I ciliation will he exhausted, and that the question will be left open to .still further excite sectional prejudices, and endanger the peace and prosperity of the country. •■ If the substitute is ] assed, the Kansas question departs at once from the halls of C ragri ss, perhaps Dever to return i hut even if it should return, i' will be at some future period, and deprived of all power of doing evil. The ship of state will have passed the breakers, an/1 glided into a smooth and open sea. where there is reason to hope there will be no sec- tional storm for many years to come. 1 In- 1 immirtee cannot see that the bill would he otherwise than beneficial to the people of Kansas, whilst they fee] entirely certain that it would promote the best interests of the country at la- It is one of those cases, as they conceive, where much is to be gained and nothing lost, so far as desirable results are concerned. "Should the substitute be defeated, and the question left open, the committee very much fear the consequences would be unfortunate for the country, and that angry and threatening clouds would soon obs lure her destiny. '•The probabilities are that the agitation would eontintte in its most malignant form to excite the people, to separate the North from the South, and no man can foresee what would be the final result. The tendency woidd be to scatter terror and alarm throughout the country, paralyze its busi- ness, injuriously affect the value of private property, con- vulse the Union, and endanger its very existence. It will, indeed, be a fearful responsibility to hazard fur a slight cause all the blessings which flow from the Union of these States. " There are great occasions in the progress of nations which, if wisely embraced, may exert a salutary influence upon their destiny for ages to come ; but if neglected there can be no recovery from the evil consequences which may follow. " Such an occasion is now presented to the House, in the judgment of the committee: and having discharged their duty to the best of their ability under their convictions, they leave all others to act likewise for themselves." Hon. R. M. T. Hunter of Virginia, in the Senate, April 27th, 1S0S. "The proposition of the committee of conference is the substitution of an entirely new bill in place of that which passed the Senate, and in place of the amendment which was proposed by the Hou=e of Representatives. — This pro- position affirms that the people of Kansas elected a conven- tion of delegates who assem! led at Lecompton. and that through that convention these people formed for themselves a government. It affirms that this constitution, having been examined, is found to be republican in its i haracter. It. thus acknowledges net only the authority of the Lecouiptou convention, but it. acknowledges tie- validity nf th sir action : it receives the constitution presented by them as the ci ns tution of the people of Kansas, and it admits that the appli cation which they have made for admission into the 'union is the application of the people of Kansas speaking through their convention. •'But this prop isition. in its preamble, goes a little fur- ther. It refers to the f\.ct thnt th • people of Kansas, through their convention, have pr -seated an ordinance in which they proposed to concede their right to tax the property of the United States, upon condition that certain grants of laud should be made to them. It affirms that this ordinance is not acceptable to Congress, hut that Congress is willing to make them the same grunt that was made to Minnesota, which is the same that was proposed by the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky: and is willing to give them that much on condition that they will snrre neede the taxing power over the property of the United States; and that.' if they are willing to do so, they are to declare their wish by a vote of the people, a majority of those voting to determine the question; and. when they shall say that they will agree to this contract thus modified, then, upon that vote, they are to be admitted by proclamation of the President. ■ "Accordingly, this bill proposes to enact that Kansaj 750 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK shall be received into the Union with the Leeomptou con- stitution upon equal terms with the other states; upon the fundamental condition, however, that she shall signify, by a vote other people, their acceptance of this modification of the contract which Congress proposes. It then proceeds to offer an alternative proposition in the event that a majority of the people of Kansas should determine not to accept this modified contract, and not to be admitted into the Union under it. It then provides that there shall be no more con- ventions: that they shall not offer themselves for admission until they have population enough to entitle them to one member of the House of Representatives, according to the existing ratio. Now, I maintain that both of these propo- sitions are entirely right in themselves, and perfectly con- sistent with the previous action of the Senate." * * * '• But the proposition of the committee of conference goes further than the bill of the Senate. The bill of the Senate stopped there, and did not seek to provide for the contin- gency that a majority of the people of Kansas might not accept this modification of the contract which we propose to them. The bill passed by the Senate took the risk that the people in that troubled region might assemble in convention and declare that they would not accept this condition, and would therefore be outof the Union. The bill passed by the Senate provided for none of these contingencies, but acted upon the supposition that, as has been done sometimes befure, that the people of Kansas would concur in all these things, and risked the chance of meeting these difficulties. The scheme of the conference committee goes further. It provides especially for the difficulty I have .hist suggested. It says, 'before we admit, you must say whether you will con- cede away the taxing power fur this modification of the grant which we have given you. If you are willing to concede away the taxing power for the consideration we now offer you, then you shall be admitted upon proclamation by the President.' In doing this the bill under consideration has proceeded in precise conformity with principle. What was the case of Ohio? She offered herself for admission with a constitution republican in form, and with certain boundaries which Congress changed. Congress admitted her upon con- dition that her people would consent to that modification of boundary. Congress said the assent was to be signified by a vote of the people, and thus the precedent is precisely parallel with the proposition that is now made; and Congress declared that if they did assent by a vote of the majority of the people, then the state should be admitted into the Union on au equal footing with the other states by proclamation of the President. How was it with regard to Michigan? The same thing occurred. The same condition was imposed, except that Congress said it should lie referred to a conven- tion of the people that was to be called to consider this one question only. " In regard to an ordinance claiming lands, I know of hut two cases in which changes were made. One was in Arkan- sas, and the other in California. In Arkansas the state was admitted upon the express condition that she should cede the taxing power over the property of the United States, and a change was made in the quantity of lands which she proposed to take in consideration of that concession. The hill of admission was passed on the loth of June, and on the 23d of the same month a supplemental act was passed sub- mitting it to the legislature of Arkansas to say whether they would accept certain prnposiiions — there were five of them, I believe — in consideration of this concession of the right to tax the property of the United States. Congress referred it to the legislature to determine; because, as they said in the act, the power had been given them by the convention which formed the constitution; thus showing that, in the opinion of Congress, the right tc le away the power to tax any port inn of the property or lands within its domain was a right which belonged to sovereignty, a right to be given I v the same power which made constitutions, and which •i :ated conventions. It is obvious that if, in regard to boundary, it required an act of the sovereign people, either through their own vote, or through conventions, or through legislatures that had been specifically endowed with this power by the convention, to cede away the jurisdiction over certain territory, it certainly would require it in order to cede a particular portion of that jurisdiction; that is to say, the right to tax. "Is net this practice fortified and supported by reason? Is net this conditional submission of the ordinance — and nothing else is submitted — this submission of a change in the terms of a contract in regard to land, proper in itself? Suppose there had been no controversy in regard to the constitution offered by Kansas; suppose it were admitted on all hands that the convention which assembled at Lecomp- ton was properly authorized ; that its proceedings were legal and valid: and suppose this precise difference had arisen in regard to the land, that they had demanded the twenty-three million acres provided for in their ordinance, and that we had thought prop i- to give not more than the three or four millions which this propositi hi of the committee of confer- ence proposes to eive them; would it not have been said to be perfectly fair and right and proper, and that it was due to the state that we should ascertain whether she would give her assent to the change in the contract? Why. sir, it takes two parties to make a contract, and it takes two t. change it. Would anyone have objected? Would not all have said that perhaps it was the wisest way. because thus we avoid the danger of the people meeting in convention, and saying that they would not accept this fundamental condition upon which they were admit ted? We avoid the danger of all the mischiefs that would occur from the an- archy and confusion which would arise if they were thus to assemble and reject the condition — a danger which is the - greater in a troubled territory, where its population is dis- turbed and divided, than in ordinary cases; for in most cases it might be presumed with safety, that in order to be admitted, the state would acquiesce in the conditions which were proposed, hut, sir. it is a risk that would be run in all such cases; and no one can say that it is not only safer and better to pursue the precedents to which I have re< ferred, but that it is right and proper in itself; that it is due; to the people of the state who ask admission. " Now, sir, I ask how can it be said that by this act we submit the constitution ? We do no such thing. We ac- knowledge the validity of the constitution, and we say, in regard to this contract which is offered to us, ' the terms are not acceptable; we will not accept the terms you offer; but we will accept others, naming them, and if you choose to he admitted on them, 3 r ou may.' It is true that, in giving that vote for admission, they may be governed by other reasons than those which relate merely to the proposition itself. But is that any concern of ours? Can we look into the human breast and search for motives? Can we prescribe what are to be the reasons which are to govern the popular vote? By no means. All that we have to do is to keep within the limits of our powers, and to respect those of the states. " And what is it that we have affirmed in regard to the submission of the constitution ? We have never said that the people might not submit their own constitution ; we have never said that it was improper to do so; what we have said is, that it is a matter for the people themselves to determine; that they must determine it either through the act which called the convention into being, limiting and de- fining its powers, or they must determine it through their own convention ; and we have said that if they did not re- quire the submissiou, Congress could not require it of them, because that was an act which belonged to the sovereign power of the state itself. That is our doctrine. If. then, we submit this proposition in regard to the modified contract. how do we depart from this doctrine? We do not say to them, ' Your constitution is unsatisfactory.' We do not say to them. 'You must have a popular vote on the constitu- tion.' We do not say. • We dispute the evidence which you have pi'esented according to the legal form.' On the citi- trary, we say, ' We receive it all; we acknowledge the autho- rity of your convention; we acknowledge the validity of your constitution, and we acknowledge that we have no power either to change that instrument or to require you to pass upon it in any other form than that which you have determined for yourselves; but in regard to the contract that you proposed to us, we have the right to ohnn me. Mr. Cox. I appeal Wthe gentleman as a matter of per- sonal courtesy. Mr. II. MARSHALL. The gentleman from Ohio will have an opportunity after I have coucluded what I have to say. Mr. BURNETT. I want tlie fact to go to the country that my colleague declines to yield for correction. Mr. Humphrey Marshall. It may go the country that his colleague declines, and it may go to the country that his colleague has the floor here — this House having voted down the demand for the previous question — but that gen- tleman voted for it. It may go that his colleague does not want to occupy much time, but want? the facts and reasons to go to the country which will justify his action and dis- arm those men who have set upon him in the country, because, forsooth, he voted with the Black Republican party. Sir, 1 am here to-day to say that upon such a vote, v heu- ever cast and whenever to be cast, I will stand with the Black Republican party, or any other party that has the patriotism and the honesty to cast it. •'Sir, you and I have served in this Hall long enough for you to know that I am committed to the line of policy upon which I have acted in this matter; and committed to it, I am proud to say. irrevocably. I would like to know whe- ther, with the principles which we have ever contended for, which we contended for in 1850, which are contained in your Cincinnati platform, contained in the American platform, and in whatever else you have covered under the title of popular sovereignty— to wit: that the will of the people in each locality should determine their own institutions, whether slave or free — any sane man could expect me to vote otherwise than as I have voted ? When these men from the north come up and patriotically give their votes for that principle, why is it that they are taunted with the epithet of Black Republicans ? What inure do you want than the principle for which they voted ? What more have you ever demanded? What other principle have we ever stood upon than the very principle which that vote asserted? We have stood upon it because it reached a plat- form upon which every honest man, from every section of this country, could stand. That vote fulfilled the conditions of your platform touching the slavery issue. It filled my plat- form; it filled the platform of all of us who advocated the principle of popular sovereignty in the true meaning of that terin. And what do you now propose? Mr. Cox. Mr. Speaker [Calls to order.] Mr. H. Marshall. I decline to yield the floor. Mr. Cox. I wish to say [Cries of "Order!" '-Order!" "Order!"] Mr. H. Marshall. I hope I shall now be allowed to go on and finish what I have to say. '• I say that these Republicans had come up to all that we ever contended for, touching the equality of the states, and the right of the people of Kansas to establish their own institutions in their own way ; and they have come up to it with the intent to make it the law. Hud the people of Kan- sas received the Crittenden amendment: had they chosen to adopt the Lecompton constitution, and to establish slavery in that state, then these gentlemen have provided all the instrumentalities necessary to the procurement of such a result. But when the Republicans yielded this, you, gentle- men of the Democratic party, would nut have it! It will he for you to go to the South, and tell the South what there was in that amendment, what there was in that principle, that fell short of all your former requirements. Was it that you could not stand the proclamatory power of the Presi- dent, in case the people of Kansas adopted another constitu- tion? Then, be it remarked, that when the bill, as offered by Mr. Crittenden in the Senate, required that, if they adopted another constitution in Kansas, it should be sent, to Congress, members of the Democratic party opposed it on the ground that it did not chse the question, but kept the Kan- sas imbroglio open. When the Montgomery-Crittenden amendment provided for closing it, as we supposed would suit you, you then opposed it, because it would be giving too much power to the President. '•Mr. Speaker, I have tried in this matter to do exactly what was right. I have kept in my mind's eye. all the time, the tendencies I see before me in this country. I knew that the Gulf states had made platforms up in which, it was said, they would feel bound to secede from the Union. I am told to go" forward, lest they do secede. Now, sir, who is so bold, in this assembly, as to rise and say that he is a disunionist? Not one. Who is there, in this assembly, who will rise in his place and say that he will go to the Southern states with the black flag of disunion unfurled for that people to follow ? There is a silence, sir. over this House, in response to that inquiry, like the silence of the grave. 48 Secession ! disunion ! Why, sir. ''tis the eye of childhood that fears the painted det il.' 1 hare no fear of disunion. I have no fear that the people of the South will listen for :» moment to the whispers of disunion. They arc chivalrous, brave, and true; and woe to the politician who proclaims himself a disunionist! •'But. sir, I had heard of discontents, and I was careful; and I choose to say to the South, that, when I exerted my- self to get these Republican members to put themselves upon thai vol,-, I diil so with an eye to the fact that there were platform* formed at the South which 1 did hope that vote would sink for ever and for ever. Now 1 am here to render also to that party the tribute of my hearty and sincere thanks, my honest and profound obligation, that their patriotism was equal to the task of giving that vote, which 1 believe they did with a wish to establish peace and concord between all sections, and with the hope that that vote would accomplish it. '•Now, sir. who in the South wants to establish a sec- tional Southern party f The Democrats are not content with the proposition that the doctrine of popular sovereignty shall be carried forward, and that the people of Kansas may have a state free or slave, as they prefer. They now proceed one step bevoud that. I read from a paper of Tuesday. April 27, the Richmond South. 1 will read a single sentence, to let you see the manner in which the progress of this con- troversy is regarded.-and the point which we have reached: — "'In the mean time, if the Senate bill pass, Kansas may come into the Union as a slave state, or she cannot come at all. That is the issue.' " You who represent the South, I ask you in the most solemn earnestness if that is the issue upon which you pro- pose to go to the country ? I ask you if that is the issue upon which you are prepared to precipitate the South? Your platform made the declaration that the people of Kan- sas might determine this matter — that the people of Kansas were to have the right to vote whether they would be a free state or a slave state. "But you are understood in the country by this bill to have made up the issue, as I understand it, that she shall come here as a slave state, or she is not to come at all. Does it not result from that proposition that you are attempting to inaugurate in this country an aggressive pro-slavery party — a party that does not stand upon the constitutional rights of the people of all sections, but a Southern pro- slavery party which proposes to flaunt its banners in the face of the other sections, and to say to them that they must bow down to your Juggernaut? The people of Ken- tucky are not ready to go that far. I have never in the whole course of my legislative experience understood a point in controversy better than I do this which you Demo- crats propose, and never before were my conc.usions so firmly fixed as to the absolute propriety of my political course. I am willing that the principle, the philosophy, the morality, and the prudence of my action may be judged of by the people of my native state; and as I only seek to do to others what I would they should do to me, I shall abide in the confidence that Kentucky will sustain my feeble effort to act with justice, with moderation, and with fairness in those acts of legislation which relate to the rights of all. but which are to be illustrated by our course in the case of Kan- sas, as an exponent of the principles we follow. I yield the floor." Hon. George II. Pendleton of Ohio, in his letter to hi9 constituents, May 10th, ISoS. "This is the distinction which Stephens and Shorter took, when they said that ' the constitution was not directly sub- mitted.' This is exactly what Pugh said in his speech on this bill. They think that Congress has no power to pre- scribe a mode of ratifying a constitution different from that provided in the constitution itself; that the ratification is part of the constitution, as much as the definition of the qualification of voters, or the organization of the judiciary, and that Congress has no more power to change the one than the other. But they have never held that Congress may not, in any mode it sees fit, ascertain whether or not, the people are willing to assume the burdens of state sove- reignty and the obligations incident to admission into the Union. •• Davis of Maryland, Marshall of Kentucky, both Ameri- cans, and Howard of Michigan, Republican, all admitted in their speeches that this bill virtually submitted the con- stitution. "Groesheck. Lawrence, and Cox all stated that they voted for it because it did so submit the constitution. " Quitman of Mississippi and Bonham of South Carolina voted against it for the same reason. "And now the Republicans, having made themselves hoarse over the enormity of admitting Kansas with the Lecompton constitution without its consent, cry aloud when, we ask of the people of that state the plain simple question whether they give that consent. "This bill is a wise, prudent, beneficent measure. Each 754 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. provision of it finds support in sound reason and in wise precedent. Each provision finds authority in the argu- ments and votes of the Republicans, in reference to Kansas, at this very session. This bill provides for the immediate admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution. pro- Tided the people desire it; so did the Crittenden and Mont- gomery amendments. This bill provides for a donation of certain land, if the state should be organized ; so did the Montgomery amendment, prescribing the same land and the game conditions. " This bill provides that in case the state be not now ad- mitted, it shall have the right to ask admittance when it attains the requisite population. This was the Republican scheme until the Democrats adopted it. "This bill provides that the convention shall be held under the authority of the territorial legislature, elected by the people. "The Montgomery amendment provided that it should be held under the direction and control of federal officials. "This bill provides that the new constitution whet- formed, shall be sent to Congress prior to the admission. "The Montgomery amendment provided that, upon its formation, without being sent to Congress or the President, no matter what it contained, or how fraudulently made, the President should proclaim Kausas admitted as a state under it. " This bill is very similar to that for which every Repub- lican voted, and wherever it differs from it, is obviously superior; and yet, in the madness of their party zeal, they vilify it and its supporters, forgetting that every epithet they use applies to their own handiwork, and every motive they impute will account for their own votes." Hon. George E. Puqh of Ohio, in the Senate, April 28th, 1358. "A committee of conference was therefore appointed, and we have now before us the agreement of that committee. What is it? I do not yet understand how the Senator from Michigan means to interpret the bill now proposed. If he understands it as submitting the constitution of Kansas to a vote of the people by act of Congress, I tell him that such is not my interpretation nt all. We have not the power to make a constitution for Kansas; we have not the power to alter one which has been made; and how, therefore, can we prescribe, after the people have acted, the manner in which their constitution shall be ratified? How can we change the method of its ratification ? That is as mu-h the act of the people as the constitution itself; and if Congress should change the method of ratification, it would assume the right to make or unmake the constitution. That, therefore, we cannot do. "But over what question have we ample and complete authority? Over the question of admission. That is our question; it is confided to us by the Constitution of the United States. And, consequently, when it was stated, at an early period of this debate, that Kansas came hither with a petition in her hands. I stated truly the prayer of the petition. Not that we should approve her constitution, or ratify her constitution, or amend her constitution. Such was not the petition. What was it? To be admitted into the Union as a state: that was her petition — uothing else. We can grant the petition, or we can refuse it. We could refuse it without any reference to her constitution. We may refuse it because she has not the requisite population. We may refuse it because the boundaries proposed are im- proper. We may refuse it because the admission of the territory as a state would disturb the peaceable relations of the other states. Why, sir, we have on your table a pro- posed constitution for Utah; and if it were on its face entirely unobjectionable, I would not vote to admit that territory into the Union as a state. I would vote on that question wholly regardless of what the constitution contains or omits. I would vote against Utah because I do not wish to admit into the Union as a sovereign community those who debase themselves to the level of the brutes. I would reject her without any reference to her constitution. The right of admission, or the power of admission, is reposed in Congress. It is a power not to be abused. It is a power to be used rightly, to be used with due discretion; and therefore, although I claim it as an absolute power reposed in us, I agree that to establish any test of discrimination between the states already in the Union, would be a gross abuse and outrage. At the formation of the Federal Constitution, some of the states were slaveholding and some non-slave- holding states; and I believe that to reject a new state be- cause .die is either a slaveholding or nouslaveholding state, would be to abuse the power vested in Congress by the Con- stitution. ********* '• I have already said that we pass no judgment upon the constitution of Kansas except to declare that it is republican inform. Our act is the admission of the state; and we could admit her without any constitution if she had only a form of government in actual operatiou. What did the Senator affirm to be our duty in the case? He said if there was any dispute as to the desire of the people of Kansas to be admitted into the Union, to be admitted now, it was our duty to refer that question — the question of admission — tc a plain, safe, unmistakable manner of decision by the people of Kansas themselves. The committee of conference, there- fore, has answered the Senator's own demand when he spoke on the 23d of December last. The question of fact disputed, the only question is, whether the people of Kansas desire to be admitted now. That is the question referred to them by this bill. " In a very able argument delivered by one of my col- leagues in the other House [Mr. Groesbeck], it was sug- gested that the people of Kansas might have been desirous, in June last, to come into the Union, but still had a right to change their opinions and vote otherwise. He said that, a§ they had a right to present us a petition, they had a right to withdraw it at any time before acceptance. " Well, sir, I concur in that. Admission is the act of both parties. They must ask, and we are to grant. And when | we were about to grant, the Senator from Michigan said wa ought to be sure that the people desired admission now lie expressed it as strongly as I have said. lie declared that although the people might say, 'we are willing to live under this Lecompton constitution when we get ready to be a state,' they had also a rivht to say, ' we are not ready to become a state now.' The House bill proceeds on the same idea. It provides that when a new convention shall be assembled in Kansas, the first question decided shall be whether they will come into the Union at that time. Let me read it : " ' When so assembled, the convention shall first determine by a vote whether it is the wish of the proposed State to be admitted into the Union at that time; and if so, shall proceed to form a constitution, and take all necessary steps for the establishment of a state government,' &c. "I relate this to show that the question of admission has no necessary connexion, so far as Congress is concerned, with the constitution of the state, and to show that the Seuator from Michigan himself drew the distinction; that he insisted upon it; that, it expressed the burden of his ob- jection to the Senate bill. " The constitution of Kansas had been formed when she applied for admission. In the case of an enabling act that specifies the terms of admission before the constitution is made; but, in the present case, the constitution was first made. The constitution was brought to us, and the Senator, by the terms of his argument, acknowledged that the con- stitution might be perfectly acceptable, and yet the people of Kansas might not desire to be admitted; and. therefore, he insisted, and I agree with him, that the question of ad- mitting the state was a proper one for Congress, and totally different from the question of referring the constitution tc the people for ratification. "Now, I say the bill reported by the committee of con- ference is a bill to ascertain, in a plain and unmistakable manner, according to the Senator's own demand, whether the people of Kansas desire to come into the Union now. I read from the first part of its first section : '"That the question of admission, with the following pro positions in lieu of the ordinance framed at Lecompton, bo submitted to a vote of the people of Kansas, and assented to by them, or a majority of the voters, voting at an election to be held for that purpose.' "That the question of admission be submitted to the people of Kansas. Again, let me read in reference to the vote upon this question : " ' At the said election the voting shall be by ballot, and by endorsing on his ballot, as each voter may please, ' pro- position accepted,' or 'proposition rejected.' Should a majority of the votes cast be for ' proposition accepted,' the President of the United States, as soon as the fact is duly made known to him, shall announce the same by procla- mation, and thereafter and without any further proceed ings on the part of Congress, the admission of the state of Kansas into the Union upon an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever, shall be coapUte and absolute.' " And again : '•' But should a majority of the votes cast be for 'propo- sition rejected,' it shall be deemed and held that the p-<:ple of Kansas do not desire admission into the Union with said constitution under the conditious set forth in said proposi- tion, and in that event the people of said territory are hereby authorized and empowered to form (or themselves a * constitution and state government.' " So in reference to the convention to be called hereafter under the conference bill. Thatcouvention, when assembled, is first to determine by a vote whether it is the wish of the people of Kansas to be admitted into the Union at tb»t time. So in the preamble : APPENDIX. 755 •"Whereas, The said constitution and ordinance have been presented to Congress by order of said convention, and admission of said territory into the Union thereon, as a State, requested; and whereas, said ordinance is not accept- able to Congress, and it is desirable to ascertain whether the people of Kansas concur iu the changes in said ordinance hereinafter stated, and desire admission into the Union as a state as herein proposed.' "The bill provides no submission of the constitution— no submission of any part of it. We have no power to submit it; but we have the right to pass on the question of admis- sion, and without any reference to the constitution, as the Senator himself has claimed. Inasmuch, therefore, as it is denied, as the Senator has denied, that the people of Kansas desire to be admitted now, we remit that question, and that only, to a vote of the people of Kansas. To be sure, the question of admission thus submitted will necessarily involve, in the mind of every voter, the question whether he approves or disapproves the constitution. Nobody can object to that. I never heard a man in this Congress, who objected to the people of Kansas voting for or against their own con- stitution, if they wished ; but our ground was, that, speak- ing by their representatives in the legislature, in the passage of the convention act, and by their delegates in convention, elected by themselves, the people had forborne to vote upon any part of the constitution except the seventh article. We said that was the expressed will of the people through all their representatives in the legislature, and in the conven- tion, and that we could not alter it; that if these delegates or representatives had not truly expressed the will of the people, it was unfortunate, but that we could apply no remedy, because we had no power. We never objected— certainly, at least, I never did for a moment — to any claim that the people should have a right to vote for or against their Constitution. We denied that Congress had the power to require it. That was our position, and it is so plain that he who runs may read. "Although* we cannot, and do not, remit the constitution to a vote of the people, because that, would be to violate its own terms, 1 never heard it denied, that, in voting upon the question of admission, which we had a right to remit, they might, or might not. be governed by the terms of the constitution itself. That is their own question ; that is not our question; and. therefore, it is no objection that they can themselves, if they choose, pass upon the whole of their constitution, whilst voting upon a questiou which we have the power to submit. That is the reason why I declare this bill a fair and honest compromise between the Senate bill and the House bill ; preserving what is essential in each, the Senate declaring that Congress has no power to remit the constitution to a direct vote, and the House of Represen- tatives insisting that the people ought to be enabled to vote for, or against it. in some form, By the bill now before us the people can have that advantage, although we do not sub- mit the constitution to them in terms. We give them the right to vote whether they will be admitted or not. I say, then, this proposition, while it avoids a great constitutional objection to the House bill, contains all that is material in it. '• Nor is the question relative to the grants of public land more than one element, and that very insignificant, in the question actually submitted. We reject the ordinance passed at Lecompton, November 7, 1S57; we might have left the matter thus, and admitted the state, retaining all the public lands, and allowing her, when admitted, to assert her power of taxation over them. I say we might have done that, and we did it iu the Senate bill. Hut here we have proposed, not a bribe of any sort, but the usual grauts iu the case of every new state — the same which were made to Minnesota — as a mere incident, a collateral element in the question of admission. That, however, as my colleague has said, is no part of the controversy ; and so says the fcvnator from Michigan. Weil, if it be no part of the controversy, it will exercise no Influence in determining the question. I agree to that. It is wholly immaterial. Wherefore, theu, do these Senators declare that it is a bribe? Was it a bribe in the case of Minnesota ? Rid we not provide in the Minne- sota act that if her en iv.-ntion of delegates would vote to come into the Union, she should have these very grants ; but if they voted otherwise, she should not have them? ■Was that a bribe? I imagine no man ever thought so. This certainly cannot be a bribe: for it is much less than the convention at Lecorripton asked, and much less than the late convention at Leavenworth asked. *» Of course, sir, it the people vote in favor of admission upon the questiou now submitted, the constitution framed at Lecompton will be the constitution of trie state of Kan- sas. Undoubtedly that will be the case; ami why not ? It was framed hy a convention of delegates of the people chosen in due" form of law, delegates ihosen fairly, dele- gates chosen unanimously ; and its seventh article was ratified by an almost unanimous vote of the people — of all who chose to vote. Is that, not a sufficient ratilication ? "Now. sir, when Senators talk about approving or disap- proving the Lecompton constitution, they fall into an old blunder. They forget that Kansas has no other constitution. She must have a constitution or form of government. All that is absolutely required is. that she shall have a repubH can form of government; that is the phrase of the Federal Constitution. That form of government may be expressed in a constitution or an ordinance, or, what they call in Mexico a plan, or it may rest in usage; but to rest in usa;e, requires, perforce, that it shall have been iu actual opera- tion. Such was the case of Rhode Island. Her government was in actual operation; and, although it stood entirely upon usage, yet that was deemed sufficient, and she wa! admitted into the Union ; but Kansas has no state govern- ment in operation; we cannot stand on usage in her case; and, therefore, she must present us a constitution, or a fun- damental law, or a plan, or something of that sort, contain- ing her form of government. She has presented none to us but the constitution framed at Lecompton. She makes no other application as a state. The people of Kansas ask to be admitted with the distinct understanding that this is their form of government; and, therefore, it is a mere perversion of language— for there can be no mistake in such a distinc- tion—to say that Congress, in admitting the state of Kan- sas, approves or ratifies the constitution framed at Lecomp- ton, or forces it upon the people of Kansas, in any sense or to any extent. She has no other constitution ; she asks ad- mission knowing the fact that she has no other; and, there- fore, if you admit her, you admit her with that; and if you reject her. that falls, of course, for there can be no constitu- tion without a state. "The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Hale] made a suggestion yesterday which has been repeated to-day in a diluted form by the Senator from Michigan. He said that if Kansas has a population sufficient to be admitted as a slaveholdiug state now, she has a population sufficient to be admitted as a non-slavebolding state. Undoubtedly; nobody denies that; but the difficulty is that she has only applied for admission as a slaveholdiug state : and the Senator, with all his friends, stands committed to that; for they received her, by the House bill, as a slaveholdiug state— just as we now do. " And so, sir. the opponents of this bill have answered themselves, at every stage, in regard to every complaint, every pretence which they make here. It is a measure which, while it preserves the constitutional limits of the Federal Government, and forbears to iuvade the rights of the states, does, iu an unobjectionable manner, by submit- ting the question of admission to the people, enable them, if they do not like the Lecompton constitution, to prevent it from taking effect. "But it is asked why, in case the people of Kansas vote in the negative, we do not offer them the alternative of another constitution ? Well, sir, they have no other, and therefore cannot be admitted. What is the question submitted? As I stated, under this bill, the questiou to the people of Kansas is, ' will you come into the Union now?' If they auswer in the affirmative, well; if in the negative, why ask them the same question again ? Since they do not choose to be ad- mitted at present, and have no other constitution, there is an end of the case. " But the Senator from Michigan, and the rest of these Senators, declare that if the people of Kansas do not accept this proposition, they cannot be admitted for an indefinite time. Well, sir, where is the injustice of that? Kansas is to remain a territory until she has a population sufficient, according to the ratio, for a Representative in Congress. The Senator from Michigan affirms that she has now forty thou- sand inhabitants. I believe the Senator from New Hamp- shire said so yesterday ; and all these Senators are now eager to proclaim the fact. I suspect they speak the truth, and fear that we committed a great mistake, in July, 185t>. when we so far yielded to their clamor as to introduce and adopt the Toombs bill. Having so yielded, however, on the report of these Senators, as to the population of Kansas at that time, and having consented that a constitution might be formed upon the basis of the Toombs bill. I stand here to-day, in redemption of my promise, to vote for the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution. But I n^ver agreed to vote for her admission otherwise; and if she has no more than forty thousand inhabitants I will not vote that two Senators shall come hither to represent a less population than eight wards of Cincinnati contain." Hou John A. Quitman of Mississippi, in the House of Re> presentatives. Mr. Quitman. Will the gentleman allow me to say a few words in reply to his speculations on my position? Mr. Millson. I will yield to the gentleman. ' Mr. Quitman. I had not intended, after seeking the floor yesterday without success, to trouble the House with stating the reasons why I opposed this bill, but I can give them in a few words. I construe the bill reported by the committee of conference as an express submission of the question of the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution back to the people of Kansas, and thus virtually referring to them 756 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. the adoption or rejection of the constitution, the more ob- jectionable because that reference is not made to the i/mixi sovereignty which a^ted upon that instrument originally, nor to the people acting under an organized government, but to a disorganized mass of voters, who cannot speak for the sovereignty of a state. I oppose the measure, in the second place, because it is a concession upon this question which I. as a Southern man, am not prepared to make. 1 regard this contest as a mere incident to the slavery question. I am desirous of leeing this great issue between the North and South brought jo fair, honest, and final settlement, which shall for ever recognise the full constitutional equality of the slavehnld- ing states. If we can come to terms, no man in the House will rejoice more than I. If W6 cannot, let us separate. These are the main reasons why I oppose this bill. I will answer the other question propounded by the gen- tleman, that I look upon the act of the people of Kansas as complete — as an act of quasi sovereignty, with the consent of the United States, in the formation of a constitution. I regard that act as complete and binding upon the people of Kansas, and as the only voice that we have received here in regard to their will. I have opposed the reference of the whole question back to the people of Kansas, or even to any political power in Kansas; and I oppose it now the more be- cause it is simply a reference back to the individual men who may be entitled to vote at the time this vote is to be taken. These are, in short, some of the reasons why, with all respect for the opinions of my political friends, I cannot support this bill. I will not take any more of the gentle- man's time by saying more. Letter of Hon. Eli S. Shorter of Alabama, in defence of his vote on the Conference Bill to admit Kansas into the Union. House of Representatives, Washington, June 4, 1858. To the Editor of the Abbeville Advertiser : — The bill itself, when properly understood, cannot be con- strued as making any concession to the North. It embodies no compromise of the slavery question, so far as the South is concerned. If there be in it any element of a ' compromise,' it is the first triumph the South has ever achieved over the North in that line; for by the bill, the North has been compelled to consent that thirty-three thousand people in Kansas may be admitted into the Union as a state with a pro-slavery constitution, while they cannot be admitted as an anti-slavery state until they number ninety-three thousand souls. The truth is that Kansas was already practically lost to the South as a slave state — not by any action of Congress, hut because the Free-Soilers had literally taken the territory. Had Congress admitted Kansas into the Union and con- sented to donate her the twenty-three million of acres of the public lands which she demanded in her ordinance as apart of her proposition to come in, the immediate effect would have been the abolition of slavery in Kansas, the election of those abolition cut-throats Lane and Robinson, or others of the same kidney, to the Senate, and another lSlack Re- publican to the House. It was well known that the Aboli- tionists held a majority in the Kansas legislature. Are Southern men so extremely anxious to increase Vie strength of our enemies in Congress as to be willing to dissolve the Union for that purpose? Surely not. It would be more sensible to talk about dissolving it because there are already go many in Congress. You should also remember that at the time the conference bill became a law, the people of Kansas, under the authority of an act of her legislature, had elected delegates to another constitutional convention: that convention had assembled and adopted another consti- tution by which slavery was for ever abolished in Kansas, and the elective franchise conferred even upon negroes! The great principle for which, during the present session, the Southern members in Congress have contended in this Kansas controversy was, that no state should be refused ad- mission into the Union because of slavery in its constitution. The conference bill secures for us the recognition of that prin- ciple, while the forces of our enemies are not strengthened in Congress. There was a direct vote in the House of Repre- sentatives, on a motion submitted by the notorious Giddings, to reject Kansas with her pro-slwxry constitution. Congress refused to reject her. The bill, as it finally passed, accepts the Lecompton constitution as the constitution of the people of Kansas — makes no objection to it because it recognises slavery: admits the state into the Union under that consti- tution, to take effect by proclamation of the President of the United States whenever he is officially notified that the peo- ple of Kansas have decided by an election to accept the usual quantity of public lands allowed to the other states when they were admitted, instead of the enormous grant of twenty- three million of acres, which Kanssis demanded and claimed as a part of her proposition for admission. Appended to this letter you will find a copy of the ordinance passed by the convention that framed the Kansas constitution. By refer- ence to it you will see that Kansas positively asserts that she has an undouhled right to tax within her limits the lands belonging to the United States whenever she is ad- mitted into the Union, and proposes to relinquish that right if the conditions which she imposes 'shall be accep'el and agreed to by the Congress of the United States.' 'What are those conditions f A demand that Congress shall give her a certain quantity of our public lands, which the Commissioner of the General Land Office has officially estimated would amount to twenty-three million of acres I The conference bill admits Kansas fully into the Union as a slave state, but first requires her to relinquish her asserted right to tax the public du main, or to lay claim thereto; and offers to give her, in consideration of that relinquishment, the usual quantity of lands that have been given to the new states. Such con- ditions have always been imposed by Congress when a state was admitted into the Union, and in no single instance has the rule been varied. Many of our papers, I observe, have alluded to the fact that Minnesota has been fully admitted into the Union, while Kansas is kept in a state of suspense, until her people ratify the change proposed by Congress in her land ordi- nance. This. too. has been unfairly urged to breed discon- tent in the public mind at the South against her faithful representatives in Congress. I was opposed to the admission of Minnesota, as the record shows. I had several good and sufficient reasons to impel me to that course. But it is pro- per for me to say here, that Minnesota expressly consented by an act of the convention that framed her constitution, to relinguish the right of taxation. &c.. upon the same terms and for the same, quantity of land that Congress now offers to Kansas. Hence it appears that there is nothing in the admission of Minnesota which can be fairly used to prove that an unjust discrimination has been made against Kansas. Again, it has been asserted by some gentlemen of dis- tinction in Alabama, and who ought to have known better, that it was the duty of Congress to admit Kansas into the Union on equal terms with the original thirteen states, and that because such conditions appertaining to the right of taxation and to the useful and eminent domain, were not imposed upon those states, that, therefore, no such conditions should be required of Kansas. The answer is simply this. The original thirteen states were each sovereign and inde- pendent governments before they entered into the Federal compact and formed the Union. The lands were the abso- lute property of the several states, respectively, in which they were located. It is different in Kansas and all the other states that have been admitted into the Union, except- ing Texas. She was a sovereign independent government at the time of her annexation, and still retains all of her public lands. The public domain in Kansas belongs to the people of all the states — to the people of Alabama and Georgia as well as of New York a"nd Ohio. Congress acts merely as their agent, and it is its duty to protect the property of the people of the several states, and not to squander it by reck- less donations to the new states, merely because they de- mand it, to enable them to support a state government. It was, therefore, I contend, the duty of Congress to reject the land ordinance submitted by Kansas. The original Senate bill, which was warmly supported by the same presses in the South which now denounce the conference bill, rejected the land proposition, and provided for the admission of Kansas upon the 'express condition that said state shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the public lauds, or with any regulations which Congress may find necessary for securing the title in said lands to the bona fide purchasers and grantees thereof, or impose or levy any tax, assessment, or imposition of any description whatever upon them, or other property of the United States, within the limits of said state; and nothing in this act shall be construed as an assent by Congress to all, or to any of the propositions or claims contained in the ordinance annexed to the said constitution of the people of Kansas, &c.' Suppose that bill had passed, was Kansas fully admitted into the Union 1 Not without some subsequent action, whereby she ratified the change in her land proposition and consented to the conditions imposed by Congress. But it is again said, that Kansas would have been a siate in the Union under the Senate bill, whenever the legislature had elected their Sena- tors, and sent them on to Washington. That, I submit, is yielding the whole question. It admits that it was necessary for Kansas to do something to signify her consent to the terms required by Congress. If the Abolition legislature in Kan- sas had refused to elect their Senators, or send any Repre- sentatives to Washington, and had decided that they would not accept the terms of Congress in respect to the lands, then, under the Senate bill itself. Kansas would still have had the power indirectly to defeat a state government uuder the Lecompton constitution — and such action may have been based upon their hostility to slavery. So, under the confer ence bill, if Kansas consents to the change made by Congress in her land ordinance, then she is to be proclaimed by the President a state in the Union under the Lecompton consti- tution, which Congress has already accepted as valid and APPENDIX. 757 republican in form. The constitution is not referred back to the pecple of Kansas for ratification or rejection; yet it is apparent to all, that under the conference bill. a< well as under the Senate bill, Kansas has the power to defeat the inauguration of any state government, by refusing to elect members to Congress, and by disagreeing to the conditions required. It takes two to make a bargain. The Southern delegation would all have preferred the Lecompton constitu- tion clear, disconnected from the land ordinance, but the convention in Kansas that framed that instrument encum- bered the question with those conditions. We had to act upon the question as it was presented to Congress by the people of Kansas themselves. Suppose Kansas had presented her constitution accom- panied by the proposition to come into the Dnion, ami con- sent to the usual restrictions about the public lands, pro- vided Congress would give her twenty million of dollars in cask out of our common treasury. Is then- a man in the Union who would say that we ought to have voted her the money? I apprehend not. Suppose she had made such an applica- tion instead of the one which she did make, and Congress had passed an act declaring that her constitution was republi- can and legally adopted: that it could not afford to pay her so much mouey; but that the President should admit the state by proclamation as soon as her people would agree to receive one million of dollars. Would that have been a rejection by Congress of the constitution, or a reference of it back to the people for ratification or rejection? Clearly not. Would Kansas have been fully admitted into the Union until she had done some act whereby she signified her a n- tent to the proposed change in her money demand? By no means. Suppose she refused to accept the terms offered by Congress, where is the power to force her to do it. and to co- erce her into- the Union? The Constitution of the United States confers upon Congress the right to admit new states. but they must come involuntarily— they cannot be brought in vi et armis. Suppose Kansas rejects the proposition tendered to her by Congress, in what position is she left by the conference bill ? Under a territorial government where shivery is recog- nised and protected by the decision of the Supreme fourt of the United States, in the celebrated Dred Scott case. By Toting to reject the laud proposition, the people of Kansas themselves resume their territorial government. They are then required by the bill to remain a pro-slavery territory until they have 93.000 people. But it is suggested by seme gentlemeu that Kansas may apply fir admission as a free State, before she has the population fixed in the bill. If such an event should occur, 1 do not believe that Congress would admit her. unless the Black Republicans have a majority in the Senate and House of Representatives. The Democratic party is pledged against it. But, should Kansas be brought into the Union under such circumstances, as au anti-slavery etate, and in direct opposition to existing laws, that act would present to the South a much hetuirjigldiuu issue than We could have raised over this Kansas question, had Congress udjourned without effecting a settlement.. Remarks of Mr. Toombs in the Seuate. Mr. Toombs said : Mr. President: As it is the very obvious purpose of the Senate. I suppose, not to take this vote until there is action elsewhere, I shall occupy a few minutes of its time in giving the reasons why I approve the action of the committee of conference. It is in no wise distasteful to me. I heartily approve it; I think it is a wise measure — a good measure. I like it because it settles this question upon a principle. and not on a concession. It is a concession by nobody, by no section of the Union; but it settles this question upon principles which I have maintained from the beginning of *he controversy. It is not subject to two interpretations. To suppose so is an imagination of its opponents, and their very ditiiculty in finding reasons for their opposition to it has strengthened my own opinion in its favor I believe the cabal, the coalition, took about three days to determine whether they should go for or against it. I very much regret that they did not come to a determination to maintain, because it is based upon principle. The idea has been suggested, I believe, first by my honorable friend from Kentucky [Mr. Crittenden!, and then fallen into generally by those who co-operate with him in this opposition, that that is capable of two interpretations; that it is a submission and not a submission. Now, Mr. Pre-ideut, the bill itself is clear, plain, and distinct, and admits of no two interpretations. Kansas proposed to the Congress of the Uuited States to come into tin- Union under a constitution made at Lecompton, ami upon the further condition that we should grant to her certain land bounties, among others, seventeen millions for the completion of rail- roads. We entered into this discussion for and against the Lecompton constitution. The friends of that constitution, those who supported the measure, the friends of the Ad- ministration, held that the Lecompton constitution was the l«.irally and fairly expressed will of the people of Kansas. Therefore we accepted it: we accepted it in the measure which we sent to the other Iloii^e; we accept it in this measure. We do not put that in controversy. We stand upon the ground that it was i, gaily adopted ; that it was the legal expression of the popular will of Kansas; and we in no wise disturb that. We simply say to Kansas, who is treating witli us here as an equal, as a sovereign, we accept your con- stitution as fully and freely as we have that of any other of your sisters who have come into this Union. We decline to interpret it. We deny all these allegations of its fraud, or its force, or its violence ; we put them under our feet, and wo say we accept it as your act and deed. We say it is tho emanation of your people: that it is the fair exercise of the popular sovereignty of the people of Kansas. You did not choose to submit it to the people. Your convention adopted it, promulgated it — except as to the one clause which you did submit, aud that was accepted by the people, llence we receive it as the act of the people. We have laid out of the accouut wholly the ten thousand, or twenty thousand, or fifty thousand — if there were so many — who did not vote. We care not whether any of the people deeliued to act when the question was legally submitted to them; whether they voted or not. We hold that they were bound by the action of the legal voters who did perform their duty as citizens. For these reasons, the Senate of the United States ac- cepted that constitution. We sent our bill accepting it to the other House. They put in a proposition to submit it, the House of Representatives assuming, and the other side declaring, that it was possibly fraudulent; that there were allegations of fraud against it ; that it was not the popular will. They sent the bill back to us. declaring that the con- stitution should be submitted to the people. We rejected that proposition. The two Houses agreed to a conference on their disagreeiug votes. This committee of conference then declared that they would accept the Lecompton constitution as fully as the Seuate accepted it in their "bill; but the very oiler of this Lecompton constitution to the Uuited States by KansaB, was coupled with a further condition demanding the ordinary grants of lands given to the new states, and seventeen millions besides. What have this committee done? They have said, we accept the Lecompton constitution; we pass no judgment upon that, we leave that where the Senate's bill left it, as your act and deed, and properly reflecting the legally-expressed will of the people of Kansas ; but we will not give you the seventeen millions of land for railroads : we will give you what we have given your other sisters. What, then, are the legal consequences and effect of this declaration? Precisely those of the Senate\s bill, because the Senate's bill accepted only a part of the proposi- tion, and rejected the rest. It does not vary the land granted by that bill one acre — not one-nineteenth part of a hair. We said, we will not give you the land you ask. Your proposition is, "Receive me into the Union with this constitution, with the ordinary lauds granted to the states, and with seventeen million besides.'' The Senate said, we will not give you these seventeeu millions. When this question was under debate some month or two ago, the honorable Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] stated that we had not a right to vary the propositions at all; that the ordinance as to laud must go with the constitution. I differed with him in that statement. In my judgment the constitution was the business of the people of Kansas. The land and the boundary were our business as well as theirs — matters of contract between equals: aud therefore, if we varied the boundary, or varied the propositiou in any shape, the contract would not be complete until the other side acted. Mr. D iuglas. On the statement now made by the Senator from Georgia, we understand the matter exactly alike. I agree you could not vary the proportion unless you seut it back to them to ratify the change. Mr. Toombs. I am happy to know that we agree in that respect. That is my own position. I hold that; but I did not understand the Senator before as going to the extent that they had to accept it before the contract became bind- ing. That was my position then, it is mine today. We accept part of the proposition of Kansas; we accept her con- stitution, and we accept the call for the ordinary grant of land; we reject the extraordinary land grant of seventeeu million acres. Well, if the Senate's bill had passed. •■ Le- compton," as it is sometimes called, without one word of dissent, except striking out the seventeeu million a^res. .-he would not have been in the Uniou without the acquiescence of her people in that change. If she had organized her state government under the constitution, after our act of admis- sion in that form, it would, according to the general practice hitherto, be an acquiescence; but her proposition being changed, she could not come into the Union without an agreement to or an acquiescence on her part in the change. That would have been the result of the Senate's bill. Kansas could have rejected it. She made an offer. We rejected her offer in part. We made he.r a proposition. She could have rejected that: alid where would the parties have been then? She would have been where she was — in a territorial condition. There is where the Senate's bill would have placed her. If the convention had placed the power in 758 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK the legislature to regulate this matter of the land grant, as Arkansas did, the committee would have put it there as being the most convenient tribunal ; or, if the convention had reserved to itself the power, it might have been put there; but as the constitution of Kansas has made no pro- vision for anybody else adjusting these rights of sovereignty (for the grants are given in consideration of yielding the sovereign power of taxation), as the people have not dele- gated it to anybody in tbeir constitution, the committee Tery wisely sent it to the source of all power — the people themselves. The consequences are identically the same as though we had passed the Lecompton bill with or without the amendment of the gentleman who introduced it, usually called the Green amendment. It is not in the slightest degreo varied, nor is there any' dispute about it, nor are there any two constructions about it. I will allude now to the only point which gentlemen attempt to torture into double-dealing in this bill. My honorable friend from Illinois supposes it will be represented one way at the South and another at the North. I know of no way in the world to prevent partisans — the vicious and the vile demagogue and deceiver of the people — from doing that in respect to any measure. My honorable friend knows that the bill of his, which I supported with so much pleasure in 1854. met with the same fate, though there was a perfect agreement among every one of its friends here. Mr. Douglas. The distinction between the cases is obvi- ous. That bill provided that where there was a difference of opinion it should be decided as a judicial question. Here there is no arbiter made in this bill in regard to Kansas. Mr. Toombs. I do not understand the Senator. Mr. Douglas. All questions relating to personal liberty and slave property were referred to the Supreme Court of the United States by the bill of 1854, to which the Senator alludes. Mr. TOOMBS. That was not the clause. The great clause •was what was called the stump speech that was injected into its bowels. It was contended by its enemies that it had a different meaning at the North and at the South. It had not. It was universally accepted by its friends with the same meaning everywhere, as far as I am informed; and I never knew two constructions put upon it by them. Again and again, however, it was reiterated here, and the enemies of the measure did so construe it. Of course, the enemies of a measure will always do that, especially if it involves a Sectional issue. Oftentimes arguments will be used to make a measure, which is even a just settlement, palatable to one section or the other, which are construed to present it in different forms. Everybody understands, however, that we, having varied this proposition by striking out the seventeen million acres of land, simply say to the people of Kansas, ■will you come into the Union with your constitution as it is? "We do not alter thnt; we accept that part of your proposition. and we give you the ordinary grant of land, but we will not give you the extra seventeen million acres that you claim. If they will not agree to this, what is the consequence? The bargain is at an end, of course the constitution fails, the ordinary grant fails, and she is in a territorial condition. Gentlemen seek to torture that into a submission of the constitution. Undoubtedly the effect of a rejection by the people of Kansas of our proposed alteration of their proposi- tion, annuls the whole contract; and is not that the eas ■ in similar transactions every day between man aod man ? You make me an offer to sell me a piece of land: you say I may have it for $10,000 upon two years' time. I "say I will give you that, but I want five years. You reject the five years; there is no dispute between us about the price; but the whole contract falls. Kansas is treating with us as an equal contracting party; she offers to come into the Union on cer- tain terms; and we accept a portion and reject others. Then if she says. '-I will not come in under the modified terms." the whole contract falls, and that is the way the constitution falls. It is a mode, a fair and legitimate mode, an irresistible mode, a mode that would exist whether you submitted it or not; because, I say, when you varied the contract, even under the Lecompton bill as it went from this House, it was the right of Kansas to reject it, and if she had rejected it she would have been where this bill proposes to place her in that contingency — in a territorial condition. This objection comes from the opponents of this bill; they are sor y that this is one of the results of the proposed action. I am not. If it be true that the people of Kansas do not like this constitution ; if it be true that those who are in rebellion may go to the polls and vote it down, when we only submit a proposition for a change of the lands the people asked, they may have what reasons for their vote they please. I do not object to it because *hey may give a Vote upon a wrong reason. They might have done that tinder the Senate's bill; they may do that under anv bill; for you cannot force a state into this Union, you ca.inot bring her in except on terms to which she agrees; and I say that naturally results in all treaties with equals, with sove- reigns, and with citizens. If you make a contract and the >ther party mnk"s a substantial variation, unless that varia- tion is agveed to by loth, it annuls the whole. That is the simple fact about this contract. The rejection of the con- stitution may be one of the consequences of it. I know, but it has no double meaning: it is not pretended by any friend of tie- bill. North or South, that we submit the constitution. We accept the Lecompton constitution as the will of the people of Kansas, and we accept a part of their other pro- position by which their constitution is accompanied, to wit: that she shall have the same quantity of lauds that Minne- sota had; but we reject that clause of her proposition by which she claims seventeen million acres. Now we are told, by the Senator from Illinois, and other Senators, that here is a bribe and a threat. Our bribe is, striking off seventeen million acres of lands that she asked to come in. Our threat is, proposing to leave her. if she rejects our proposition, just as she would be if we had no bill. That is a fair statement of the case. Our bribe, I re- peat, is. striking out the seventeen million acres of land that she demanded, with Lecompton. If we had given her the seventeen million acres of land, an unusual and extraordi- nary grant to a state coming into the Union, which never had been made before, you and I know, and all the country knows, that a clamor would have gone up from here to Canada, throughout this broad land to the Pacific Ocean, " See. these slave-drivers give these people seventeen millions of acres of land, this extraordinary grant, to make them take slavery in their constitution!" Hut we strike it out; we put her precisely on the same basis with other states; and now, because we tell her that if she does not come in at this time, she shall not come until she has the requisite population, it is attempted to be tortured into a threat! I suppose this idea never would have occurred to the people in Kansas, or to anybody but persons who were hunting for objections. Everybody knows that when Kansas is admit- ted, no matter at what time, she will get the same land that other states have had. The bill does not prohibit it, and. I suppose, it would never be imagined but by some politician who was seeking for a pretext, when he could not find a reason. The Senator from Illinois says that he is willing to agreo to the principle of not allowing a state to be admitted until she has ninety-three thousand people, or a sufficient number for one member, according to the ratio. He voted for it. and so did 1 ; and when, two years*ago, I introduced a bill to solve this difficulty by bringing her into the Union then, I declared, from my seat here, that it was a violation of a principle. This is the general rule. I supposed the then condition of the country made Kansas an exceptional case; I put it exclusively on the ground of an exceptional case; I was really desirous of pacificating the country on this ques- tion. We have labored to do it. The Administration has labored to do it: the Democratic party has labored to do it; but a majority of the people of Kansas, it seems, or at least a large portion of them, taking their counsels from the Op- position, have, even to the extent of refusing to vote, used all the means in their power to prevent it. Well, what do we say now ? '■ We accept your constitution — it is your act: we give you the ordinary grant of land ; but if you do not wish to come in. we remit you to the general rule" — that is all. The Senator from Illinois says that general rule is a right rule, and we ought never to depart from it. It is one from which Congress has not usually departed, and which never ought to be departed from, except under extraordi- nary circumstances. As a general rule, it is a sound one; but there may be exceptions to all rules. When I proposed to depart from it. I was acting for Kansas, endeavoring to pacifieate her, and also endeavoring to take -this question, which was a disturbing aod dangerous element, out of the politics of the United States. That was not agreed to; but Kansas acting in the spirit of that proposition, has pre- sented herself for admission. I say to her, I will accept the constitution you have made ; I will give you the ordinary laud grants ; but I will not allow you to make constitutions every six months. The conduct of the population of Kansas has been such as not at all to increase my estimate of their capacity for self-government. It would be sufficient for me, even after having voted for it, in 1850, to say now that the events of the last two years have convinced me that she ought not to be admitted as a state. I apply this remark to all; I do not apply it to the Free-State men more than to others. There have been wars, and tumults, and frauds, and cheatings, and a disposition manifested everywhere in that territory totally to disregard the law. If one party get a legislature, they turn everybody else out, no matter which party it is; and a majority of one is as good as a unanimous vote. There seems to be an incapacity in this population, thrown in there, I admit, under the most unfortunate cir- cumstances, to govern themselves; and I am free to acknow- ledge that I shall not regret if one consequence of this measure shall be to put them back in a territorial condition. Then where is the concession by the North ? None. Neither the Senator from Illinois, nor any other person here, denies that the people speak finally through a con- vention. The people of Kansas have done it. We accept the act of this convention; we accept a portion of her pro- position for lands, and we tell her that we do not accept the APPENDIX. 759 test, and we submit to her a modified proposition, in place of her proposed contract in regard to lands. If, for any reason you please, you refuse to take this modification of the contract, whether it be because you do not like the Lecomp- ton constitution or not, we take it that you do not want to Rome into the Union now. If you refuse to take the propo- sition which we submit to you, the contract falls, constitu- tion and all. I say, therefore, we do not submit the constitution. One of tt.e necessary consequences of the modification of the proposition, however, is that if she votes against it, she is in a territorial condition, and we require her to stay there exactly the time which it is conceded all around the Senate the general rule would require. To this general rule I have heretofore uniformly adhered, and declared my convictions of its propriety. Wo say you shall stay, as every other ter- ritory ought to stay, and not bring two Senators into this body, and one member into the other House, until you have a population sufficient, under the Federal Constitution, to entitle you to a Representative according to the existing ratio. That is all there is in it. The South, then, has made no concessions of any sort, and the North has made none. The clamor of cramming consti- tutions down free people's throats is at an end. Hinc lachrymal — hence these tears! They wanted the cramming process. Although the result, everybody knew, would be the same with the people of Kansas, still it would have been a very available argument on the rostrum ; but that is gone. Now. they say, it is true it is gone; but it. is not gone in the right way. That seems to be the objection of the Opposition. It is true the people may say, we will not take this modification; we will not come in unless with the seventeen millions; but I can assure my friends I will not give them the seventeen million acres. We have not seized eagerly at this bait ; we have not given them this bribe to bring in a slave suite. If we were disposed to do what we are charged with, we have acted the most foolish part any sensible men ever did. If we wanted to bribe them, we would have stood by Lecompton, ordinance and all, and given them the seventeen million acres; but we cutoff the ordinance and give them only what we have given Min- nesota and all the other states coming into this free sister- hood. Now. I apprehend -that but for the committals of gentlemen, but for political reasons, but for the strength of the coalition looking to the other thirty-one states, not to this new sister, but to its effect outside of Kansas, there would be very little difference between us on this question. We cannot alter this constitution if we would. We do not wish to take any advantage in this mode of submission. Inasmuch as Kansas, instead of offering us a simple consti- tution, proposed other terms and conditions, we had to accept them, as the Senator from Illinois admits, in their entirety — or, if we modify them, she has the power to reject them. That is all there is in this proposition. You did it in Michigan. You did it in Wisconsin. You did it in Iowa. In Iowa you rejected her application on the question of boundary, which is no stronger than this, because here the point is, whether Congress, in consideration of the new state giving up her power of taxation, the highest power of a sove- reign, over the public lands, and over those lands you grant to others for a brief time, will make a grant of lands such as has been made to other states, and give her seventeen mil- lion acres more to make railroads. 1 say to her, you must release your sovereignty in this respect; and you have no right to demand of this sisterhood of states more lands, more pecuniary advantages for releasing this sovereign power, than each of the other eighteen new states that have come into the Union had. We will give you that and no more. Thus we offer her no bribe. So far from holding out to her a threat, we leave her just where you would leave her by defeating the measure— in a territorial condition; and in a territorial condition under the sound principle that she ought not to come here unless you can show her to be an exceptional case, with less than the number prescribed by the Federal ratio for one Repre- sentative. For these reasons, Mr. President, I say that I have no reluctance in voting for this proposition. I do not vote for it as a compromise or concession, but I here state, there is in it no concession by the North or by the South, but a present settlement, firmly based upon a broad, right, ever enduring, constitutional principle; and as such, it not only meets my acquiescence, but my hearty concurrence. Sir. Hale. I wish to ask the Senator from Georgia a ques- tion : he says it is proposed to submit this back to the people ol Kansas because there is a modification of their land pro- pi .<$ition. and it is necessary to submit it because it is modi- fied. My question is, why the first Senate bill did not send it back, tor that modified the proposition equally with this, but still that admitted the state without resubmission ? Mr. Toombs. That is true; but, as I stated, the conse- quences would haye been the same, with or without sub- mission. I do not think this submission necessary to be put in the bill; but, according to the original Senate bill, without its being nominated in the bond, Kansas could reject it, as Arkansas and Iowa did. It might have been there without objection from me; I thought it was proper to put it there; but iu the case of Arkansas, the convention had authorized the legislature to accept a modification of the laud terms, and hence Congress referred that to the legis- lature. In tbe other case it was referred to the people of Iowa, and Iowa rejected it. and made a new constitution subsequently. I say that if it was not there, the conse- quences would be the same as though it were there: and I should not have objected to it if it had been in tbe original Senate bill. The legal consequences would be the 6ame, whether it was there or not. Senator Wade of Ohio, in the Senate, April 27 th. 1858» " We had been divided here upon questions with regard to the will and wishes of the people of Kansas as to the con- stitution under which they should live. It was contended on the one side that the people, acting through the forms of law, had framed a constitution which ought to be obligato- ry. On the other hand, that constitution was assailed here by the opposition, on the ground that it was an utter per- version of the will of the majority of the people of Kansas; that it was got up by trickery and by fraud, and that the majority of the people might not to be governed by it. Thus we were at issue upon this thing called the Lecompton con- stitution. A portion of the people had called a convention, which framed this instrument, and called it a constitution. The people had previously met and framed another constitu- tion, which they called their constitution, and which they said embodied the will of the great mass of the people of Kansas. I allude to the Topeka constitution. " Now, sir, when this committee were about to pass by all the propositions that had gone before, and to substitute a new bill, how easy it would have been for them to say, in perfect justice and fairness to all, 'we will not take the first constitution made at Topeka, because it is denied on the other side to be the will of the people; we will not take the Lecompton constitution, because it is alleged to be fraudu- lent, and not to embody the will of the people; but we will throw both aside, and we will provide, under every safeguard that can secure an honest and fair election, for submitting this complicated and vexatious question again to the people, and they shall be at liberty to frame their con- stitution.' For that purpose the committee might have se- lected any precedent they wished — they might have taken the enabling act for Minnesota, or any similar one. and they would have found no objection to it. We should all have voted for a proposition of that kind, just to all parties; we should have permitted the people to come up now fairly to the work of framing a constitution; we should have said to them, 'make it republican in form; submit it to our con- sideration; and if we find it to be such, we will admit you with it.' " Why did it not occur to this committee that that was the way to settle the controversy, if a settlement of it was in- deed desired? The proposition which they have made, while it seems to me in a certain aspect to be humiliating to the South, is unjust, if not an open insult, to the North. It is humiliating to the South because it is a total and en- tire abandonment of the principle on which many of them staked their determination uot to exist in the Union at all ; for they said, ' let us have the Lecompton constitution, or we will go out of the Union ourselves.' That proposition they have surrendered; they have given it up: they do not pre- tend that they can stand by it, unless it is in some sort sub- mitted and thrown back to the people to pass upon. So far it is right; so far it is just; and I was glad to see the committee yield thus far to the reasons and arguments which had been addressed to them, showing, that their Le- compton concern was fraudulent; that it did not embody the will of the people : that it was a fraud ; and that their le- gal position was fraught with tyranny and danger in all subsequent time. That position has been repudiated and abandoned by them. We hear no more of the omnipotence of conventions assembled to frame constitutions. We hear no more of their being armed with supreme power to put upon the necks of the people ju>t such a constitution a« they please, without the people having power to get rid of it. That was the position we heard rung in our ears from Southern gentlemen day after day. but a little while ago. Now they have thrown this absurd position to the winds, and I thank God for it. They seem to admit that the peo- ple, after all. must have the right, in some shape, to pass upon the institutions under which they are to live. So far, it is a great improvement on the Lecompton concern. But if the people are to pass upon the Lecompton constitutionally not let them do it directly ? Will any man be deceived by the verbiage in which this proposition is couched? Have you not left the people to pass upon it ? If so, why not sub- mit it in such a plain and fair manner that the people can all understand it? *This speech was printed with the capsnu '• Sue Stoopb TO CONCJUER ; OR, TUE ExGUSU SWINDLE.'? 760 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. " Sir, this propofiition reads upon its face as (hough it was a premium for votes. Are the people to vote directly upon the constitution under which they live ? Not by any means ; but they are to vote upon a grant of land ; they are to vote whether they will accept a gift from the government of five or six million acres of land ; and if they decide to take the land, that decision is to drag after it the Lecompton consti- tution, that they have repudiated over and over again. Was ever any such thing as this concocted by a statesman, for the action of the people/ Is a land grant the principal thing in framing a state constitution? Sir, it seems to be a bid of land for liberty, a bribe held out. ' Will you, people Of Kansas, surrender your liberties for land?' That is the question; it cannot be disguised. I impugn directly the motives of no man, but I state what the effect of this action will be. How will it appear to the world, say what you will about it? If the people will vote themselves so much land, then they surrender themselves to a slave constitution, Which you and I know they have repudiated over and over again. It is not competent for me to state the motives which have prompted to such action as this; but you voto for the incident and the principle is to follow. How absurd and inconsequential! Why, Mr. President, if I should make just such a proposition as that, to obtain your vote upon a private bill, and it should come out to the world that I had done it, I presume every just-minded Senator here would vote promptly to expel me from the body, as un- worthy of a seat in it. The offer is: ; So much laud if you vote fortius constitution: if you vote against it, you shall have neither land nor anything else.' ■• Mr. president, I recollect well that in the course of some observations which I made not long ago, you, sir [Mr. Biggs iu the chair.] put the question to me: Suppose a slave coustitution were presented to Congress, would I vote for it? I recollect well the answer I made to you, and your appa- rent surprise at the absurdity of the answer. Yet I find the President of this body to-day assuming my position, and voting for the same proposition, only reversing its applica- tion. I would not vote for the admission of a slave consti- tution; nor will you vote for a five one. I do not complain of you; I cannot complain of you, because I occupy about the same ground that you will do an hour hence, when the vote is taken, except that practically our positions are reversed in the application of them. You come from a slave state, and I from a free state. The country will understand the positions we all occupy on this subject, and I do not care how soon they are understood by all. "Mr. President, it has been sought to break the force of the objections to this scheme by saying that there was un- certainty about the people of Kansas accepting the grant proposed in your original bill. This is a strange apology, and it comes at a strange and an unfortunate time. Sir,"iio you not know that the subject was mooted in the Committee on Territories, and it was said that no kind of objection could arise from any such thing; that we had a right to modify the ordinance, ami make what grant of land we pleased to the territory; and if they rejected the constitution on account of our not giving them as much as they thought they were entitled to, they would not be a state; but if they accepted the constitution by organizing under it. subject to the provision we had made, that was an end of it? How happens it now that you make this whole controversy turn, as it were, on the uncertainty whether the people will accept a donation such as you have made to every other state? Why, in the name of Heaven, is it now paraded here as the main reason why you have reversed your action? Mr. Green. The Committee on Territories never did say that it was the right of the committee or of Congress t • dic- tate the terms upon which tie- state should be admitted. They have always claimed that: but on the que^ti >n of contract on the subject of lands, it was matter of agreement. The formation and adoption of a constitution, the commit- tee held, was a question with which the Senate and House of Representatives had nothing to do; and that has been the point all the time. I think, therefore, the Senator does injustice to the committee when be says that they thought the subject of the grant of lands was a. proper matter for the consideration of the convention of the territory. Not. so; it is a matter of agreement, proposition, acceptance; but the coustitution is a different thing; that is a finality already. Mr. Wade. I do not deny that. That is just exaetly what we did agre -. Wo agreed that it was a proposed com- pact, and that if the proposition on our part should be accepted by the organization of a state government under it, it would be very well, and their action under it would show their agreement to our proposed contract. That is what we agreed to in committee, and it is a sound princi- ple of law; and the idea of repudiating it is not twentv-four hours old. That is how we agreed; and vet the Se'nator from Virginia rises here. and. to n] ologize for this misshapen production of the committee of conference, makes it all to turn on the uncertainty of whether the people of Kansas would accept this proposition. I might ask that Senator. :>r any other who has had anything to do with this subject, if that matter labored in your mind, how in the name of Heaven did you suffer your Lecompton bill to be debated here day after day, week after week, and I do not know but I might say month after month, without suggesting the great difficulty which must interrupt the whole proceedings, and lead you to surrender all you had done, and set up a scheme entirely new? You did not apprehend any such thing, as you went on with your Lecompton bill. The Sen- ator from Virginia never suggested then that there was any trouble about the land grants that were provided for in that bill. You voted it through this body. It ran as smooth as oil. No man said there was any difficulty about that, nor could it be said ; because so far as the ordinance was concerned, and the land grant was involved, the bill stood on exactly the same principles as every other territo- rial bill, and granted no more, no less. Why, then, seek to cover up this enormity under so plain a proposition as that? Sir, the people will understand it, whether gentlemen here will understand it or not. It is in the nature of a bribe. It is not expected that the unsophisticated people, through the whole wilderness of Kansas, will be able, like lawyers, to scan closely and understand critically, the import of this grant. I will not say that the fact that it was known they would not understand it. constituted the reason why a ques- tion so simple as the adoption or the rejection of the Lecomp- ton constitution is made to turn on the fact whether the people will accept a donation of lands ; but it looks very much like it. It would be out of order for me to say it was so intended ; but that will be its effect. "Well, sir, that is the nature of the proposition. I have said it is humiliating to the high-minded South, because it is a total surrender of the position upon which they planted themselves, and swore in their councils they would stake their institutions. You have given it up; you have surren- dered Lecompton, in this miserable way to be sure, into the hands of the people of Kansas, to reject it if they please, and as I trust in God they will. Therein, sir. you lie in the dust. Southern chivalry is here in these halls, begging men to vote for a miserable proposition, well calculated to mislead the people. I am sorry for it. I have respected their highmindeduess. I have always hoped heretofore that they were above consenting to arrangements that could not stand out in open day. I do not say that anything sinister is intended in this proposition, but I know it is well calcu- lated iu itself to deceive the people, and therefore I pro- nounce it humiliating to the South. I say, further, it is unjust, if not an open insult, to the North, Why? I can tfell you nothing new, after the proposition has been so ably handled by the honorable Senator from Kentucky and the honorable Senator from Vermont, who have preceded me. They have made it too palpably plain for me to stand here long in elaborating this point. Here stands out before the whole world the most glaring injustice, the most, palpable wrong; and no man dare face me down here, and say that you place slavery and liberty upon equal foundations by this measure. You talk of the equality of the states. Why, sir, you are trampling the free states into the dust, and offering bribes to slavery. It will not do. Whether we understand it or not. God knows the people of the United States, the honest people, will understand it. "I have =.i i !. and I still say, that this proposition is fla- grantly unjust to the North, and. I think, an open insult. Well might the Senator from Kentucky ask, what would the South think of a proposition like this on the other side? I have too good an opinion of you to believe that you would bear it as meekly as we shall. I believe that you would conduct yourselves, in reference to such a nefarious proposi- tion, in a manner more fraught with honor to your section than I bar we shall. I wish to God we had men as fearless to stand up fcr *he right, as you have to stand up for the wrong. I honoi you for the manner in whicn you stand up to what you say you regard as your rights. Well might the Senator from Kentucky ask, what would you think of such a proposition, if the case were reversed? There is not a Southern man who will not die iu his tracks before he would surrender to a proposition so insulting to the South as this manifestly is to the North. 1 know you would not, and I give you all honor for it. because in that, if in nolhing 6lse, God knows I sympathize with you: you are right, in it. "The proposition now offered to the people of Kansas i.« this: 'You shall have six million acres of land, and imme- diate admission into the Union, if you will take slavery; but if you prefer a free state, you shall be excluded : you shall be treated as outside barbarians, unworthy to be members of this Union for an indefinite length of time to come.' It is undeniable: it stands out gross, palpable, upon the face of your record, and cannot be disguised. It required a good deal of assurance, a good deal of effrontery, to bring in a proposition like Ibis: but you knew the material to which you were addressing it too well to fear the consequences. You say by this proposition, if Congress adopts it, • Come in, ye people of Kansas; here are millions of acres of land ; here is immediate admission if you prefer slavery; but if, on the other hand, you prefer liberty, you are unworthy of admission, you are not numerous enough to be admitted." One slave- APPENDIX. 761 holder, for the purpose ot the admission of a territory as a state, is w^rth more than twenty free men. That is the naked proposition which you have brought here for the con- sideration of Northern men. and I perceive that you will have Northern men who will go with you even for this. You will have them, and you knew you would; because you knew you could not make a proposition, however fatal to the rights, however fatal to the honor of the North, without finding here men who would stoop to it. When I contrast the high chivalric honor of the South in this particular with the North, I sometimes wish to change places with them. Here is a proposition offering a premium to slavery, and im- mediate admission without inquiry as to the numbers, if the people of Kansas will come here as a slave state ; but if they decide on the side of freedom, they are to be indefinitely postponed until a census shall be taken at the will of a craven and besotted Executive. That is the proposition offered to the high-minded people of that section from which I come. They will spurn it, though I perceive that some of their representatives are about to take it. * * * " Now, sir, I am not so much of an enemy to the people of the South as they suppose. I think they will never gain anything by such a proposition as this. It is not because I suppose they will, that I manifest this zeal against it; but because, like the Senator from Kentucky, I know that the safety, the permanency, the true glory of our institutions. must be built upon the solid foundations of eternal right and justice; and this tricksy, these frauds, although they may serve the purpose of a party for a day, are fraught with danger to the whole commuuity, and will finally result in disastrous consequences, even to those for whose benefit they seem to be perpetrated. " But t have said that it was no part of my purpose to detain the Senate. I have very feebly expressed the feelings that I entertaiu in regard to this proposition. I do not be- lieve you can seduce the noble-minded people of Kansas, who have withstood all your persecutions so long, to suc- cumb to such a scheme as this. You have exercised the whole powers of your government; you have invoked your armies, and let them loose upon the defenceless people there; you have inflicted upon them hardships, and pursued them with a relentless persecution that I have never known be- fore, and hardly ever read of in history ; aud yet they stand unconquered and unconquerable. It only remains to deter- mine whether appliances to their cupidity, arts of deception. can work out a fall for a people who have so nobly withstood all your force. I know well you cannot force them to it. Their intelligence is great, and I think they will be capable of seeing through this nefarious net, which is calculated to lower them, to degrade them, to a condition of servitude. I do not believe you will effect it. I have, a better opinion of those noble spirits. I think the controversy will result in your most ignominious defeat before the people of Kansas. The only danger I apprehend is from the arrangement of this scheme by which you put the whole power of controlling the election into the hands of a corrupt Executive. The people are against you in overwhelming numbers. The only doubt is, whether the executive officers will count their votes aright. I am willing to venture that people, with all the skill in weaving nets for their destruction that you can devise, provided at last you leave them to be counted according to their numbers, and make fair, and not John Calhoun, returns. " Mr. President, I have no fears for the result of this mea- sure. The noble-hearted, brave, and liberty-loving people of Kansas will spuru the infamous proposition, as the Saviour of the world did one in all respects similar in principle, and emanating from a like source." Letter of Hon. Robert .T. Walker, late Governor of Kansas. Washington City, April 27th, 1S58. Dear Sirs : — Your letter of this date has just been received. and I hasten to say, that, in my judgment, the conference Kansas bill should be adopted. I expressed this opinion on first reading the bill on Saturday last, and must adhere to it, although, if the bill had been, as falsely represented, a submission of the ordinance only. I should have sternly op- posed it. This bill, as interpreted by me, is in precise con- formity with my views and course, not only in Kansas, but since my return, and, in following I he path where duty and conscience bade me. I must support it. I must be permitted, however, to do this in such a way as will cast no censure on valued friends, who honestly oppose this bill, because their construction of it differs from my own. Whilst this bill maintained my views as to popular sovereignty, it would, if adopted, save the Union from imminent peril. If the bill passes, the odious Lecompton constitution, born in fraud, and baptized in forgery aud perjury, will be defeated by an overwhelming vote of the people of Kansas, thus demon- strating by practical results the truth of my interpretation, that this bill does in fact submit the constitution to the popular suffrage, for ratification or rejection, which is all I have ever required. With such a bill, aud such a decision of that people, under it, no formidable effort will ever be I again made to withhold from Qie people of inchoate states a vote for or against the ratification or rejection of their suite constitution, and the oligarchive doctrine of convert sovereignty will be abandoued. I write in great baste, and will, at a future period, imbody my views fully in a letter for publication, as expressed in our recent conversation. Yours, truly, It. J. Walker. Hon. S. S. Cox and Hon. Wu. Lawrence. Letter of Hon. William L. Yancey. Montgomery county, Alabama, May 24th, 1858, Neither am I in favor of making up an issue of condem- nation of our representatives in Congress on account of their support of " the conference bill." Such an issue would at once divide and distract that uoble hand of Southern Bights men, who believe in secession, and have ever been ready to exercise it — upon whom the South cau aloue rely in her greatest need — who though not perhaps a majority, yet by their earnest action — by their intellectual ascendancy— their known political probity — the fairness and intensity of their faith have, since 1851, succeeded in giving direction and control to public opinion at the South. Many of the choicest spirits of that class of Southern men are now in Congress, having voted for that conference bill, under a sincere mis- apprehension, in my opinion, as to the true design aud cha- racter of that measure. I would deeply deplore making an issue with such men — an issue which, whatever might 1x3 the mere personal result, could not but inflict a deep and lasting wound on the cause of the South. The only set of men in our midst who are now lending their energies to produce such an issue, in my opinion, are the Union-loving fogies, who expect to rise upon the ruins resulting from a quarrel among the States Rights men. But I am for a free discussion of the merits of that mea- sure. I am for a daily reckoning of the position of the South. I think it prudent to know our latitude and longitude, daily —to heave the lead hourly, to ascertain our soundings — and if the ship of state has been wrongly directed, she should 1 e put upon the right track at once. In this view I candidly say that in my opinion. Quitman and Bonhani were right iu voting against that "conference bill.'' By the treaty with France, by which the United States acquired the territory of which Kansas is a part, the govern- ment guarantied in the 3d article that " the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution," &c. By the Kansas act, 10th section, it was provided that a temporary territorial government should be erected — •• and when admitted as a state or states, the said territory, or anr portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission." The 32d section provided that the people thereof shall be left "perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way — sub- ject only to the Constitution of the United States." The National Democratic Cincinnati Couvention of June, 1856, "Resolved, That we recognise the right of the people of all the territories, including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the legally and fairly expressed will of a majority of actual residents, and whenever the number of their in- habitants justifies it. to form a constitution with or without slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of per- fect equality with the other states." The 1st clause, section 3d, article 4th. of the Federal Con- stitution prescribes that '-new states may be admitted by Congress into this Union." These, I believe, are all the. rules which a Democrat would lck to in coming to a conclusion on this question: and it seems to me clear that when construed together, he must come to the conclusion., first, that by treaty the inhabitants of Kansas have i! right to be admitted into the Union "as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution." and therefore that Congress has bound itself to exercise its general constitutional discretion as to ad- mitting new states, in favor of an admission of Kansas. Second, that the Kansas act has transferred to the ppo| !o of Kansas the right " to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitu- tion of the United States." anil to be admitted as a state. Third, that the National Democratic Convention has explicitly recognised this rigid to admission. — The Democracy and the opposition both conceded the question as to num- bers — the only issue* being were 1-t. as to whether the Le- compton Constitution expressed the will of the people — and 2d. as to the admission of a slave state in any event. The Democracy framed a bill in the Senate, to admit Kan- sas. It passed that body, and was defeated in the House by a combination of Black Republicans, of Douglas Democrats and a few South Americans. The Kansas Conference bill was then submitted and passed. The Democracy, combined with a few South Ame- ricans, and a portion of the Douglas-Democrat*, carried it 762 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. through. That bill was, in my opinion, based on this fun- damental error — that Congress had a right to refuse to admit Kansas as a state, unless Kansas would enter into acnntraet with the general government, whereby, in consideration of certain land grants, the new state would release certain powe s. whi-h are specified in the following proviso: "The foregoing propositions herein offered are on the condition that said state of Kansas shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the lands of the United States, or with any regulation which Congress may find necessary for securing the title in said soil to bona fide purchasers thereof; and that no tax shall he imposed on lands belong- ing to the United States, and that in no case shall non- resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents. Sixth, and that said state shall never tax the lands or property of the United States in that state." The leading press in Alabama which advocates that bill, said it was necessary to make these propositions a condition precedent to admission, because, otherwise " the right to tax and dispose of the public domain would be wholly in the hands and at the mercy of the state, if she chose to exer- cise it."- — [Confederation.] One of the ablest supporters of that hill in the Senate, says, "The consequences of admitting a state without a recognition precedent of the rights of the United States to the public domain, are in my opinion, the transfer of the useful, with the eminent domain, to the peopl« of the state thus admitted without reservation." — [Hun. Jeff. Davis.] Another prominent advocate of that bill said in the Senate, in speaking of the bill and the Kansas constitution. " we do not alter that ; we accept that part of your proposi- tion, and we give you the ordinary grant of land, but we will not give you the extra seventeen million acres that you claim. If they will not agree to this, what is the conse- quence? The bargain is at an end, of course the constitu- tion fails, the ordinary grant fails, and she is in a territorial condition." — [Hon. Robert Toombs.] These extracts show the principles upon which the con- ference bill rests, as defined by its friends. Now, as I have shown that Kansas is entitled to admission "as soon as possible, consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution," it follows that the principles -above quoted as ground for her rejection, unless she accepted the proposition of Congress, to be valid, must be "in accordance with the principles of the Federal Constitution." If they are not. then the conference bill is fundamentally an error. I think that I shall be able to show that it is a fundamental error, by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. The lands in the territory belong to the general govern- ment, as trustee for the states. What is called the eminent domain, is vested in the United States " for the purposes of temporary government" alone. When the territory becomes a state, the new state succeeds at once to the rights of emi- nent domain — and nothing remains to the United States but the public lands. These principles are not new. They have been declared to be correct by the Supreme Court of the United States, in Pollard's Lessee vs. Hagan et al., 3d Howard's Rep. In that case the court say : " We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereign- ty, jurisdii tiou or right of soil, in aud to the territory of which Alabama or any of the new states were framed, except for temporary purposes, and to execute the trusts created by the acts of the Virginia and Georgia legislatures, and the deeds of the cession executed by them to the United Stntesj and the trusts created by the treaty with France, of 30th April. 1803, ceding Louisiana."' This decision then places the territories, as far as this principle is involved, all on tin' same footing, and the principle applicable to Ala- bama is therefore applicable to Kansas. The Supreme Court then say, further. "When Alabama was admitted into the Union, on an equal footing with the original states, she suc- ceeded to all the rights of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and eminent domain which Georgia possessed at the date of the cession, except so far as this right was diminished by the public lands remaining in possession and under control of the United States, for the temporary purposes provided for in the deed of cession. Nothing remained to the United States according to the terms of the agreement, and the legislative acts connected with it, but the public lands. And if an express stipulation had been inserted in the agreement. granting the municipal right of sovereignty and eminent domain to the Doited States, such stipulation would have been void and inoperative; because the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in cases in which it is expressly granted" (by the Federal Constitution). In the opinion of the court, then, it seems that neither an act of Congress requiring the assent of Kansas [nor an acceptance of that requirement by Kansas] to a disavowal of any right to the eminent domain over the public lands, would operate to confer on Congress any rights incident to the eminent domain, for such would be " void and inoperative." The lands belong to the United States. The sovereign-municipal power over them belongs to the states; and no act of Congress, or assent of Kansas, can alter this state of things. Let us apply these principles to the conference bill. The first and second of the conditions precedent required by Congress, it is now clear, are "void and inoperative" in the opinion of the Supreme Court, because Kansas had no right in the public lands, and therefore could no more interfere with their sale by their owner, than she could with a sale of his lauds by an individual citizen. The fourth condition precedent is of the same character, the Constitution of the United States forbidding a state to tax the property of a non-resident higher than similar pro- perty of a resident. See case of Wiley vs. Partner, 14 Ala- bama Iieports. These questions have all been adjudicated; and the courts have jurisdiction over them, and the Constitution of the United States prevails over any state enactment or even constitutional provision on the subject. These views were relied upon by Congress, when she ad- mitted California, a free-soil state, and at the same time rejected her land ordinance : and on these principles the Senate Kansas bill was based. Why were they so suddenly departed from in the conference bill ? The remaining conditions relate to the taxing powers of the state. No one contends that Congress can alter a constitutional power to tax, in a state constitution. The original thirteen states had that power, and were not required to concede it before admission ; and Kansas had a right to admission upon an equal footing with the old states. Suppose Kansas should say to the general government " I do not choose to yield my sovereign right to tax property within my borders for any quantity of land — I therefore will make no contract with you?" Will it be pretended that Congress could keep Kan- sas out of the Union on that account? If it is so contended, I demand the clause in the Constitution giving it that power. Congress may require that the constitution shall be republi- can — Congress may require that her boundaries be reason- able; but where does Congress get the power to restrict exercise of that highest attribute of sovereignty — the power to tax property within the limits of a new state? But it is replied, we claim no such power for Congress, we only claim that unless Kansas yields the right, she shall not be admitted. This yields the question that Congress has no right to force the state to restrict its taxing power, but claims that Congress may refuse admission of the state unless it is restricted! This is whipping the devil around the stump. It is using one power of Congress for the purpose of getting the exercise of another which does not belong to it. but I deny that Congress can make this a ground of refusal of admission. — because the treaty with France obtained the pledge of Congress to admit the inhabitants of the new territory "as soon as possible according to the principles of the Federal Constitution." The principles of that Constitution are that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor pro- hibited by it to the states, are reserved to the. states respectively. or to the people." The power to tax land within its borders is a •• reserved right." aud any attempt by Congress to force a grant of such a right by denying the state admission unless she yields it. in the face of that treaty stipulation, is in oppo- sition to the spirit aud " the priuciples of the Federal Con- stitution." It is said, however, that Kansas asked too much land and Congress should not have yielded to that request. I agree to this. But the acceptance or rejection of the land ordi- nance and the admission of the state, are two entirely distinct measures. The land ordinance and the constitution were two distinct matters — in no way dependent on each other — for the state may refuse to accept of any donation of land from the general government aud not yield one of her sove- reign rights. The new state was entitled to admission, but had no right to any more land than Congress should choose to give her. The state had a right to be in the Union, with or without land; and Congress on just principles was in duty bound to admit her; but might say to her. we reject your application for land, aud make another proposition, which the state could accept or reject. But Congress bad no right to say, your admission shall depend on your agreeing to our land proposition. Here is the vice of the conference bill, in a constitutional and legal view. Congress refused to the new state its undoubted right of admission, and in order to its enjoyment of that right demanded of the state the restriction of another of its rights. As a measure of policy, in my opinion, the conference bill was a bad one. The object of the free-soil opposition was to obtain a chance, through the vote of the people of Kansas, to destroy the Lecompton pro-slavery constitution. The object of the South was to force an issue with the North on the admission of a slave state. This was the legitimate issue arising under and designed by repeal of the Missouii com- promise. The South had, in every state, pledged itself to meet all the consequences of such issue. Far better had the issue been anet. The South had ione APPENDIX. 63 Its duty in using a.11 it* exertions to bring Kansas into the Uniou "in accordance with tho principles of the Constitu- tion." She had done it. knowing that the new state would be represented by free-soil Senators and Representatives. She had nobly performed her duty, without counting the cost. Why should she have hazarded her own unity, and compromised her position by further effort'; Gen. Davis answers and says, by this bill, "the country was relieved from au issue which, had it been presented us threatened, our honor, our safety, our respect for our ancestors, and our regard for our posterity, would have required the South to meet at whatever sacrifice." General Davis may be right, but the fact is that the North laughs at us. and we stand, not exactly a scorn unto ourselves, but certainly without any cause of congratulation at the result. What has been the effect ? To divide the South — to de- press the spirit of its people — to abate their confidence in their chosen leaders — to cause them to believe that they have lost all the substantial benefits which were expected to be re- alized by the country from the result of the canvass of 1856 — to create distrust and dissension among them. They were prepared for any result attendant upon forcing the naked, simple issue of the Kansas question — they were not prepared for its unfortunate denouement. Respectfully your fellow-citizen, _ W. L. Yancey. Debate on the Resources of the North and South. Hon. J. H. Hammond of South Carolina, in the Senate, March 4th, 1858. As I am disposed to see this question settled as soon as possible, and am perfectly willing to have a final and con- clusive settlement now, after what the Senator from New York has said, I think it not improper that I should attempt to bring the North and South face to face, and see what re- sounds each of us might have iu the contingency of separate organizations. If we never acquire another foot of territory for the South, look at her. Eight hundred and fifty thousand square miles. As large as Great Britain, France, Austria, Prussia, and Spain. Is not that territory enough to make an empire that shall rule the world? With the finest soil, the mo.-t, delightful climate, whose staple productions none of those great countries can grow, we have three thousand miles of continental shore line, so indented with bays and crowded with islands, that, when their shore lines are added, we have twelve thousand miles. Through the heart of our country runs the great Mississippi, the father of waters, into whose bosom are poured thirty-six thousand miles of tributary streams ; and beyond we have the desert prairie wastes, to protect us iu our rear. Can you hem in such a territory as that? You talk of putting up a wall of fire around eight hundred and fifty thousand square miles so situated! How absurd. But, in this territory lies the great valley of the Missis- sippi, now the real, and soon to be the acknowledged seat of the empire of the world. The sway of that valley will be as great as ever the Nile knew in the earlier ages of mankind. We own the most of it. The most valuable part of it belongs to us now ; and although those who have settled above us are now opposed to us, another generation will tell a different tale. They are ours by all the laws of nature ; slave labor will go over every foot of this great valley where it will be found profitable to use it, and some of those who may not use it are soon to be united with us by such ties as will make us one and inseparable. The iron horse will soon be clatter- ing over the sunny plains of the South to bear the products of its upper tributaries to our Atlantic ports, as it now does through the ice-bound North. There is the great Mississippi, a bond of union made by Nature herself. She will maintain it for ever. On this fine territory we have a population four times as large as that with which these colonies separated from the mother country, and a hundred. I might say a thousand fold Stronger. Our population is now sixty per cent, greater thau that of the whole United States when we entered into the second war of independence. It is as large as the whole population of the United States was ten years after the conclusion of that war, and our exports are three times as great as those of the whole United States then. Upon our muster-rolls we have a million of men. In a defensive war, upon an emergency, every one of them would be avail- able. At any time, the South can raise, equip, and maintain in the field, a larger army than any power of the earth can send against her. and an army of soldiers — men brought up on horseback, with guns in their hands If we take the North, even when the two large states of Kansas aud Minnesota shall be admitted, her territory will be one hundred thousand square miles less than ours. I do not speak of California and Oregon ; there is no antagonism between the South and those countries, and never will be. The population of the North is fifty per cent, greater than ours. I have nothing to say in disparagement either of the soil of the North, or the people of lhe North, who are a brave and energetic race, full of intellect. But they produce no great staple that the South does not produce: while we pro duce two or three, and those the very greatest, that she cat. never produce. As to her men, I may be allowed to say. they have never proved themselves to be superior to those of the South, either in the field or in the Senate, But the strength of a nation depends in a great measure upou its wealth, and the wealth of a nation, like that of a man, is to be estimated by its surplus production. You may- go to your trashy census books, full of falsehood and non- sense — they tell you, for example, that in the state of Ten- nessee, the whole number of house-servants is not equal to one-half those in my own house, and such things as that. You may estimate what is made throughout the country from these census books; but it is no matter how much is made if it is all consumed. If a man possess millions of dollars and consumes his income, is he rich? Is he com- petent to embark in any new enterprise? Can he build ships or railroads? And could a people in that condition build ships and roads or go to war? All the enterprises of peace and war depend upon the surplus productions of a people. They may be happy, they may be comfortable, they may enjoy themselves in consuming what they make; but they are not rich, they are not strong. It appears, by going to the reports of the Secretary of the Treasury, which are authentic, that last year the United States exported in round numbers $279,000,000 worth of domestic produce, excluding gold and foreign merchandise re-exported. Of this amount $158,000,000 worth is the clear produce of the South ; articles that are not and cannot be made at the North. There are then $SO,000,000 worth of exports of products of the forest, provisions, aud hreadstuffs. If we assume that the South made but one-third of these, and I thiuk that is a low calcu- lation, our exports were $185,000,000, leaving to the NortL less thau $95,000,000. In addition to this, we sent to the North $30,000,000 worth of cotton, which is not counted in the exports. We sent $7 or $8,000,000 worth of tobacco, which is not counted in the exports. We sent naval stores, lumber, rice, and many other minor articles. There is no doubt that we sent to the North $40,000,000 in addition; hut suppose the amount to he $35,000,000, it will give us a surplus production of $220,000,000. But the recorded exports of the Si roth now are greater than the whole exports of the United States in any year before 1856. They are greater than the whole average exports of the United States for the last twelve years, including the two extraordinary years of 1S56 and 1857. They are nearly double the amount of the average exports of the twelve preceding years. If I am right in my calculatious as to the $'220,000,000 of surplus produce, there is not a nation on the face of the earth, with any numerous population, that can compete with us in produce per capita. It amounts to $16.06 per head, supposing that we have twelve million people. England with all her accumulated wealth, with her concentrated and educated energy, make3 but sixteen-and-a-half dollars of surplus production per head. I have not made a calculation as to the North, with her $95,000,000 surplus ; admitting that she exports as much as we do, with her eighteen millions of population, it would be but little over twelve dollars a head. But she cannot export to us and abroad exceeding ten dollars a head against our sixteen dollars. I know well enough that the North sends to the South a vast, amount of the productions of her indus- try. I take it for granted that she. at least, pays us in that way for the thirty or forty million dollars worth of cotton and other articles we send her. I am willing to admit that she sends us considerably more; but to bring her up to our amount of surplus production, to bring her up to $220,000,000 a year, the South must take from her $125,000,000; ami this, in addition to our share of the con- sumption of the $oo3,000.000 worth introduced into the country from abroad, and paid for chiefly by our own ex- ports. The thing is absurd; it is impossible; it can never appear anywhere but in a book of statistics. With an export, of $220,000,000 under the present tariff, the South organized separately would have $40,000,000 of revenue. With one-fourth the present tariff she- would have a revenue adequate to all her wants, for the South would never go to war: she would never need an army or a navy, beyond a few garrisons on the frontiers and a few revenue cutters. It is commerce that breeds war. It is manufactures that require to be hawked about the world, that give rise to navies and commerce. But we ha\e nothing to do but to take off restrictions on foreign merchandise and open our ports, and the whole world will come to us to trade. They will be too glad to bring and carry for us. and we never shall dream of a war. Why the South has never yet had a just cause of war. Every time she has drawn her sword it has been on the point of honor, and that point of honor has been mainly loyalty to her sister colonies and sister states, who ha7e ever since plundered aud calumni- ated her. But if there were no other reason why we should never 764 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. have war. would any sane nation make wai on cotton? Without tiring a gun, without drawing a sword, should they make war on us we could bring the whole world to our feet. The South is perfectly competent to go on, one, two, or three years without planting a seed of cotton. I believe that if she was to plant but half her cotton, for three years tD come, it would be an immense advantage to her. I am not so sure but that after three years' total abstinence she would come out stronger than ever she was before, and bet- ter prepared to enter afresh upon her great career of enter- prise. What would happen if no cotton was furnished for three years? I will not stop to depict what every one can imagine, but this is certain: England would topple head- long and carry the whole civilized world with her. save the South. No, you dare not make war on cotton. No power on earth dares to make war upon it. Cotton is king. Un- til lately the Hank of Euglaud was king, but she tried to put her screws, as usual, the fall before last, upou the cotton crop, and was utterly vanquished. The last power has heeu conquered. Who can doubt that has looked at recent events, that cotton is supreme? Wheu the abuse of credit had destroyed credit and annihilated confluence, when thousands of the strongest commercial houses in the world were coming down, and hundreds of millions of dollars of supposed property evaporating in thin air, when you came to a dead lock, and revolutions were threatened, what brought you up? Fortunately for you it was the com- mencement of the cotton seasou, and we have poured in upon you one million six hundred thousand bales of cotton just at the crisis to save you from destruction. That cotton, but for the bursting of your speculative bubbles in the North, which produced the whole of this convulsion, would have brought us $100,000,000. We have sold it for $65,000,000, and saved you. Thirty-five million dollars we, the slave- holders of the South, have put iuto the charity box for your magnificent financiers, your ''cotton lords," your '■merchant princes." But, sir, the greatest strength of the South arises from the harmony of her political and social institutions. This harmony gives her a frame of society, the best in the world, and an extent of political freedom, combined with entire se- curity, such as no other people ever enjoyed upon the face of the earth. Society precedes government; creates it. aud ought to control it; but as far as we can look back in histo- ric times we find the case different; for government is no sooner created than it becomes too strong fur society, and shapes and moulds, as well as controls it. In later centuries the progress of civilization and of intelligence has made the divergence so great as to produce civil wars aud revolutions: aud it is nothing now but the want of harmony between governments and societies which occasions all the uneasi- ness and trouble and terror that we see abroad. It was this that brought on the American revolution. W r e threw off a government not adapted to our social system, and made one for ourselves. The question is. how far have we succeeded ? The South, so far as that is concerned, is satisfied, harmo- nious, and prosperous. In all social systems there must be a class to do the me- nial duties, to perform the drudgery of life. That is. a class requiring but a low order of Intellect and but little skill. Its requisites are vigor, docility, fidelity. Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress, civilization, and refinement. It constitutes the very mud-sill of society aud of political government; and you miu r ht as well attempt to build a house in the air. as to build either the one or the other, except on this mud-sill. Fortunately for the South, she found a race adapted to that purpo.-e to her hand. A race inferior to her own. but emi- nently qualified in temper, in vigor, in docility, in capacity to stand the climate, to answer all her purposes. We use them for our purpose, and call them slaves. We found them slaves by the •■common consent of mankind." which, ac- cording to Cicero, li lex natural est." The highest proof of what is Nature's law. We are old-fashioned at the South yet; it is a word discarded now by '-ears polite;" I will not characterize that class at the North with that term; but you have it; it is there — it, is everywhere — it is eternal. The Senator from New York said yesterday that the whole world had abolished slavery. Ay, the name, but not the thing; all the powers of the earth cannot abolish that. God only can do it when he repeals the fiat, -the poor ye always have with you;" for the man who lives by daily labor, and scarcely lives at that, and who has to pot out bis labor in the market, and take the best he can get for it : in short, your whole hireling class of manual laborers and "operatives," as you call them, are essentially slaves. The difference between us is. that our slaves are hired for life and well compensated; there is no starvation, no begging, no want of employment among our people, and not too much employment either. Yours are hired by the day. not cared for. and scantily compensated, which may be proved in the most painful manner, at any hour, in any street, in any of your large towns. Why, you meet more beggars in one day. in any single street of the city of New York, than you would meet iu a lifetime iu the whole South. We do not think that whites should be slaves either by law or ne- cessity. Our slaves are black, of another and inferior race. The status in which we have placed them is an elevation. They are elevated from the condition iu which God first created them, by being made our slaves. None of that race on the whole face of the globe can be compared with the slaves of the South. They are happy, content, unaspiring) aud utterly incapable, from intellectual weakness, ever to give us any trouble by their aspirations. Yours are white, of your owd race; you are brothers of one bl I. They are your equals in natural eudowmeut of intellect, aud they feel galled by their degradation. Our slaves do not vote. We give them no political power. Yours do vote, and being the majority, they are the depositaries of all your political power. If they knew the tremendous secret, that the bal- lot-box is stronger than "an army with banners," and could combine, where would you be? Your society would be re- constructed, your government overthrown, your property divided, not as they have mistakenly attempted to initiate such proceedings, by meeting in parks, with aims in their hand-;, but by the quiet process of the baliot-box. You have been making war upou us to our very hearthstones. How would you like for us to send lecturers and agitators North, to teach these people this, to aid iu combining, aud to lead them ? Mr. Wilson and others. Send them along. Mr. HAMMOND. You say send them along. There is no need of that. Your people are awaking. They are coming here. They are thundering at our doors for homesteads, one hundred and sixty acres of land for nothing, and Southern Seuators are supporting them. Nay. they are assembling, as I have said, with arms in their hands, and demanding work at $1000 a year for six hours a day. Have you heard that the ghosts of Mendoza and Torquetnada are stalking in the streets of your great cities? That the inquisition is at hand? There is afloat a fearful rumor that there have heeu consultations for Yigilance Committees. You know what that means. Transient and temporary causes have thus far been your preservation. The great West has been open to your sur- plus population, and your hordes of semi-barbarian immi- grants, who are crowding iu year by year. They make a great movement, and you call it progress. Whither '( It is progress; but it is progress towards Vigilance Committees. The South have sustained you in a great measure. You are our factors. You bring and carry for us. One hundred and fifty million dollars of our money passus annually through your hands. Much of it sticks; all of it assists to keep your machinery together and iu motion. Suppose we were, to discharge you; suppose we were to take our business ou| of your hands; we should consign you to anarchy and poverty. You complain of the rule id the South : that has been another cause that has preserved you. We have kept the government conservative to the great purposes of go- vernment. We have placed her, and kept her, upon the Constitution; and Unit has been the cause ot your peaoe and prosperity. The Senator from New York says that that is about to be at an end; that you intend to take the government from us: that it will pass from our hands. Perhaps what he says is true; it may be: but, do not forget — it can never be forgotten — it is written on the brightest page of human history — that we, the slaveholders of the South, took our country in her infancy, and. after ruling her for sixty out of the seventy years of her existence, we shall surrender her to you without a stain upon her honor, boundless in prosperity, incalculable in her strength, the wonder and the admiration of the World. Time will show what you will make of her; ""ut no time can ever diminish our glory or your responsibili.y. Hon. Henry Wilson of Massachusetts, in the Senate, March 20th, 185S. There were. Mr. President, in the year 1850. in the free states. 877,000 farms, containing 108,000,000 acres, valued at $2,143,000,000; being about $20 per acre. The products of these farms amounted to more than $860,000,000. There were, in the slave states. 564.000 farms, containing 180.000,000 acres, valued at $1,117,000,000. being about $0 per acre; and the products of these plantations amounted to about $630,000,000. The farms of the free states averaged about 120 acres; the slave state plantations averaged more than 300 acres. The 34.000 firms of cold, stei ile Massachusetts, aver- aging 99 acres each, embrace 3.500.000 acres, valued at $32.50 per acre, amounting to $112,000 out); the 30,000 plan- tations of South Carolina, averaging 540 acres each, embrace lti.000.000 of acres, valued at $5.08 per acre, amounting to $S2.000.000. The farms of the free states are cultivated by 2,500.000 persons, and yield a production <>f nearly $8 per acre, and mor<- than $3 10 per bead to each person : the plan- tations of the slave states are tilled by more than 3.250.000 persons, and they yield a production of less than $4 per acre, and less than $200 per bead to each persoo. Turning, Mr. President, from the agriculture of the two sections, let us glance at the manufactures. Here the supe- APPENDIX. 765 riority of the North stands confessed. In 1S50, the North had 94,000 establishments; $430,000,000 of capital invested ; $465,000,000 of raw material were used; 780,000 persons employed: $196,000,000 were paid for labor; and $842,000,000 were produced. The South had only 27,000 establishments, $95,000,000 of capital ; used $80,000,000 of raw material ; employed 161,000 persons; paid $33,000,000 for labor; and produced $165,000,000. Massachusetts had 8300 establish- ments; $83,000,000 of capital; used $86,000,000 of raw ma- terial; employed 1 65. 0U0 persons; paid $10,000,000 for labor: and produced $151,000,000. South Carolina had only 1400 establishments': $7,000,000 capital ; used $4,000,000 of raw material ; employed 12.000 persons; paid $2,300,000 for labor; and produced $0,700,000. The wages of women are higher in the cotton-mills of Massachusetts than the wages of men in the iron works of South Carolina. The produc- tive industry of Massachusetts, in manufactures and the mechauie arts, have increased immensely since 1850. It now averages $280 per head ; and the productive industry of South Carolina according to De Bow, is $62 per head. De Bow estimates, Mr. President, that one-half of the agri- cultural products, and all of the manufactures, are subjects of commerce. If this be so, the value of the products which enter into the commerce of the North is about $1,400.000.000 : Talue of products of the South, $4SO.000,0O0. The value of the domestic commerce of the country is estimated to be six times larger than the value of the foreign commerce. The imports and exports of the North amounted in 1855 to $400,000,(100: the exports and imports of the South to $132,000,000. The imports and exports of the city of New York amounted to $278,000.000 — more than twice the value of the imports and exports of the South. Massachusetts ex- ported and imported in 1855. $73.000.000 ; South Carolina, §14.000,000. The North had. in 1850, 188.000 persons engaged in commerce; the South. 70.000. Glancing at the means of transportation, we find that the North had. in 1855. 4.250.000 tons of shipping, valued at $212,000,000; the South, S55.000 tons of shipping, valued at $42,000,000. The North built 528,000 tins in 1855; the South built 52,000. Massachusetts had, in that year, 970.000 tons of shipping, valued at $18,000,000; South Caro- lina had 60.000 tons, valued at $3,000,000. Massachusetts built 80.000 tons, valued at $4,000,000; South Carolina built 60 tons, valued at $3000. The North has 18,000 miles of railroads, costing $560,000,000; the South 7000, costing $125,000,000. i'oor .Massachusetts, that produces no rice, makes up uo part of "King Cotton," has $55,000,000 in- vested in railroads within her own borders, to say nothing of the many millions she has invested in other states. She has $60,000,000 of bank capital, and her poor " white slaves,"' her " mud-sills ." have $35,000,000 deposited in her savings banks. Rich South Carolina, with her rice and her cotton, has invested $12,000,000 in railroads: she has $17,000,000 of bank capital ; but. unhappily, we have uo statements of how many millious her '• well-compensated," " unaspiring" labor- ers have on deposit. Perhaps the Senator from South Caro- lina can furnish us with those statistics. From this contrast of the productive industry and mate- rial resources of the two sections which the Senator from South Carolina put " face to face," I pass to a brief conside- ration of their institutions and means of intellectual culture. In the slave states, laws forbid the education of nearly four millions of her people ; in the free states, laws encourage the education of the people, and public opinion upholds and enforces those laws. In 1850, there were 62,000 schools, 72,000 teachers, 2.800.000 scholars, in the public schools of the free states: in the slave states, there were 18,000 schools, 19,001) teachers, and 580.000 scholars. Massachusetts has nearly 200,000 scholars in her public schools, at a cost of $1,300,000; South Carolina has 17.000 scholars in her public schools: $75,000 is paid by the state, and the governor, in 1853, said that " under the present mode of applying it, it was the profusion of the prodigal rather than the judicious generosity which confers real benefits." New York has more scholars in her public schools than all the slave states together. Ohio has 502.000 scholars in her public schools. supported at an expanse of $2,250,000. Kentucky has 70.000 scholars, supported at an expense of $146,000. The free states had. in 1S60. more than 15.000 libraries, containing 4.000.000 volumes: the slave states had 700 libra- ries, containing 650.000 volumes. Massachusetts, the land of '• hireling operatives," has 1800 libraries, which contain not less than 750.000 volumes — more libraries and volumes than all the slave states combined. The little state of Rhode Island, a mere patch of 1300 square miles on the surface of New England, has more volumes in her libraries than have the five great states of Georgia. Florida. Alabama, Mis- sissippi, and Louisiana. De Bow. good Southern authority, says that, in every country, the press must be regarded as a great educational agency. The free states had. in 1850, 1800 newspapers, with a circulation of 335.000.000; the slave states had, at that time, 700 newspapers, with a circu- lation of 81,000,000. The free states have seven times as many religious papers, and twelve times as many scientific papers, as the South. Massachusetts has more religious papers than all the slaveholding states of the Union. She has a circulation of 2,000.000 for her scientific papers; the Smith has but 372,000. The " hireling operatives, mechanics, and laborers." the very "mud-sills" of society, read five times as many copies of scientific papers as the entire South, including that class which, the Senator tells us. leads "pro- gress, civilization, and refinement." Nine-tenths of the book publishers of the United States are in the free States. The Charleston Standard, good authority with the Senator, tells us •• that their pictures are painted at the North, their books published at the North, their periodicals printed at the North; that, should a man rise with the genius of Shakspeare. or Dickens, or Fielding, or all three combined, and speak from the South, he would not receive enough to pay the cost of publication." That class, that favored class, which leads, as the Senator tells us, " progress, civilization, and refinement," force the literary talent to the North, the home of '■ hireling operatives," to find, not only publishers, but readers also. lion. Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, in the Senate, May 20th. 1858, in reply to Senator Hammond. In this portion of the Senator's remarks I concur. I do not think whites should be slaves: and if slavery is to exist in this country. I prefer black slavery to white slavery. But what I want to get at is, to show that my worthy friend from South Carolina should defeud the homestead policy, and the impolicy of making the invidious remarks that have been made here in reference to a portion of the population of the United States. Mr. President, so far as I am con cerned, I feel that I can afford to speak what are my senti- ments. I am no aspirant for anything on the face of God Almighty's earth. I have reached the summit of my ambi tion. The acme of all my hopes has been attained, and 1 would not give the position I occupy here to-day for any other in the United States. Hence, I say, I can afford tr speak what I believe to bo true. In one sense of the term we are all slaves. A man is a slave to his ambition; he is a slave to his avarice ; he is a slave to his necessities; and, in enumerations of this kind, you can scarcely find any man, high or low in society, but who, in some sense, is a slave; but they are not slaves in the sense we mean at the South, and it will not do to assume that every man who toils for his living is a slave. If that be so. all are slaves; for all must toil more or less, mentally or physically. But. in the other sense of the term, we are not slaves. Will it do to assume that the man who labors with his hands, every man who is an operative in a manu- facturing establishment or a shop, is a slave? No, sir; that will not do. 'Will it do to assume that every man who does not own slaves, but has to live by* his own labor, is a slave? That will not do. If this were true, it would be very unfor- tunate for a good many of us, and especially so for me. I am a laborer with my hands, and I never considered myself a slave, in the acceptation of the term slave in the South. I do own some; I made them by my industry, by the labor of my hands. In that sense of the term 1 should have been a slave while I was earning them with the labor of my hands. .Mr. Hammond. Will the Senator define a slave? Mr. Johnson of Tennessee. What we understand to be a slave in the South, is a person who is held to service during his or her natural life, subject to, and under the control of, a master who has the right to appropriate the products of his or her labor to his own use. The necessities of life, and the various positions in which a man may be placed, opera- ted upon by avarice, gain, or ambition, may cause him to labor; but that does not make a slave. How many men are there in society who go out and work with their own hands, who reap in the field, and mow in a meadow, who hoe corn, who work in the shops? Are they slaves? If we were to go back and follow out this idea, that every operative and laborer is a slave, we should find that we have hid a great many distinguished slaves since the world commenced. Socrates, who first conceived the idea of the immortality of the soul, l'agan as he was, labored with his own hands;— yes. wielded the chisel and the mallet, giving polish and finish to the stone; he afterwards turned to be a fashioner and constructor of the mind. Paul, the great expounder, himself was a tent-maker, aud worked with his hands: was he a slave? Archimedes, who declared that, if he had a place on which to rest the fulcrum, with the power of his lever be could move the world : was he a slave ? Adam, our great father and head, the lord of the world, was a tailor by trade: I wonder if he was n slave? When we talk about laborers and operatives, look at the columns that adorn this Chamber, and see their finish aud style. We are lost in admiration at the architecture of your buildings, and their massive cilumns. We can speak with admiration. What would it have been but for hands to construct it? Was the artisan who worked upon it a slave ? Let us go to the South and see how the matter stands there. Is every man that is not a slaveholder to be denominated a slave because he labors? Why indulge in such a notion ? The argument cuts at both ends of the line, and these kind 7G6 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of doctrines do us infinite harm in the South. There are operatives there; there are laborers there; there are mecha- nics there. Are they slaves?. Who is it in the South that gives us title and security to the institution of slavery? Who is it, let me ask every Southerner around me? Sup- pose, for iustance, we take the state of South Carolina; and there are many things about her and her people that I admire: we find that the 384,984 slaves in South Carolina are owned by how many whites ? They are owned by 25,55b. Take the state of Tennessee, with a population of 800,000 ; 239,000 slaves are owned by 33,864 persons. The slaves in the state of Alabama are owned by 29,295 whites. The Whole number of slaveholders in all the slave states, when summed up, makes 347,000, owning three and a half million slaves. The white population in South Carolina is 274,000 ; the slaves greater than the whites. The aggregate popula- tion of the state is 668,507. The operatives in South Carolina are 68,549. Now, take the 25.000 slave-owners out, and a large proportion of the people of South Carolina work with their hands. Will it do to assume that, in the state of South Carolina, the state of Tennessee, the state of Alabama, and the other slavehold- ing states, all those who do not own slaves are slaves them- selves? Will this assumption do? What does it do at home in our own states? It has a tendency to raise prejudice, to engender opposition to the institution of slavery itself. .Yet our own folks will do it. Mr. Mason. Will the Senator from Tennessee allow me to interrupt him for a moment? Mr. Johnson of Tennessee. Yes, sir. Mr. Mason. The Senator is making an exhibition of the very few slaveholders in the Southern states, in proportion to the white population, according to the census. That is an exhibition which has been made before by Senators who sit on the oth r side of the Chamber. They have brought before the A is. ilcan people what they allege to be the fact, shown by the ceusus, that of the white population in the Southern states, there are very few who are slave- holders. The Senator from Tennessee is now doing the same thing. I understand him to Kiy there are but some — I do not remember exactly the numbers, but I think three hundred thousand or a fraction more of the whites in the slaveholding states, who own three million slaves; but he made no further exposition. 1 ask the Senator to state the additional fact that the holders of the slaves are the heads of families of the white population ; and neither that Sena- tor nor those whose example he has followed on the other side, has stated the fact that the white population in the Southern states, as in the other states, embraces men, women, and children. He has exhibited only the number of slaveholders who are heads of families. Mr. Johnson of Tennessee. The Senator says I have not made an exhibit of the fact. The Senator interrupted me before I had concluded. I gave way as a matter of courtesy to him. Perhaps his speech would have had no place, if he had waited to hear me a few moments longer. Mr. Mason. I shall wait. 1 thought the Senator had passed that point. Mr. Johnson of Tennessee. I was stating the fact, that according to the census tables three hundred and forty-seven thousand white persons owned the whole number of slaves in the Southern states. I was about to state that the families holding these slaves might average six or eight or ten per- sons, all of whom are interested in the products of slave labor, and many of these slaves are held by minors and by females. I was not alluding to the matter for the purpose the Senator from A'irginia seems to have intimated, and I should have been much obliged to him if he had waited until he heard my application of these figureB. I was going to show that expressions like those to which I have alluded operate against us in the South, and I was following the ex- ample of no one. I was taking these facts from the census tables, which were published by order of Congress, to show the bad policy and injustice of declaring that the laboring portion of our population were slaves and menials. Such declarations should not be applied to the people either North or South. I wished to say in that connexion, that, in my opinion, if a few men at the North and at the South, who entertain extreme views on the subject of slavery, and desire to keep up agitation, were out of the way, the great mass of the people, .North and South, would go on prosper- ously and harmoniously under our institutions. Extract from the speech of the Hon J M. Sandidge of Louisiana, delivered in the House of Representatives, March 30th, 1858. It is said, that " figures won't lie." and I will now proceed with my principal purpose in seeking the floor to day. But, sir, I shall coutrast no one state with another, the least prosperous of one section against the most prosperous of the other section : that will do well enough for claptrappery on the stump — to arouse sectional animosity or party feeling. I shall put the whole North against the entire South, and then let him strike the balance, who can, to our disparage- ment. I invite my friends on both sides of the House to follow me in my statements, and to correct any errors I may make. 1 have taken as authorities, the census of 1850, and thfl Iieport of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1857. on Com- merce and Navigation. I state, as an undeniable fact, that the agricultural pro- ductions of the Southern states, for the year 1850, show that each inhabitant, of all classes, produced §13 and 30 cent* more than each individual at the North. 1 state that the average agricultural productions at the South was $58 to each person, when at the North it was only $44 and 70 cents. From the table I have prepared, showing the products of different kinds in all the states, I read that the total agri- cultural productions for 1850 amouuted to ($1,164,457,783,)— say one thou.^and one hundred and sixty-four millions of dollars. And, of this sum. the North produced in round numbers, six hundred and four millions, and the South five hundred and sixty millions. I will now continue the tables on the agricultural pro- ductions. Total value agricultural products . . . $1,164,457,783 " " " North . . . 603"5,018 " " " South . . . 560,682,765 Population of United States, 23.191,876 for 1850, will give for average production by each person. $50 and 20 cents. Population North, 13,527.220— each person $44.70 Population South. 9.664,656— each person $58.00 Now, if we deduct from all our agricul- tural products, the amount exported, to wit $118,750,118 We will have left for home consumption $1,045,707,665 Which shows that each person consumed $45.08 The North consumed $609,880,612 The South consumed $435,827,053 Hence, it appears, that the North had a deficiency in 1850, of agricultural pro- ducts, to the value of $6,105,594 Whereas, the South had a surplus of . . $124,855,712 Or each person at the North consumed 38 cents worth more than he produced; whereas, at the South, each person produced $12.90 more than he consumed. We will now examine the table of the products of manu- factures, mines, aud mechanic arts. On page 179, Census, we find the value of all these products of the United States, de- ducting value of raw material, to be . . $45S,681,425 The North produced . . . $378,305,175 The South produced . . . 80,370.250 J $408 : 6S1,425 Let us deduct the manufactures exported in 1850. which amounted to $18,196,797 And we have left for domestic consumption $440,484,628 Being at the rate of $19 to each person. Now the North consumed at that rate . . $257,017,180 And the South consumed $183,467,443 Thus, it appears, that the South bad to purchase from the North $103,091,198 of manufactures, to make up her de- ficiencies; which she paid for out of her surplus of agricul- tural products, which was $124,855,712, and then there was left to the South, a surplus of $21,764,514, for the year 1850. I now propose to show, that at the South, we cultivate more land to each person, and that the cost of the land at the South is v°ry little more than half the cost of land at the North, and ytt at the South the produce is only 19 cents to the acre less, in value, than at the North. On page 169, Census. Total improved acres 113,032.614 In the Southern slates . . . 54,986,594 In the Northern states and ter- ritories 58,046.020 113.0.32,614 So that, at the Soutb, there are 5.68 improved acres to each inhabitant, and at the North 4.29 to each. The total value of faims $3,271,575,426 Value in Southern st.ites 1,119.380.109 Value in Northern states and territories . 2.152,195,317 So that at the South the acre costs $20.37; but at the North $37.07. Now, the agricultural products of the North were, as we have seen, $603,775,018, being $10.39 to each acre, and at the South $10.20 to each acre; and at the South there are 5.68 acres to each person; in the North 4.29 acres to each person. Hence, at the South.it is evident, that each person working land, costing $115.82, produces $58; but in the North, each person working land costing $159, produces but $44.70. Or, in other words, the agriculturalist at the South can produce $13.30 more than an agriculturalist at the North out of hi* land, though the land of the latter costs $43 more. APPENDIX. 67 1 state another fact. The value of the farming utensils In the South averages more to each inhabitant than in the North. Page 169, Census. In the South, the value is $65,385,845 In the North 86.201.793 Which is $6.76 to each person in the South ; and $0.37 to each person in the North. I state another fact. The value of live stock at the South averages more to each inhabitant than in the North to each person. Page 171-174. Total value live stock. United States . . . $544,1S0,516 Live stock South .... $253,795,330 " " North .... 290,385,186 So there are $26.26 to each person in the South; and $21.46 to each person in the North. I state another fart. The value of slaughtered animals in the South is one-fourth more to each person than the value of the same product in the North to each person. On page 171-174, the total value of slaughtered animals was $111,706,925 In the South $54,399,298 In the North 57,307,627 So that, to each person in the South, there were $5.62 ; to each in the North, $4.23. I state another fact which I trust gentlemen will not forget. The value of the real and personal estate in the South gives a greater average to each person, slaves in- cluded, than the same kind of property in the North does to each person; the average being one-fourth more in the South than in the North. On page 190, Census. Total value in United States $6,024,666,909 In the South $2,828,665,954 In the North 3,196,000,955 Showing to each person South, $292. and to each person North, $237. But if the value of the slaves be added thereto, at a very low estimate. $1,500,000,000 more would be given to the South ; and then her average would show $447 to each person, including the slaves; but. leaving them out, the average would give $700 to each white person — or nearly three times as much as to each person iu the North. I now come to some statistics which may surprise those who are accustomed to speak of the ignorance of the South, and its destitution of common school advantages. I find that in the support of schools, colleges, and academies, to each white inhabitant between the ages of five and twenty years, the Southern states expend 60 cents more than the Northern states on each of the persons between the same ages. The total number of whites in the South, between the age of five and twenty, is, . 2.350.104 And the amount expended is $6,819,808 Being $2.90 for each person. In the North, the number is 4,784.869 And the amount expended is $11,004,523 Being $2.30 for each person (see page 143, Census). I do not pretend to say education derived from books is as generally diffused amongst our people as at the North ; the North has greatly the advantage in this respect, origi- nating in the difference between the density of the principal populations in the two sections. At the North, children. crowded in cities, towns, and thickly settled communities. can be sent to schools within reach. This is not the case with us, ours are an agricultural people, always seeking the greatest amount of " elbow room." I believe there remains but one more table to examine. and that can be found on page of the census, showing the number of families occupying each dwelling house. In the New England states there are lloi families to each 100 houses. In the Middle states there are 1124, families to each 100 houses. In the Southern states there are 100f families to each 100 houses. So that fewer families are placed in one dwelling in the South than in the North. I think I have conclusively shown that under all the heads, except that of newspapers (which I did not examine), and the more general diffusion of letters at the North, the south stands foremost. Her soil is not mpoverished, for we have shown that, working less hands o the acre, on land costing a little more than half what it cost at the North, the South produces to each person $13.30 more than the land in the North does. I now a.«k wherein does slavery cramp and c!oures of retrenchment and reform, and thus furnish practical evidence of your dlspost tion to remedy what you consider existing evils in th« administration of the government and in our system of legislation. Another question which has attracted a large share of public attention is the proper disposition to be made of the public lands. It is undeniably true that the Opposition in the North and North-west, as a party, are committed to the policy of railroad grants. In the Thirty-fourth Congress, when the Opposition had undisputed control in this House, the House Committee on Public Lands reported seven bills, making grants of alternate sections of land, six sections in width on each side of the respective roads, to the states of Iowa. Florida and Alabama, Alabama, Louisiana, Wiscon- sin, Michigan, and Mississippi, covering 13,686,304 acres. A like grant was also made to the territory of Minnesota, which passed the Senate by yeas 32, nays 10. Of the yeas, 21 were Democrats. 9 Republicans, and 2 Fillmore-Americans. The 10 who voted in the negative were all Democrats. When this bill came to the House, it was amended by a grant for Alabama, and as amended was passed by yeas 87, nays 60. Of the yeas, 60 were Republicans, 18 Democrats, and 9 Fill- more-Americans. Of the nays, 22 were Republicans, 28 Democrats, and 10 Fillmore-Americans. If I had time I would refer to the votes on such bills, on other occasions, to show that the Opposition cannot be relied upon to hus- band the public lands, and so to manage them that they may be a source of revenue to the government. In my view, such dispositions of the public lands are wrong in principle, unjust to the old states, and of mischievous policy. Such grants build up monopolies, and monopolies are always prejudicial to individual interests and the equal rights of all. In 1848 the Opposition raised the cry of extravagance against the Democratic party, and, in the then existing con- dition of the public mind, succeeded in obtaining possession of the government. Taylor and Fillmore were elected to the Presidency and Vice-Presidency of the United States, and entered upon the discharge of their duties on the 4th of March, 1849. They came into power avowing their purpose to retrench expenditures and reform abuses which were alleged to exist under the administration of their predeces- sors; and the people were induced to believe that these great results would be attained. During the administration of Mr. Polk, the duty of carrying on the war with Mexico de- volved upon him; and, as a necessary consequence, the annual expenditures were much larger than, under other circumstances, they would have been. In the four years his expenditures amounted (exclusive of the public debt) to $165,381,026.58 — being an annual average expenditure of $41,345,256.69. In the four years of Taylor and Fillmore the expenditures (exclusive of the public debt) amounted to $165,683,650.48 — being an annual average expenditure of $41,420,912.62. The Whig Administration, therefore, of Taylor and Fillmore, cast the people $75,656.04 a year more, in a time of profound peace, than the Democratic Adminis- tration of Polk cost them in a time of war. If such was the result in that instance, may we not reasonably antici- pate a like result if the Opposition shall succeed in the next presidential struggle 1 The same men who elected Taylor and Fillmore now constitute the body of the Opposi- tion arrayed against the present eminently patriotic admi- uistrati'ui. It is known to this committee that during my entire service in this body I have labored zealously to reduce ex- p'liditures. So decided has been my public action on this subject that it has subjected me to the fierce denunciations of agents and all others interested in large expenditures of the public money. Indeed, many of my political associates in the Ilouse, whose views upon this subject are more liberal than my own, not unfrequently complain of the course which a sense of duty to those I represent constrains me to pursue. While I have resisted all appropriations for custom-house, marine hospital, court-house, post office, ter- ritorial and district buildings which are now dotted over this district, the states and territories, and in the construc- tion of which millions of dollars have been most profligately dissipated, the Opposition in this House at the last session of the last Congress succeeded iu appropriating for the6« objects no less a sum than $5,445,651.48. The appropria- tions for these objects alone, during the Thirty-fourth Con- gress, amounted to the monstrous sum of $8,633,390.48 ! I The country will be astonished to learn that for the Capitol extension, the dome, and a few works of art, $4,970,000 have been appropriated since 1852. An enormous amount has also been appropriated to the aqueduct, that can only be told in millions. I have resisted all these things to the extent of my feeble ability, but who of the Opposition has come to my aid ? Js'ow and then, some one of them has raised bis voice in opposition, but it is undeniable that an overwhelm- ing majority of that party has voted for them. The 19th amendment of the Senate to the civil bill at this session made appropriations for eleven custom-houses, in different parts of the country, and on agreeing to that amendment the vote was — yeas 50 (Democrats 18, Opposition 32). nays 73 (Democrats 51, Opposition 22). I hav* ■•agisted the in- APPENDIX. 777 «*ase of salaries, and the multiplication of officers and go- vernment employees ; aud have, in all fair and honorable modes, endeavored to reduce the expenditures to the lowest practicable amount consistent with a proper regard to the public interest and an effective administration of the go- vernment. Such has been my course as a representative of the people, and I now. tender to the gentleman my cordial co-operation in all wise, just, and proper measures which he or his friends may propose for the reformation of abuses or the reduction of expenditures. I think the expenditures may be curtailed without detriment to the public service ; that the number of officers may be diminished and many sala- ries reduced without prejudice or embarrassment to the prompt, intelligent, and faithful disposition of the public business. The gentleman will find this side of the House ready to second all efforts he may make to this end, and all he has to do is to introduce his measures at the earliest practicable moment. He has been rather dilatory hereto- fore, considering the magnitude and importance of the work before him, but still there is ample time during the next session to accomplish all that may be needed to inaugurate his reign of economy. There is still another point — the " endless jobs and con- tracts" — to which the gentleman has referred. What those "jobs and contracts'' are I have no means of knowing, and the gentleman has not informed me. For all "jobs and con- tracts" that were to let, I imagine at least one bidder could have been found among the Republicans in the last Con- gress. The results of the investigation at the close of the last session showed very conclusively that some of the Re- publicans kept an eye wide open to " the main chance," and that they were the recipients of such plunder as was to be appropriated and enjoyed. Suspicion attached to no mem- ber of the Democratic party in that House. I heard this remark, in regard to "jobs and contracts," with no small degree of surprise, from the gentleman from Ohio, and I am sure, from my knowledge of him, that, in his moments of calm reflection, he will see the injustice he has done to the officers of the government. In this connection permit me to say that the Democratic party passed the tariff bill of 1857 — a measure of vast in- terest and importance to all sections of the country. At the present session an investigation into the mode of its passage was ordered, and it is a source of pride and pleasure to find that not a member of the Democratic party of either the House or Senate could be found who was even sus- pected of being influenced in his action upon this measure by pecuniary or other improper considerations. I have heard it said often and again in the House, during the j.rei«nt session, vote for expenditures, and thus create the necessity for a revival of the doctrine of protection for " protection's sake." The opposition, aided by a fraction of the Democratic party, have acted upon this principle, and have accordingly voted for numerous items of expenditure not recommended either by the ['resident or the heads of departments. Complaint has succeeded complaint that a high protective policy has not been recommended by the administration. If it had been recommended and success- fully carried out by legislation, what practical end could it have accomplished ? Our exports have fallen off more than twenty per cent, and our imports have fallen off more than fifty per cent, as compared with last year, as the following facts demonstrate most conclusively. Exports from January to May, inclusive, in the year 1857. amount- ed to $46,460,641 For 1858 36.516.465 Importations of foreign goods, including specie, from January to May, inclusive, for the year 1857, amounted to $105,590,501 For 1858 51,668,192 Our revenue is mainly derived from imports; and. if the importations fall off. the receipts of the government must be reduced in a corresponding ratio. Under the recent revul- sion, which prostrated commerce, trade, and business, the importations were necessarily reduced to so great an extent that the revenue from that source fell greatly short of the sum which, under ordinary circumstances, would have flown into the treasury, and hence the necessity of borrow- ing an amount of money sufficient to supply the deficiency until the financial storm should blow over, and commerce, trade, and business of all kinds should again resume their wonted activity. That time is coming, and by the mouth of August or September we shall, in all probability, have a pretty lively trade, and it will continue to improve to the first of the next year. But, say the gentleman from Ohio and his friend from Rhode Island, [Mr Duryee] something must be done for the manjfacturers. The tariff of last year must be over- thrown and substituted by a measure more highly protec- tive — a measure something like ihat of 184:2. The manu- facturers of cottons, woollens, and th" iron and coal inter- ests of the nation, imperatively require a change that will give them greater protection. From the complaints made by the geatleman from Rhode Island we would be natural- ly brought to the conclusion that the manufacturing inter- est was the only one that had been affected by the financial storm that has swept over the country. But it is not so. All other interests have suffered and are as greatly depressed. In the South, the East, and the West, all business is seri- ously depressed, and they could with as much propriety demand from the Federal Government relief from their pe- cuniary embarrassments. If the tariff of 1857 prostrated the iron and coal interests, and the cotton and woollen in- terests in the North, what has caused the embarrassment and depression in these and all other branches of industry and trade in the other sections of the Union? I do not pro- pose to enter into a general discussion of this subject at the present time. I will content myself with a few facts in re- gard to the production of iron in our own country, to show that, whatever embarrassment may now attend this inter- est, it is not justly attributable to our tariff legislation in the last Congress. In 1809 the production of iron of all kinds in our country was about 50,000 tons. In 1820, owing to the war, it ran down to about 10,000 tons. Between the years 1820 and 1826 it rose steadily until it reached 100,000 tons. In 1828 it rose to 110,000 tons ; in 1830, to 190,000 tons ; in 1833, to 210,000 tons. In this year the compromise-tariff measure was adopted, under the operations of which the duties were regularly reduced each year. Between the years 1833 and 1840 the production steadily increased, until in the latter year it reached 310,000 tons. In 1842 it dropped down to 240,000 tons. Between the years 1842 and 1846, after the railroad fever had broken out in our country, it rose to 775,000 tons. The production continued to increase until in 1848 it retsched 800,000 tons. In 1849 it sunk to 640,000 sons; in 1850, to 560,000 tons; and continued to fall until, in 1852, it had reached 500,000 tons. In 1853 it rose rapidly to 650,000 tons; in 1854, to 800,000 tons; and continued to rise until, in 1855, it reached 1,000,000 tons. If the theory of gentlemen now contended for be true, I call upon them to explain how it was that, under the operation of the tariff of 1846, the production sunk from 800,000 tons in 1848 (two years after the bill was passed) to 500,000 tons in 1852 ; and again, I call upon them to explain how (under the operation of the same tariff) the production rose, in the short space of three years, frym 500,000 tons in 1S52 to 1,000,000 tons in 1855? These facts are important, and eminently deserve consideration. In my view they demonstrate conclusively the fallacy of the opposition theory, which charges the depres- sion of the iron interest to the tariff legislation of the last Congress. The revulsion through which we are now passing is justly chargeable to individual imprudence, and not to governmental action. We live in an age of the world characterized most strongly by individual and social extra- vagance. Extravagance has its punishment in poverty, and our commercial, mechanical, agricultural, and manufac- turing interests, as well as all other interests in the country, are suffering that punishmeut which imprudence in expen- diture has brought upon them. Economy, energy, industry, and a determined spirit will relieve us from our pecuniary trials, and restore to us that prosperity which has been so suddenly lost, and the loss of which has been accompanied by so much physical suffering and anguish of mind. The Democratic party and the country demand a stable policy on this subject. The government must raise its revenue mainly by duties on imports, and those duties should be fairly imposed with reference to the amount of revenue which may be needed to carry on its operations, due regard being had to economy in expenditure. All the interests of the nation and all sections should be considered in adjusting the details of the measure, to the end that equal and exact justice may be done. This is all the South asks, and surely it is entitled to it. The " ultra protectionists" demand more. They demand legislation for specified branches of industry, and would burden all other interests to secure it. This species of legis- lation we are inflexibly opposed to, because we see and feel its injustice, and know that it must end in the creation of sectional jealousies, prejudicial to that harmony and Cordial- ity which is so greatly to be cherished, and so important to our progress as a nation. The excessively and oppressively protective tariff of 1828 produced results that shook the na- tion to its centre, arid at one time seriously imperilled the existence of the Union. Patriotism, however, triumphed', and the measure of 1833 was passed, which gave peace to our distracted country. A high degree of prosperity fol- lowed, but the protectionists were not satisfied, and. to carry out their ultra views, passed the tariff of 1842. So much dissatisfaction resulted from it, that it was found necessary to repeal it in 1846. The latter measure remained in full force and effect until, in 1857, it was ascertained that it raised more revenue than was needed for an economical ad- ministration of the government. We thus see that high tariffs, adopted with more reference to protection than reve- nue, have been short lived, and eminently mischievous to the public peace in their operations and results. Give us, then, something fair. just, and equal, and cur prosperity aud progress as a nation will be secured. 778 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ■8 P o :i w h :i o o ^ h o rt o o o cc >r, io o 1-NHKHOOlCOWOM © CO © 00 00, "■* OS SH X M CO O 'O O X' O -f O * " C - - l- © co ai © — « o oo i'- <-i © cc cd h* ont-.oiN »ra oi ONOO>oW'* , f wonor* :~ r O C0 © ~r :i -+ cd ioo'm oc co r-T © © © rH -t« >o r- ^ CO C 31 N ** CO -T Ol -f © "J* — ~ i- l- CD «i>S> r^ CO 01 f— 01 L- bo i' O x :3 * O t-;** rH c.3 3 o w > H to O O 1> ^ « K w fa CO O CO t~- CO -* O © Ol © CO 03 Ol H H r" ■* O O tO © Ol © co -f -p -*• CO o co © o co -^ rH -H -t iTS O CO Ol iTDrH © CNCN ■* CO ,-> CO rH N«tCOWiflOHM(»CCXOiO«t-OCN rHCOCOf-HCDcOiOOiOiOCOCMiHCOi-iCOi— iCi 0)C0C0Mh.-!fNH-iib.i-OHi0OCNr- O OJX'NOO^ l N»OOMHHt-C!l-iOt-' H K^NTfr,iONCOrHI>HHH P^"*, P,"" 5 'P. ^wotT co" *h ^THttfcTefco co' CM CI © O co c i *o -t © co -r io 'i - ~ o ~ © co © :d -h HOCCQdJiH'trHWiOtDOOHNOO WHNfOO^W-f'fliNt-HHOOlOOiO OOC0t-00C00»0:C0-^C0**C0C0-+t-cDO ?! O C-l W ■* O 'O CO O CO O r "i, r *V i ^ Cv ], CC i „'*^ #> rH o to co o -* x o io t- >n x c o i a a 4 5 •^ 3 ■fe. "8 si § ■8 S S a s §"S Eh § §• fl fa 9 & ©©©©©©©©0-1©©©0©© OOOOOOOO iO © Q 5 5 o © i ■_ :: ?i oo 00,00 © © co ct © eg ©© *o 00 CD* CO ©' co' — * © OC t - Ct* ©" I- co' c" oo r~ r-< C4 © rH ^j« UO © 1 '* O o & 3 ©i— I CN iO O rt Cl O O CO CD CC o CO H< CDr-^ft-C0l>-©OiC0t-rH©CO-Hl-^ -t;cococo.ot^-+©©QOrHei©oDoci 01 Ol © © Tf t- CO t- CO © Ol © rn co o "^c-f^T co"©"co* oiio tcTt-To" « co" *h©Ot-CM rHiiOrHCC-ti o a> w o fa ,© Ol rH "3 a o u C 0J r5 . . -f . CO CO iH oo • • Ol • i— f © © © I-- i£0 CC CO O CM L- © 1^ ■<* CO © • O tO CI CO CO H lO O • *OCC©Ol©©C0© TjJOCMCOuO ©CD© r-' of CM ©' CO* ©* rH ©" CM rH t** © CM H^ CC <-* •3 ^ OOJ-fHCCOOlHCOH-fWcCMCl D H H >C O iO CO Q CU CO H< O CM © © CH«5©'tOt-HOOCl -l"oi C7J 0^ OOt»WC-iHOit-HHCOt-CO*fOH ©©■HJ*C0 01»0©010C0 01rHiO©© uci o "6 to' CO H -^ iff en to' » H of H CO** f&r* CM rH rH "* © O p *3 a o "H , ©©©©-*t-b-0 01rHtOCO©00 kOCOUO-t-fXCMOll-cDCOCNt-Hh- OOCJHHCOOOlMCNt-HOCOHjl *© Ol © © lO rH CM *rs i— rH co i— " oi © oo CM © O © CM rH 00 r~t OH O rO •a| g^!^ 5 O ® 3 J3 •a 3 £ 'C .2 . Tea I s o cu - i — '33 =3 ■fcc3 a „3-^ M O ■< !> .-S* — i -^ o> APPENDIX. 779 3' %i o §1 ai sOOOOOOOOOOO >O0OO0OO0O00 nOOOOOOOOOO© >0-**OOOOOOQOO ) CC l- CC 03 Ji i." JC o 01 O I— ?ttaDQ> co -+"■— '• od o4 w'coc: ho O o V 3 a 1-t *- *2 -- CD •° 2 — "5 o 0. o a a o oa 3 o £ >< 3 g ai a S > ■» x o > W a) &3 <<* o CO OOb-N«NNHOWOt|<(N | O H iO O X) I- Oi « X 00 !D "t CO •t'fCM'MCOCSO-fOOOOl'* CO O iO O CO i(5 ifl « M 'il M O CO I OO^t— CC^O r-^fNj— I r-^-f t^CO O "=* of cm of of uS'ofo -^or©*" ci* 00 O CM CM rH CO CM ^ CD CO CQ N O r-i o "-C xi n Ol I-- O&OOCQC0COOOC4O3 I-- L- -r oi io ai » o w ou- in o - » o «ra co t- to :p © o^ i-h "d^co ocoh cd *# oTHOiaiifoi oTio r-T of Cl r-1 r-t rl r-l "* rH « 2 « u: > X o « lO^I-iO-Ct-OJHOCJl'-f'O eoxx3>i-t-ocooi-tcooo O-.iOCQ-tCiCOONPO^-tM ci ^ © o ^ cm :: co co rj< co n X) CO t- o Nped oV fh o" co co' r-i r-I -*' -CO •* CM CO rH CM — < H CO ^l CO N l- I- Ol O iO '£ *f N CO d CM 03 •+ l- — Z: <-. t- I- Ji CO «# CO oco»i--oocO'-rjOiocfi*t a* CO O -r 06 0-l ^.OJNL-HO>?3»Oa CO CO CO GO -* -r T* O-l ^> "O CO O -f ® U0 t- '-O X Ol t- -* ^- CB CM $ a t> i-icoocoascoo cncb ^# •<# pHH CMoOCOCOCMrHCOrHTtlCO O a t- CM t* rf CO t- — * OS CO t^- CO CO U0 rt r- 0-1 CO Ht- a» CO CO r-l r-t CM * * * fc CO 4» iOt-COHr-h.01010© Ol • Ol-Ol^COOCNOrHCO CO -a • O t- I— aa ^ CO Ol O i— i CM I— S " cocoocccoo-+«oicoco £.£ OJr*XOOiOCOOt">OJ CM M CO t- O CO OS ** uO CM w ©Hrl i— ' rH CM CO * M « vj }~ s « >1 s s »> «, &) 5 fc ^ s "8 a s 5H 29ooo00soooooooo ooooocmooooooooo Ol OOOOOCOQOOOOOOOO i5 d 0000^,. .0 _ SoopSoo ooxmo-— 0000000 -f 5 3. 0-t-c0-r~0t-«0000-l : 3 ©"r-l O s^csoioi'Oouso'Tirjtnoo , , H i& ^ rt " 0) Vt r-l 03 uO Si CO 01 iO vp * • • • '.O rH O d Mt to CD S ® I— t'COuO CO CO O) iCl "* O O n X ,_i CO -OOt- .CMCOOCMOiOlCOt-CO CO to i£0 IT0O-* COCOOJXOJCOt-Mh. ^, < rH COi-HC3 HOiC3NXiOCOO)01 1-- _ ^O^^ rH O t- CO O O CC^t- -f O "+ CO CO CM TlJcM^*' HHt-TjlC3» rH £r> rH CM CO CO CO r-i C iO rH r— H -CO ^ CO m 3 to P CO • • O o § 00 COO 00 ICO CO 00 t— • .Tj*0 . .OOi . OH .^J«*H J, Qi - CM rH S a « o 3 s O «s to 1) g ?» « 2 > «w K O > C0F-HHCN01l--a)01O3)OHCOt-CO O a o o a Ol-H-CNIQOcOr-iCOuOCMCCOCOCftCOt- rH COCO^ft-WCOCOCO'Ot-050C3ClCM t— COcOO)X'*rl'*CNl-Xl--Oa:t-Hji t— z> Ol rHi-H OO0Ot*1 rHOri'OS O f& r-t uO 00 B o fc rH ^ cOCOCOCOOt-iiOb-.— 'OCOcOOOt— CO i t-CNHCOOrtt-'tCll-'QCOMCr.OJ CO o ^ •; CMCO-*t--OO00--r-^010M-tl-ft-O> Pi s s O 1- CO >0 O CO CO CD Ol f ^ t- t-*t fh m CM •*Hn--*OrtaiOt''*oo)cooo O &3 CM i-lCCCM COCOCMCO OCOCO CM H ^ OCM CM 4r> 31 ai a j- 01 ai 01 c o^ a rji :0 ajco'fooioQHicoaiocMoao rH 3 CJ HOCOCO®HHOt'OMHHiCDN *1 en co t-. co h oj co co i- -t 'j co x r- -f> OC0CDC0-*CM^fC0-*C0C0OiC0)i~-C0 CM O COOCN >CS CO b- Hjl H CM CO X CO CO «§ ^ CM rH f-H rH rH y-H CM rH -rf €^* CO t- *- l • O CO Oi °^ O | o g -* CO CM oi O ° M > X o « * ^ ' * 'rH CM -fl CO 1- CO Oi O tfi rH 3 o rH COCOCO OO "* O a CO i«Ht- . CO CO . -CM -CO • • o 1-- -rj* CO rH -ft— O Ol t- O O CO—" t~ CO © OJ CnO( iTJM tl -+ 3 ^ HHCO Meo o o K S o ^i COiH CO '^ rHOJcoco— '■— 'coco a a CM *3 J CO t— -+ CO co «o CO t- g # o ^00 CM i-t I— O i-H -t* O O C/3 O t- Ol H s *> CO t— -* Ci -r >0 CO rH OO CO Oi 3 ftd Ol rj» CO CI CM 01 CO CO CO «-h CO o H-*H (NH-tH Oi O a> &? CM — -*< 1" rH «0 iOcO-fO-f*+CNt-- -r O CO -1 ■<* CO,— 1 rH CM O CO CO I- O CO t- O CO O CM O t— — O CO CO O Si O iO O O Ol r« W i» -r CO O a y OhXXH*H(C:0 CM CO V cu ^ Ol -r rH Oi 1 ti I- rH 00 o H 15 » ■- 9 « ^ & « 1 sA-a . a -r- 3 33 .'=02 -^ <* ^x — ^ - a > •> .s - 2 » .3 -i ,. " o * .2"-rt %■■;■ * , a 3 00 3 S g- oj s= s S3 - « S - 3<3 3 bti c « a Q E- S.°2 SoSa bo 00 3 o a 3 o U o 3 o OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOCO^O o o o o o o o o o o o OOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ~ -o o ooooooooooo ) o o o o ' QOOOOOQOOOOoOOQQ o b oooooo o Oo^o o © oo^. o o~cTcTo"o o cT ooo o o oo o o o o o o o o o cTcTcTo cTc^o cTo ^ O t-t r-i CM O ^-1 ©^ r-l rH O r-t M l-V tf H V 9 3 'eo &?■.-... to 1 "" 1 «dm m os t- o ca^o oo© . ire ire . . . »re -h . .i—i . , . is .is . ,-h . ."M . i— ' i— i !!.... i'CDH HOCO CMcooowcici"tc , :io:'jin Ol'WH(NWO'!tOOONO>HOb.b.Tl<0)0(DHW:Or-0)000-tH os O OS f~ OOOCOMOOO'-OMN050QCCNO)WC*l"l , C50l*Mt'-Cl'-t-0 CI H O CI :: CO -t Tl Oi X H CD -f H ?0 !■- 1-- C^-+ L- CO OS^if^-* t^Cf^i-^r^-^0_0 -*-+ i-J^C* ^^^o Oi^OO .re co co_0) os l-^ rH CM COCIH i-i CO r- 1 tO Ol iHCOOi coo^ OS OS CO i- O-f ^■ o re •+ as to -t" CO o OS t^-re to o o^ r-Tto" to co" ^-( ire ci co i- : O 0-1 OJ OS i CO L- 1-- OS I i-h o CO -* CO 00 OS CO CO I— o; OS CO to O OO CO CN -# to OS o to to o ■m ire os **co O*' OS O o o . i— ire o o i-H OS OO^ CO CO*' * i-h' co to o ire o-i os l- iO ~-n tM ire ire co COCOCJO co -n ire co i-t ^ o o -+ ■■£> OJ rH •"-' C> © tM © CO &„. Co ^1 ^ — — — • ^H^«MM!/}^ c tr • 3 g s 15 O 3 o< ■3 3 .2 w u a) .3 o to to "3 3 "3 o wi a 4^ t- tO £ s oo ^ * = o O o APPENDIX. 781 Exports and Imports* Statement exhibiting t/iegross value of exports and imports from the beginning of the government to the 30M tf June, 1857. Years ending — September 30, 9 months to June 30, June 30, . 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1S50 1851 1852 1853 1S54 1855 1856 1857 Total . Exports. Domestic pro- duce. $19,666,000 18,500,000 19,000,000 24,000,000 26,500,000 39,500,000 40,764,097 29,850,206 28,527,097 33,142,522 31,840,903 47,473,204 36,708,189 42,205,961 41,467,477 42,387,002 41,253,727 48,699,592 9,433,546 31.405,702 42.366,675 45,294,043 30,032,109 25,008,132 6,782,272 45,974,403 64,781,896 68,313,500 73,354,437 50,976,838 51,683,640 43.671,894 49,874,079 47,155,408 50,649,500 66,944,745 53,055,710 58,921,691 50,669,669 55,700.193 59.462,029 61,277,057 63,137,470 70,317,698 81,024,162 101,189,082 106.916,680 95,564,414 96,033,821 103,533,891 113,895.634 106,382.722 92,960,996 77,793,783 99,715,179 99.299,776 102,141,893 150,637,464 132,904,121 132,666,955 136,946,912 196,689,71S 192,368,984 213,417,697 253,390,870 246,708,553 310,586,330 338,985,065 $5,469,994,015 Foreign mer- chandise. $539,156 512,041 1.753,098 2,109,572 6,526.233 8.489,472 26,300,000 27,000,000 33.000,000 45,523.000 39,130,877 46,642,721 35.774,971 13,594,072 36,231,597 53.179,019 60,283.236 59,643.558 12,997,414 20,797,531 24,391,295 16,022,790 8,495,127 2,847,865 145,169 6,583,350 17,138,156 19,358,069 19,426,696 19,165,683 18,008,029 21,302,4S8 22,286,202 27.543,622 25.337,157 32,590,643 24,539.612 23,403,136 21,505,017 16,658,478 14,387,479 20,033,526 24,039,473 19.822,735 23,312.811 20.504,495 21.746.360 21,854,962 12,452,795 17,494,325 18.190.312 15,469,081 11,721,538 6,552,697 11,484.867 15,346,S30 11,346,623 8,011,158 21.128,010 13,080,865 14.951,808 21.698.293 17,209,382 17,558.400 24:350,194 28.448,293 16,378,578 23,975,617 Total. $20,205,156 19,012,041 20,753,093 26,109,572 33,026,233 47,989,472 67,064,097 56,850,206 61,527,097 78,665,522 70,971,780 94.115,925 72.483,160 55,800,033 77,699,074 95,566,021 101.536,963 108,343,150 22,430,960 52.203,233 66,757,970 61.316,833 38,527,236 27,855,997 6,927,441 52,557,753 81,920,452 87,671,569 93,281,133 70,142,521 69.691,669 64,979.382 72.160,281 74.699,030 75,986,657 99,535,388 77,595,322 82,324,S27 72,264,686 72,358,671 73.849,508 81.310,583 87,176,943 90.140,443 104,330.973 121.696,577 128.663,040 117.419.376 108.4S6.616 121.028,416 132,085,946 121,851,803 104,691,534 84,346,480 111,200,046 114,646,606 113,4S8,516 158,648,622 154,032,131 145,755,820 151,898,720 218,388,011 209,658,366 2:10.976.157 278.241.064 275.156,846 326,964,908 362,960,682 Imports. Total. $23,000,000 29,200,000 31,500.000 31,100,000 34,600,000 69.726,228 81,436,164 75,670,406 68,551,700 79,069,148 91,252.768 111,363,511 76.333,333 64,666,666 85.000.000 120,600,000 129,410.000 138,500,000 56,990.000 59,400,000 85,400,000 53,400,000 77,030,000 22,005,000 12,965,000 113,041,274 147,103,000 99,250,000 121,750,000 87,125.000 74,450.000 62.585,724 83,241.541 77,579,267 80,549,007 96,340,075 84,974,477 79,484,068 80,500,S24 74.492.527 70,876,920 103,191,124 101.029.266 108,118.311 126,521,382 149.805,742 189,980,035 140,989.217 113.717,404 162,092,132 107,141,519 127,946,177 100.162.087 64,753,799 108,434,035 117,254,564 121,691,797 146,545.638 154,998,928 147,857,439 178,138,318 216,224,932 212,945,442 267,978,647 304,562,381 261,468.520 314,639,942 360,890,141 $1,390,006,319 $6,860,000,334 $7,658,431,537 TREA80T4Y Department, Register's Office, November 19, 1857. F. BIGGER, Register 782 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Post Office Department. The following tabular statement is from an official report of the present Postmaster-General, Aaron V. Brown. Statement showing the gross revenue in each state and territory for the year ending June 30th, 1857. Gross revenue Compensation Cost of trans- porting the Surplus after 1 Deficit after from postages of postmasters Net revenue paying the cost paying the cost States and Territories. and stamps sold. and incidental expenses. accrued. mails in each state and ter- ritory. of transporta- | tion. of transporta- tion. Maine $154,506 $87,884 $66,682 $98,275 $31,593 New Hampshire 102.658 55.135 47.523 47,555 . 32 Vermont 100,744 54,831 45,913 65.229 19,316 Massachusetts . 579,947 246,596 333.351 154,701 $178,650 • . Rhode Island 64,077 26.407 37.620 14,523 23,097 . Connecticut 212,492 96.144 116.348 88,572 27,776 . New York . 1,503.444 600,779 902,665 469.132 433,533 , . New Jersey 117,904 57,214 60,690 93,857 . 33,167 Pennsylvania 629.155 270,125 359,030 331.379 27,651 • Delaware . . 20,380 9.867 10,513 17.166 6,653 Maryland . 173,192 63,742 109,450 209,319 99,869 District of Columbia 44,699 38,622 6.077 . 6,077 . Virginia . . 231.532 121,193 110.339 309,S93 199.554 North Carolina . 75,329 41,402 33.927 195,507 161,580 South Carolina . 95.504 38,799 56.705 230,054 173,349 Georgia 153,S59 79,285 74,574 259,121 184.547 Florida 20,899 10,985 9.914 73,771 63,857 Alabama 115.397 55,334 60,063 249.276 189.213 Mississippi 84,678 44.683 39,995 220,335 180,340 Texas 77,517 39,439 38.078 229.631 191,553 Kentucky . 136,943 67,092 69,851 144.283 74,432 Michigan . 167.935 89,654 78,281 140,408 62,127 Wisconsin . 180,429 85,600 94,829 105,820 10,991 Louisiana . 154.505 56,603 97.902 621.417 523,515 Tennessee . 112,597 57,109 55,488 158,486 102,998 Missouri 165.317 73.265 92.052 224,763 132,711 Illinois 399,384 217.212 182.172 394,340 212.168 Ohio . 490,324 246,500 243,824 504.363 260.539 Indiana 1S4.814 102,268 82.546 206,360 123.814 Arkansas . 29.825 18,799 11,026 172,320 161,294 Iowa . 157,725 85,201 72,524 102,336 29.812 California . 256,994 114,022 142,972 245,831 102.S59 Oregon Territory 12,096 5.580 6,516 28.371 21,855 Minnesota Territory 43.816 21.340 22,476 38,129 15,653 New Mexico Territor f 1.641 692 949 42,991 42,042 Utah Territory . Nebraska Territory 1,384 793 591 68,081 67.490 3.929 2,237 1.692 16,168 14,476 Washington Territory 1,790 842 948 948 . Kansas Territory 10,946 5,464 5,482 24,389 • 18,907 $7,070,367 $3,288,789 $3,781,578 $6,596,152 $697,732 $3,512,306 Amount of deficit $3,512,306 Deduct amount of surplus column 697,732 $2,814,574 The above statement shows only the insufficiency of the net revenue to pay the regular inland trans- portation, without embracing the foreign mails, route agents, local agents, and mail messengers, and other important items paid for directly at the department. Paid for foreign mails, per auditor's report Paid for route agents, local agents, and mail messengers, per auditor's report Payments made at the department, namely : — For wrapping paper - . . . . 51.776 For advertising 45,376 For mail bags 54.566 Clerks for offices of postmasters . . . 29.634 Office furniture in post offices . . ... . . .... 623 Miscellaneous expenses ... ....... .... 23,972 $3,940,459 417,220 502,718 APPENDIX. 783 I %. r. •s s - 3 c ■s 1 e s s 5 "s. <2 <= — ■2.11 » CI -*• o MHOOOuOOOM ^00 0* CO o ^« CO O f* N D OS OS -f O CO — 01 i- * 03 a >• — o a) — « © 05 *--*00OOO0 OO MCTlOO r-cooooopooooicsoo c<^?Qodddddo6Hc>d co o o o o o o o o i~ ^- o o o_go 00 000 qo o o co o o co" oT o" o" o~ o* o" o* o* © i£ cs" ©' o" -f o o o o o — ua aooo$o^ 01 O 1O *Q O O O IN iO U3 :? © .Q CO § S 5 5 o « Safs "5 2 S "S3 o „„ coh-|20-*-f»tt.orj-fcoHt-f-fm©h.nM w o o sh :i m N -f x :i n c -* :i *i o c 1 - co iC_C0 SnOOO ih -r iO O C-l t»-t ^1 h in c l- O CO b- CO ■— " Ol CO © Of CO* 0? *t •— *-* iQ © Ol uO* to —I uoTcrT 01 r- © 01 oi c :: m r: o in o - x o. •+ •m a t- co t- O © Ol © X CO «-^05 © © O t- OX O X 1- tH -j* 1-tlH «-T r-T?d'o"cO rjf QOl- ofrjT •3 „ ■3 = CO W » 2 oj C3 ^ 3 &0 05 co m >- a • -3 ~ 00

. co-^co-t'xiF-'t^ro^fOiOco © 01 O iQ O t- ffl O ffl ^ -- tO I- ~ , „'--^"t r* 'O Ct iTl r-^-^CO 30^ of -co"©" x' oi -+ i-Ti— to"© of NHNONO»QOOHCO. f-l 0JC0CJt^e0O»C0 01C3c3i-*O O to Hcoortdi-coxcocoi-ao t- t- . *™i. m t^N CO iO CO^O OOXuCl-i-CO ^f ro Ol n ffi h co cxT-iTo >ra 1— -1^01 O" r-t 01 CO CM x _. :o X X w 01 01 >o S OS rH ^^O^CO^iO ^0^ O O CM O 00 ■ • • • C-f r-rco"o Cd'hO-'woG t-^O of r-l O rH O)t'CMcCCOC0Ht,T* !-H C5_t-Ti; odoococo co q N o »4«aa 6j » 3 co t- 5 r a c " :; ci [- c i . - h i f « o cS o S t^^^ioacoor^c^eoo^o^-StirH & 5 co r1ClC0-*C0HCNC0COCNCOCNCMi-l ' 3 o J* "S3 3 S^ .5 -« CO » ^ * s O-JJ OOOOOOOOO' Ol 0-1 O O -P CO O CO O ■ i^_o 0^1 00 X OS 00 O t-- ■ cohoh^coxo's OCOiOrH-ti--C^OSCO •fOlr- 1 iO O t-- CC C3i O CO t-T ^ rjT o" o irT o -t coocjcoeoo-iaio-ixto iIO o Ol CO CS r-t 'o'aT -* — rH 01 5 OO 1 Ol o 5 r-^oc^ "r-Tof n OS o of CO "* Q o •3 a 09 S S ^ c;"* ^ ^ ° ^ - ^ C) x :: ao io o os co x Ol OCO-* O^O COCO-* r- Ol CSO O ofi Ol ■* CO H ^ Ol O 2? ?2 *c? S<2 £??* co'oios -r" cro" co"r-rcd 1 co''co"o*of Si~? w c. >« ^ i.n co t o io o ift o x *t c. :■) c *i -t in '-D Ol of OS ■*-> CO &&•••■ fe lc b Sbsg 'Sbb 3-3^ H fc t.-S-S H-aoS^^'S - o- eo ^ 71 • Caj.^-J"; »J .a r "lr=lj 'SaO^ttgS'HH = --3 = «.555i cS5a£sc<*;a O •- = J: J " .i ^= S -r 05 a O O 0* "S <° ? 8 "8*3 O CO >i CD ^ £ g« « S-3 Q " 08 fil _. c »-u 2 ^ B w y B^. cp •-; *^ o ^A to » ■7 '— - ^ .2.31.3 " So- * ' 784 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. § ■s S i s "fe oo 3 ° ■* « rt — * 2 o ^ ° 5 H CI CI >q © iO uy -# CO to OlCOiriirOCl-^t^^-fCO^OcCCO i^Tco* ccTcD^r^r I— < r-t rt H t- rn l^ 10 « O t- Ttl •3 03 « iC CC © © © r~o © © ' "OMr" MfoOOJOOO < ' o ^fa o in q fi ^to oo •< »» >ra ci i^Tcf f -o~io"-+"o t~ o o oot-i^nnia © cf -iJ cT co" cf o oT o co r- i- ci co co »n r* r-t T* cf ©"tCaO f-Tr-Tof to r-t 01 ts a £5- o w TjJCOOl'tCOO O t- -# t— ec' ©"oc'o* co co" of cd~ oo oT W ?1 X O — X 3i n r- 00 CO rH C0_CM © O rH r- r- -T cm w s - s c 5 - D-T3 Oh c -* CO r-i CO* oo CO a> co a 9><~ & a CO —< OJ i-> Ol -* CO **: *r **? *2 °"2 ^2 °° 6 d ci n co oi o « ci x X l- r- o CO CM Ol U0 CO CO CO co co"oc*'oi oi tC c?T rH CM ** O* -f i, , O »-H ^ 0* rH OJ •* t— -* CO OI . t-"- co' -i" CM CO OJ CM <— CO -2 °" c » 5 © o en © o «-"-+■ o* CO -f cm © co © © • © © • © © 00 oo 00 oo o,©^ © © co*"©" ©"co* * -* •# ' -* Tjt g * a** COHXOifl © CO © CM OJ CO cd ©' co' -** Ol OJ O t- 03 ■f-f xxo -#"-f 00%**" ©* OO-th-t ClC^CO^cC_ 01 © rH i-ToJ O i-H *- 6 -W .2 r/ C to c *H £ * x a s ■— ' © © »rt I— 1 © t^- © ©o 0^ CO O © 00 CO rH O © © 00 CO © CO CO ©" CO* fr-*- .o . . . .© © . t— u0 O CO rH © CO CO CM ** O I> CC OJ |- l>. H CM i - 00 os t-*T © oi co"co' ©" eo co © co — © co O) CO rH CO -H^ © t- •CO . . CO rH rH CN rH r^ *& CM Tj< .©©©©© .©©©©© to co eo oi oo ©©^f-*© *C iO O >>. t. Jr » » ^S g t< ^{•floS'S'S — >-i q O .r- pH *~* Sh 5'Slsll §S -5 1 "?- 2 £l SS-8 §| "3 s o APPENDIX. 785 1 31 .a o « 5S J3 co ■e'S 3': S.1 EC § a « 2 s> "^ S"* fei if -s si -s & s 1 a. •S~ II fl ■8 5 09 CI t- »o ^ O Tf( D^ CO O N •# 1* h- cO HSOJOOH^HUlOMinH -* © CO iO ©CO © u O lOON © CO t^- © O Oi Oi CO © CO •^©©OlCOt-OlrHCOCOCOiO © -H- t-CO © © © 3 43 © CO CfiO'* CD 1^ d Oi © © t- CI t^co oa © ^ co co i— -r co r- co -1* rPrtC-1'tOOXi-OOMO oi © © x c» j' © oi ci co oi ca © ift Ol ■-* ^t l^ © Ol © Xt-O^ ClOlrH b- © t^- *5 xn> lO O r-i o t~ o «« > l- CO O^O^CD^ r-^© CIOCNOJW^hOoi -t* -t; u0 '.' — « a t-T ^-rarof o t— to" CO i- ca co ©co hT t-r©"oi -r't-T©" r-Toi © cc oi -^* , •>!'-*-*■ co" o eo -r o o -* CN O CO CD CI H L- CO t, t- iO W Ol i- © © © f— © i- oa oi 30 -h t- © © © © i- ^ o. oi^ »-H *0 C-D^ ■^co co^ ©^o^c^oi oi oi^cq^ t- © Ol t— CC 1 CO © Ol rH © »o 01 00^ ~H ©^t^ c to CO XI o 3 o SH *-T cTt-^o o"ocT OD" Co" r-T rH Of CO* -H Of co" tfT t-f co" co co" co" of of co" Ol' CO* cf no rifi-T OS t-* t-O s» r-i •hj< CO Ol CM r-i rH i-H no t— CO lO Oi O o t- -H> Tt O i-h CO Ol -H*CO©©01CO , ^tO , Oif3001 CO CO t- CO d h« © • t- NNO t~- © -1- O CO rH Oi CO O © r--r t- -* © co* oi ©* V H ^** W -* r^H -^ o o c-i in -f o o io CO©©©l--HHCOC0 010©t— ©©wot-H-*©omoiH CO © © CO 1^. CO -H N oi^ fc»fc- o •** t~ i- OJ^ CO^ -^ Ol^ C> CD^ CO 00 no © CO no Ol no 3 o co o"o* oa'ocr ocT Otf Of O r Of O r-T r-T co^ic"cd"i>* t-Tof-nf of ©"-* ©V** co^r-r^cT ©"©"© r-i l-f i-l r-1 rH i-l rH r-t r-HrHrHi-H rH rH 01 ■* CO "0 »Q CO CM Ol Ol I-H Ol 01 o Sri «» 09 tBT3 a .5 ° '55 ^ k CD CD -^ CO O O ^H 1--CO-* O © 'tH -+T-4 *© 'UiiOOOOCOO © Ol © CO © " iQ -^ •-< I— Ol o -P Ol O © © CO © ©Ir- rH iH ■o © ** i— i o »ro CO CO co ca w c^-^c* CO •* U0 t— Ol CO co^ .2 rt S M o ° h a a o i- cT oof ©"* co'H^of©'*o , of co"ccr rn" oT CO* t^-Hf t-T-jT-ir ■^"co'of o" ©" © t- CD O C CD b- © t— © r-t CM tH ifi> CO CO l>- CO © CO ** © o P. qoo CO CO co" CO o^co^ icfr-T rH ,t- 00 1-^^01^ cf of ©"co"o of r-t OlOl CO 1^- o co 1 9> £■ b « <♦-« +J t SaSb © WWi- CO CD *o CO CO O © iO CO © ©cocoiOi-'©coirti©ao©^H CO© CO Ol i-H© Ol W ■' 1 53 3 CO Ol L- CO o o rH © i& © Oi iO CO © C0COC0**"OlTjtCOT}H-#-4%C1 . . . -. K 3 !o • • ■ a ^ 3<» • • * 'u "01.3 < Ch «*£ <=»r5 CD •a * iO O r-( * O © Ol Oi Ol ©COb-c0MOlC000Tr , ©COCO © r-CO rH to-* © S3 a i-< © r-< t>00<01> C0t-01©C0C0Ol>-rH©01 © Ot-NtO H/OH CO o CO CO © CO uo © coireco©oicoi>.t— OrH©0 © t+* CI i-H Ol CO Ol l- © rH fO u CO -r © «# 01 Ol l^ Ol © -f © CO O -r CO Ol o t- »o CO © CO Ol * ■ • • CO *o © ^* !>. © 'D^^iO rH Ol r-^© Ol U0 01 -d^cO Ol C^Ca^ Ol no -* ijo^ © no no_ !3 3 C a o u Cm •"t* ocT r4" t- 00*0 tr- ©«o co't-Toi ©"©©*" uo* no* t-Ti-T r-^ ©' - a 5 o d faC CO* — •2'3 . ."&.SS . • • . 1-1 . X - a "3 . . o3 . . . 03 * 3-3 . .|*< -|| ■ r-sr-s Ph <3 ^ - ' cn iC CD CO CD -f lO CO r-t CO CO -H4 r-> CO -**t-rHC0COrHC0C0n0COOlCO © © © no no-r -* EC 5 cc ..o c-i CI OJ © © CO t- © I- CD CO ©rH©iCnOCOl^-001©01CO ^J« CO I— rH HCT O O'£>«0 »— l 1-* » rH O; Ol CO >0 L— O |--CCi-»©©©01t-C00101-t< CC lO CO Ol b-Hrt t-Offl CD CO -h © -r CO l- CO •— • CO CO © Ol no Ol © 01 t- Ol i- -f t-- -f CO © rH ^t co CO o ■f. csT OOJO :?' id — * co"t^ © oT co" cf © ©" cc of cd* -rf©nono©C001t— ©i— ©co co"tCirf co © co"co*"ccT-t r co oi co" '">D CO CO © '0"CD CO* »o" ■rtfof cc* OS -too CO CO t* © r-i cc >-o co t— ca COCD-f©©COt-Hn0010cC © JCf t- cc © © no CD^ Z. er^ -+ :i no o »ra io H©^ot--*-*o n CI CO CO CO 01 no^co Cl^OI ©01^ CO 01 iH 01 © -4 -+ 1 c^ -t ** o'o" t^* t-T ©" © ©" of cf r-T oi -r no* co t^l cc' CO cc"co" nft^'D* CO i- o <.o* CO* tr?C? o <^ i-i rH rH rH (HHHM rH — » Ci CI r- 01 rH Ol ^ -t »« o t- CO © © r- 01 CO -f no © l>- CC © © r-t Ol CO -r O © b-CO Cft © r- 01 CO CI o C3: ca ca ca ca a © © © © o © ©©©©©l-"^--.^-^--— I-H r-HHW CI 01 01 CO i— t— t- t-- t— •>• l— L— CO CO CO CO 33 cococccocoxcocococococo CO 00 CO CO CO CO CO r-i rH rH ^^ "*S B CD 50 786 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. s s e li II H I 3 a: j- a. co .5 § s s s V C3 •~^~ •2 ■& K K 3 g 00 e> , "^ c S c - ■fc 5 "S s

fe 8 u «5 p. m"3 O 3 ro o a & JrJsS S ■" § 3 w . in n tn 3 tfl*3 o q a a" 9 o u a 2 N CO -f N I— ** o us o *a -t id N BO rH O © -# i * -f id uO O — ' CO CO o >s W © -f Ol -* ^"OOnCOriOO OiflHX t-Qt-Ht- t* oo ■<* aa O O C i- co CO t- •* 00 .-« O 00 CO oi © CO -f © -# CO GO © T J ■ f I- X - W ~ CC 'O O CO cm r-l oo cn co i< o cc cc ■'* :; :o t-- c r- o a; o ■+ 'M cr. r- r- o •* ji c c x r- o -t :i x h -c uS CO © © CO © uS uS 1*3 i-H CD -* -* JO O us OO CD CO »« o CO I- US CM i-H :t x io « -t to i - to od oi ©" of ©' us co O l- © Q ift n ?J Oi M H ^ G CO N o » EC us CO 0-1 i+ tO 01 L— © ■— CO -t © uS tO CO :: -f ?i o uS -r CM CM CO M -fh-Ob-Qt-XH^lClCOON O ©CO CNHC:cOCQCOWCCP3nCQMCNXiCO cc^-rc-+oncOir2f-i Ol : : ao fr- o *- ^* *- co -*■ co — © — -+• co *~ **"■. - - "" l T - :T . -tc'rl i- r? gc .o of o t— — i^ i- 2 y - l ~ "co to' «* id _' ::' — i 5 Ol Ol r-* to CO CO «-H C-l CO i- © 0^ Ci Ol CO iQ CO r-1 CM 00 -* CO Ol t-© © —1 »— i »ra co to oi 01 T-t CM © O © t- © r-» W t- H H W W QO N ©" oi~ CO* © Ol* r-T CO* ©" -!t © © © © us us © © L- CO us CO :? - C © © © © ©,© © © © © ©©©t>-t— uS©t-- . CO 01 r- -f -^ CO © •* O^co^CM^oco r-*'*co CM* tD 1 t-T ©" © CO" r-T i-T Ol f— < us 00 uS © uS t~ ,OSt-COuS©00uSCO of of ccTuo co' -*' 01 r-"' US © uS ,O00H t-^t^co^ ©"CO* us" © © 1^ , © Ol © © -+ © O-l © © © © © © © I- uS O © © 0©COCO©00 01© cd't^td ©'i— i co us © rf i-H © 01 CO i i a CM CM 0* CO -t* I- US © © i-s Hcoa ^ © CO Ol t~^ co to" us" CO ©" i— < CM CM O CO ifl iO ifl I- o 00 CM CM © CD uS t-Oi Ol i-H © CI CO W© -* © rH CO © © © © »OCO 1-- t^I>-©©l^-© co^-+ © ^ Ol OS CO CO C0CM -# t—uSuS©CMC0 us"c0 CO CO -+ 00 t- CO © •* CO 1- t- t~ Ol ~f »£S © CO CO -H -H rH -t* -H uO^Ol CM^ CO "^^CO © ©_"* © p^ 1 "- © t- 00 © r-i to oo" Cl "-^©"ccacfus ©"©' cTt-*'us'©"of i-H ©t^- •* i— 00 CO CO l^ Ol -t* © uS CO »o CO © © O t f CS t-01.0 ©^I>^rH^CM^©^0^CO Cl^CO CM © r-T r-i CM ©* ©"uS 'cxT^uS CM" 0^f © © i-t © © © L- 00 ^h © 01 01 — * i-f © © CO -f us © CO © Ol CO CC' iQ r— CO O CO 00 ©' of©" ^*i^co ©* co" NOHOOCMH© r-^cO uS © r "^ ! X i~10* ©"r-1* r-T i-hTi-T . ^2 .— O lM o "3 a> 3 m .— u A V o „ (=• 1 bo hC-f "- cT fc ^^ ' '" & rH >.J a >-, >.3 >,£ >»= ^3 2 . . «« ■"3^3^ i^i «£5 1-5 S sue rH c^ QJO " 33 09 CO Z. bfl CI CC - iCiOUliOi I I 'I "I "l "l "l "l ' CO-TiOCOt^CO OlOr-ICIC ■**Tf-*^fT#-J( >* lO O «1 I 00 00 CO 00 OO CO 00 GO 00 CO c a 9 3 i "§i - C4 p 3 APPENDIX. rs7 Tonnage. Statement exhibiting Uie amount of the tonnage of the United States, ann uulhj, from 1789 to 1857, i\-clusive ; also, the registered and enrolled and Itcenstd tonnage employed in steam navigation each year. Years ending— Registered sail Registered steam Enrolled and Enrolled »nd tonnage. tonnage. licensed sail licensed steam Total tonnage. ° tonnage. tonnag6. Tons. December 31, 17S9 123,893 77,669 > • 201,562 1790 346,254 132,123 , , 274,377 1791 362,110 139,036 , . 502.146 1792 411,438 153,019 . 564,457 1793 367,734 153,030 . 520,764 1791 438,863 189,755 m 628.618 1795 529.471 218,494 . 747.965 1790 576.733 255,166 . 831,899 1797 597.777 279.136 . 876,913 179S 603,376 294,952 . 89S,328 1799 662,197 277,212 . 939,409 1800 669.921 302,571 . 972.492 1S01 632,907 314.670 . 947,577 1802 560,380 331,724 « 892,104 1803 597,157 352,015 . 949.172 1804 672,530 369,874 . '.,042,404 1805 749,341 391,027 , 1.140,368 1800 808,265 400.451 . i. 208,716 1807 848,307 420,241 . i.S68,548 180S 769,054 473,542 , 1,242,596 1809 910.059 440,222 . 1,350,281 1810 984.269 440,515 . 1,424,784 1811 768.852 463,650 . 1,232.502 1812 760,624 509,373 . 1,269,997 1813 674,853 491,776 . 1,166,629 1814 674.633 484,577 . , 1,159,210 1815 854,295 513,833 , , 1,368.128 1816 800,760 571,459 , 1,372.219 1817 800.725 590,187 . 1,399,912 181S 606,089 619,096 . ' 1,225.185 1819 612,930 647,821 . , 1,260,751 1820 619,048 661,119 . , 1,280,167 1821 619.896 679,062 , , 1,298,958 1822 628,150 696.549 1.324,699 1823 639,921 671.766 24,879' 1,336,566 1824 669,973 697.580 21.610 1,389,163 1825 700,788 699,263 23,061 1,423.112 1826 737,978 762,154 34.059 1.531.191 1827 747.170 833,240 40.193 1,620.008 1828 812.619 889,355 39.41S 1,741.31)2 1829 650,143 556,618 54,037 1,260.798 1830 575.056 1,41 552,248 63.053 1.191,770 1831 619,575 877 613,827 33,568 1,267,847 1832 686,809 181 661,827 90.633 1.439,450 1833 749,482 545 754,819 101.305 1,606.151 1834 857,098 340 778,995 122.474 1,758,907 September 30, 1835 885,481 340 816,645 122,474 1,824,940 1836 897,321 454 839,226 145,102 1.822.103 1837 809,343 1,104 932,576 153.661 1,896,684 1838 819,801 2.791 982,416 190,632 1,995,640 1839 829.096 5.149 1,062.445 199,789 2,096,47 i 1840 895,610 4,155 1,082,815 198,184 2,180,764 1841 945,057 746 1,010,599 174,342 2,130.744 1842 970,658 4,701 892,072 224,960 2,092,391 June 30, 1843 1,003,932 5,373 917,804 231,494 2,158,603 1844 1.061.856 6.909 946.060 265,270 2,280,095 1S45 1,088,680 6.492 1,002.303 319.527 2.417.002 1840 1.123.999 6.2S7 1,090,192 341,606 2.562,084 1847 l,235.r.x2 5.631 1.198.523 399,210 2 839,046 1848 1,344.819 16,068 1,381,332 411,823 3.154,042 1849 1.418.072 20.870 1,453, 549 441,525 3,334,016 1850 1,540,769 44.942 1,468.738 481.005 3,535.454 1851 1,663.917 62,390 1,524,915 521.217 3.772.439 1S52 1,819.744 79,704 1,675,456 563.536 4.138,440 1853 2,013,154 90,520 1,789,238 514,098 4.407.010 1S54 2,238,783 95,036 1,887,512 5S1,571 4,802,902 1855 2,420,091 115,045 2,021,625 655.240 5,212,001 1856 2,401,687 89,715 1,796.888 583.362 4,871.052 1857 2,377,094 86,873 1,857,964 618,911 4,940,842 Treasury Department, Register's Office. November 'A, 1857. F. BIGGER, Register. ADDITIONAL APPENDIX. Position of Parties in the present Presi- dential Contest of 1860. The following constitute the various plat- forms upon which the several candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency are run- ning in the present contest of 1860, and also the celebrated Senate Resolutions, and the votes thereon. Following them, we insert the acceptances of the respective candidates. Platform of the "Constitutional Union" Convention, adopted May, 1860, at Bal- timore. For President, John Bell, of Tennessee. For Vice President, Edward Everett, of Massachusetts. Whereas, experience has demonstrated that platforms adopted by the partisan conventions of the country, have had the effect to mislead and deceive the people, and, at the same time, to widen the political divisions of the country, by the creation and encouragement of geo- graphical and sectional parties ; therefore, Resolved, That it is both the part of patriot- ism and of duty to recognise no political prin- ciple other than -the Constitution of the coun- try, the union of the States, and the enforcement of the Laws ; and that, as representatives of the Constitutional Union men of the country, in National Convention assembled, we hereby pledge ourselves to maintain, protect, and de- fend, separately and unitedly, these great prin- ciples of public liberty and national safety against all enemies, at home and abroad, be- lieving thereby peace may once more be re- stored to the country, the just rights of the people and of the states re-established, and the government again placed in that condition of justice, fraternity, and equality which, under the example and Constitution of our fathers, has solemnly bound every citizen of I the United States, to maintain a more perfect j union, establish justice, insure domestic tran- quillity, provide for the common defence, pro- mote the general welfare, and secure the ; blessings of liberty to ourselves and our pos- terity. Platform of the Republican Convention, adopted May, 1860, at Chicago. ; For President, Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois. For Vice President, Hannibal Hamlin, of Maine. Resolved, That we, the delegated represen. tatives of the Republican electors of the Uni- ted States, in convention assembled, in the discharge of the duty we owe to our constitu- ents and our country, unite in the following declarations : First. That the history of the nation during the last four years has established the pro- priety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the Republican party ; and that the causes which called it into existence are permanent in their nature, and now, more than ever before, demand its peaceful and constitutional triumph. Second. That the maintenance of the Fede- ral Constitution is essential to the preserva- tion of our republican institutions, and shall be preserved ; that we solemnly reassert the self-evident truths that all are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are those of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ; that governments are instituted among men to secure the enjoy- ment of these rights. Third. That to the Union of the States this nation owes its unprecedented increase in population, its surprising development of ma- terial resources, its rapid augmentation of wealth, its happiness at home, and its honor (789) 790 THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. abroad ; and we hold in abhorrence all schemes for disunion, come from whatever source they may ; and we congratulate the country that no Republican member of Congress has uttered or countenanced a threat of disunion, so often made by the Democratic members of Congress without rebuke, and with applause from their political associates ; and we denounce those threats of disunion, in case of a popular over- throw of their ascendancy, as denying the vital principles of a free government, and as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant people strongly to rebuke and forever silence. Fourth. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, arid especially the rights of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to the balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of her political faith depends. And we denounce the lawless invasion by an armed force from any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes. Fifth. That the present Democratic admin- istration has far exceeded our worst apprehen- sions in its measureless subserviency to the exactions of a sectional interest, as is especi- ally evident in its desperate exertions to force the infamous Lecompton constitution upon the protesting people of Kansas ; in constru- ing the personal relation between master and servant to involve an unqualified property in person ; in its attempts at the enforcement everywhere, on land and sea, through the in- tervention of Congress and the Federal courts, of the extreme pretensions of a purely local interest ; and in its general and unvarying abuse of the power entrusted to it by a con- fiding people. Sixth. That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which per- vades every department of the Federal go- vernment ; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the system of plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans ; while the present start- ling developments of fraud and corruption at the Federal metropolis show that an entire change of administration is imperatively de- manded. Seventh. That the new dogma, that the Constitution, of its own force, carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at va- riance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with its contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendencies, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country. Eighth. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States, is that of freedom. That as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, it become? our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it. And we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any terri- tory of the United States. Ninth. That we brand the recent reopening of the African slave trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, a burning shame to our country and age ; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final sup- pression of that execrable traffic. Tenth. That in the recent vetof Virginia. Address of, against distribution of public lands, 500. Speech explanatory of vote on Witte resolutions, 707. Farnsworth, J. F., of 111. On the admission of Kansas un- der the Lecompton constitution, 718. Featherston, W. S., of Miss. Opinion of, upon slavery, 567 INDEX. 805 Fenton, Reuben E.. of N. Y. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 719. Fillmore, Millard. Erie Letter of, 211. Letter of, to Hon. John Gayle, 212. Speech of. at Albany, 212. Florida. ITistory of admission of, 213. Force bill, 215. Foreigners. Arrival of, in the United States, 217. Foreign criminals and paupers. Extract from report of II. M. Fuller, of Pa., on, 217. State laws relating there- to, 218. Foss, Rev. Andrew T. Abolition sentiments of, 20. Foster, Abby Kelly. Abolition opinions of, 21. Foster, L. F. S., of Conn. On the admission of Kansas un- der the Lecompton constitution, 719. Foster, Stephen C., of Me. On the admission of Kansas un- der the Lecompton constitution, 719. Franklin, Benjamin. Abolition petition of, 5. Free Germans. Platforms of, 220. Free trade. Report of Special Committee of the House of Representatives, on, 222. Freeman's Jouroal on Know-Xothingism, 307. Fremont, John C. Letter of acceptauce of, 231. French Spoliations prior to 1S00. History of, 232. President Polk's veto message on, 236. Frothingham, Rev.-O. B. Abolition views of, 21. Fugitive slaves, 238. Fugitive slave law of 1850, 241. Judicial and other opinions of, 238. Fuller, Henry M. Answer of, to certain interrogatories, 245. Saxton letter of, 104. Allegheny City speech of. 104. Gallatin A., of Pa. On abolition petitions, 7. Gardner, Gov. H. J., of Mass. On Abolitionism, 21. Garnett, M. R. H., of Va. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 719. Garrison, Win. Lloyd. Sentiments of on abolition, 19-21. Gartrell, L. J., of Georgia. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution. 720. Gaston, Judge, of N. C. Upon secession, 554. Geary, Gov., of Kansas. Inaugural address of, 394. Georgia. Platform of State Convention of 1850, 599. Laws of, relating to foreign convicts, 219. Law of. in relation to State Conventions under certain circumstances, 246. 3erry, Elbridge. On naturalization. 295. Ghent. Treaty of, 247. Giddings, J. R. Abolition views of, 21. On the dissolution of the Union, 15. Proposition to expel him from the House, 133. Extract from speech of, 349. Gilbert, Ezekiel. On naturalization, 288. Goodwin, H. C, of N. Y. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 720. Gott, Daniel, of N. Y. Celebrated resolution of, 247. Green, Senator, of Mo. Report of Committee on Territories, 413. Groesbeck, Wm. S., of Ohio. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 720. Grow, G. A., of Pa. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 721. Grundy, Felix, of Tenn. Report of, upon Public Lands, 499. Hale, John P. Abolition sentiments of, 24. On the admission of Kansas under the Le- compton constitution, 721. Hammond, J. H., of S. C. On the resources of the South, 763. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 721. Hamilton, Alexander. On fugitive slaves, 232. Harlan, James, of Iowa. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 722. Harris, T. L., of Illinois. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 722. Harrison, Wm. H. On the power of Congress over territo- ries, 612. Harper, Robert Goodloe. On naturalization, 288. Hartford Convention. Platform of, 248. Haskin, J. B., of N. Y. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 722. Hatch, Israel T., of N. Y. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 722. Hill, Joshua, of Georgia. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 722. Hughes, James, of Ind. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution. 723. Hunter, R. M. T. On alien suffrage, 34. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 723. On the Kansas Conference Bill, 749. miosis. History of admission of, 249. Negro law of, 249. Illinois. Resolutions of American party of, 249. Laws of, permitting alien suffrage, 31. Immigration. Treatise of Louis Shade on, 250. Independent Democrats. Appeal of, 255. Platform of, 16. Independent or Sub-Treasury, 259. Indiana. History of admission of, 201. Desire to have slavery therein, 261. Laws of, permitting alien suffrage, 31. Inge, S. W., of Alabama. Upon slavery, 567. Iowa. History of admission of. 263. Iredell, Mr., of N. C. On fugitive slaves, 238. Upon slavery, 567. On a religious test, 634. Jackson, Andrew. Remission of fine imposed upon. 264. Proclamation of, against nullification, 264. On distribution, 508. Veto of Maysville Road bill, 548. Statement of, on bargain and intrigue slander, 686. Jackson, James, of Georgia. On naturalization, 286. Jackson, Joseph W., of Georgia. Resolutions of, 273. Jefferson, Thomas. Views on the Missouri compromise, 336. Opinion of, upon slavery, 567. On foreign immigration, 287. Johnson, Andrew, of Tenn. On the resources of the North and South, 766. Johnson, W. Cost, of Md. On abolition petitions, 14. Jones, James C, of Tenn. Reasons for supporting the Demo- cratic ticket, 274. Extract from speech of, 603. Keitt, L. M., of S. C. Extract from speech of, 604. On the relation of the Democratic party to squatter sovereignty, 613. Kellogg, Wm., of Illinois. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 723. Kennedy, Armstrong, of Md. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 724. Kennett, L. M., of Missouri. Definition of Americanism, 275. Kentucky. History of admission of, 276. Resolutions of 179S and 1799, 276 Ketchum, Hiram. Upon slavery, 568. Kilgore, David, of Ind. On negroes and foreigners, 24. Lamar, L. Q. C, of Miss. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 724. Lane, Jos., of Oregon. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 724. Lawrence, Wm., of Ohio. On the Kansas Conference Bill, 751. Leigh, Mr., of Va. Upon slavery, 568. Leiter, B. F., of Ohio. On the Kansas Conference Bill, 751. Letcher John, of Va. Extract from speech of, 603. Letcher, Robert, of Va. On the expenditures of the general government, 772. Liberator. Garrison's paper on dissolution, 24. Logan, Mr., of Pa. On abolition petitions of, 8. Louisiana. Laws of, relating to foreign paupers, 219. History of admission of, 280. American party of, 281. Maclay, W. B., of New York. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 725. Madison, James. Upon slaveryf 56S. On the power of Congress over territo- ries, 612. On a religious test, 534. Madison Letters. Defence of the American party, 283. Maine. Laws of, relating to foreign paupers, 219. History of admission of, 310. Mann, Horace. Abolition sentiments of, 25. Marshall, Mr., of Va. Upon slavery, 568. Marshall, Chief Justice. Upon slavery, 568. Marshall, U., of Ky. On squatter sovereignty, 613. On the Kansas Conference Bill, 751. Marshall, A. K., of Ky. On the power of Congress over ter- ritories, 624. Marshall, S. S., of Illinois. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 725. Maryland. Laws of, relating to foreign paupers, 219. Maynard, H., of Tenn. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 725. Mason, J. Y. Ostend manifesto, 478. Mason, James M. On naturalization, 295. Mason, Geo., of Va. On alien suffrage, 34. On the doctrines of the Kansas bill, 613. On slavery, 568. Massachusetts. Laws of, relating to foreign paupers, 219. Matteson, Gilbert, Edwards and Welch. Corrupt Congres- sional combination, 310. Maysville Road bill. Gen. Jackson's veto of, 548. McClintock, Professor. On Americanism, 303. McDowell, Jas., of Va. Upon slavery. 569. McMullen, Fayette, of Va. Extract from speech of, 601. McKinley, John. Upon the constitutionality of the N. T passenger laws, 313. 806 INDEX. Nebraska and Kansas. McKnight, Rev. Dr. Upon slavery, 569. McLeau, Associate Justice. Upon the N. Y. passenger laws, 314. Mexican war, 315. Michigan. History of admission of, 318. Laws of, permitting alien suffrage, 31. Mifflin, Warner. Abolition petitkm of, 6. Miles, W. Porcher, of S. C. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 726. Military appropriation bill of 1856, 318. Mill son, John S., of Va. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 726. Ministers of the Gospel. Protest against the Nebraskabill, 319. Minnesota. History of, 320, 325. Alien suffrage permitted in, 32. Debate in H. of R. on alien suffrage in, 42. Douglas's report to the Senate, 323. Mississippi. History of admission of, 326. Alien suffrage iu territory of, 31. Missouri. History of admission of, 327. First compromise, history of, 327. Second compromise, 333. Views of Jefferson thereon, 336. " Calhoun " 337. " Pinckuey « 338. " Douglas " 339. " Cass ' ; 340. Extension of the compromise to the Pacific, 340. Monroe doctrine, 341. Montgomery, Win., of Pa. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 727. Moore, Sydenham, of Ala. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 727. Morris, E. Joy, of Pa. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 728. Morris, Isaac N., of 111. Ou the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 728. Morris, Mr., of Ohio. On abolition petitions, 9. Nashville Convention. Resolutions of, 595. National Era. Extracts from, 25. Naturalization. Laws of the United States relative thereto, 342. Views upon, in Constitutional Convention, 345. History of, 346. Action of inhabitants in 1853, in relation to territorial organiza- tion, 348. r. v nrt aud bill of Mr. Douglas, 349. Lxii-act from speech of Mr. Gid- aings of Ohio, 349. Amendment of Mr. Chase of Ohio, to the Nebraska bill, 352. Debates upon bill, 352. Bill to organize Nebraska and Kan- sas, 356. Organization of the territory, 361. Topeka Convention, 362. President's Message in regard to affairs of, 362. , " Proclamation " 366. Report of Committee on Territories, 366. Election of Gen. Whitfield as dele- gate from, 369. Minority report of Senate Commit- te« on Territories, 377. Report of committee on "Dunn's Amendment." 385. Mr. Grow's bill for admission of Kansas, 3S9. Referred to Committee on Terri- * tories. 390. Admission of Kansas, 391. Reports of investigating commit- tee, 392. Inaugural address of Governor Geary, 394. Convention act of Kansas, 395. Address of Hon. F. P. Stanton, 39S. Correspondence upon mode of elect- ing delegates to convention in. 399. Inaugural address of Hon. R. J. Walker, 401. An item of history of the Kansas- Nebraska Bill, 407. Alien suffrage permitted in, 32. Mr. Buchanan's special message on the Lecomption constitution, 408. Report of Mr. Green, chairman of the majority Committee on Terri- tories in the Senate, 413. Repeat of .Mr. Collamer, from the minority of the Committee on Territories in the Senate, 423. Nebraska and Kansas. Report of Mr. Douglas, from mino- rity of the Committee on Terri- tories in the Senate, 429. Report of Mr. Stephens of Georgia, chairman of the majority of the Committee of Fifteen, 442. The Senate Kansas bill, 450. The Crittenden-Montgomery amend- ment, 451. Tabular statement of votes on the Lecompton Constitution, 455. Lecompton Constitution, extracts from, 457. Topeka Constitution, extracts from. 459. ' Leavenworth Constitution, extracts from, 460. Opinions of public men on the ad- mission of Kansas under Lecomp- ton Constitution, 709. Opinions of public men on the Kan- sas Conference Bill, 738. Negro citizenship, 461. Nelson, Justice, of N. Y. On fugitive slaves, 239. New Hampshire. Laws of, relative to foreign paupers, 219. New Jersey. " " « 219. New York. " " « 219! New York Tribune. On the dissolution of the Union, 28. New York National Anti-slavery Standard. On abolition- ism, 18. Nicaragua. Proclamation respecting an apprehended inva- sion of, 461. Nicholson Letter. From General Cass upon the Wilmoi Proviso, 462. Niles, John M. On the Deposite Bill, 143. North and South. Debate on the resources of, 763. Northwest Territory. Laws of, in relation to alien su* frage, 31. Ohio. History of admission of, 465. Ordinance of 1784 and 1787, 465. Oregon. History of, 472. Alien suffrage permitted in, 31. Constitution formed by the people of, 474. Proclamation by Governor of, 475. Bill for the admission of, 476. Orr, Jas. L., of S. C. On squatter sovereignty, &c, 615. Ostend manifesto, 474. Page, Mr., of Va. On abolition petitions, 6. Paine, R. T., of N. C. On corrupt Congressional combina- tion, 310. Palmer, G. W., of N. Y. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 728. Parker, Rev. Theodore. On the dissolution of the Union, 25. Parker, Chief Justice, of Mass. On fugitive slaves, 239. Parrott, Marcus, of Kansas. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 728. Patton, J. M., of Va. On abolition petitions, 1 Pearce, J. A., of Md. On alien suffrage, 33. Pendleton, G. H., of O. On the Kansas conference bill, 753. Pennsylvania. Laws of relating to foreign convicts and paupers, 219. Personal liberty bill of Massachusetts and Vermont, 481. Peyton, S. O., of Ky. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 729. Phillips, H. M., of Pa. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 729. Phillips, Wendell. On the dissolution of the Union, 28. Pierce, Franklin. On abolition petitions, 481. On abolition of slavery in the District -if Columbia, 481. On the religious test in the constitution of New Hampshire, 482. Letters on the compromise, 482. On the results of the Presidential elec- tion, 483. On a railroad to the Pacific, 529. Veto of river and harbor bill, 540. Special Kansas message of, 362. Veto message on Public Land bill, 516, Pinckney, II. L. Ou abolition petitions, 10. Pinckney, C. C. On fugitive slaves, 238. Pinckney, Win., of Md. Upon slavery, 570. Polk, President. Veto of French Spoliation bill, 236. Polk, T., of Miss. On the admission of Kansas under tha Lecompton constitution, 730. Population. Increase of. iu the United States, 4S4. Post Office Department, 782. Potter, John F., of Wis. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 730. Power of Congress over slavery in the territories, 609. Prentiss, Mr., of Vt. On French spoliations prior to 1800, 234. Presidential election of 1S56. Debate on iu the House, 484. Prussia. Decision of court in. in the matter of a slave, 499. Public Lauds. Mr. Clay's report on in 1832, 491. Mr. Grundy's report on in 1840, 499. INDEX. 807 Public Lands. Address of Hon. C. J. Faulkner against dis- tribution of. 500. Views of Daniel Webster, SOL Yiews of Mr. Clay, 501. Speech of Mr. Calboun, 507. Views of Mr. Bucbanan, 508. Views of General Jackson, 0U8. Views of Mr. Benton, 511. Congressional bistory of distribution of, 521. ■ Grants of, to states for railroads, 523. Veto message of President Pierce, 510. Bill passed by the llouse of Kepresenta- tives, 625. Tables of areas, &c, 783, 784. Pugb, Mr., of 0. On alien suffrage, 36. On the Kansas conference bill. 754. Quincy, Edmund. On the dissolution of the L'uion, 26. Quincy, Josiah. " " li 26- Quitman, John A. On the bill to repeal the neutrality- laws, 526. On the revival of the Africau slave trade, 590. On the power of Congress over terri- tories. 025. On the Kansas conference bill, 755 Railroad to the Pacific, 528. Randolph. T. J., of Va. Upon slavery, 570. Randolph. Edmund. On fugitive slaves. 238. Randolph. John. On naturalization, 295. Rawle, William. On fugitive slaves, 238. Raynor, Kenneth. Speech at Philadelphia on the union of the opposition to the Democracy, 630. On religious toleration, 533. Ready, Chas., of Tenn. On squatter sovereignty, 626. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 730. Reilly, Wilson, of Pa. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution. 730. Religious freedom. Virginia act of, 533. Religious test. Debate in the convention on, 533. Republican Association of Washington. Address of, 535. Republican platform. Adopted at Philadelphia in 1856, 536. Revenue from custom-houses, &c, 778. Tables relating to, 785. Rhett, R. B. On abolition petitions, 13. Rhode Island. Laws of, in relation to foreign convicts, 219. Richardson, Wm. A., of 111. Answer to certain interroga- tories, 537. Riley, Gen. Bennett. California proclamation of, 3* 6. Rivers and harbors, 540. Road bill. Gen. Jackson's veto of the Maysville, 548. Rockwell, Julius. On abolitionism, 27. Sandidge, J. M., of La. On the resources of the North and South, 766. Sapp, W. R. Extract from speech of. 27. Savage, John H.. of Tenn. Upon slavery, 570. Scott, Winfield. On Native Americanism. 54S. Letter of acceptance of, 549. Search. Right of. Views of Daniel Webster thereon, 552. Searing, J. A., of N. Y. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution. 730. Sebastian, W. K., of Ark. On the ^admission of Kansas Tinder the Lecompton constitution, 731. Secession. Right of, 550. Ordinance of South Carolina relative thereto, 5o4. Sedgwick, Theodore. On naturalization, 286. Seward, Wm. H. Abolition sentiments of, 27. Higher law speech of. 27. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 731. Seward, Jas. L., of Ga. Extract from speech of, 602. Sherman, John, o' Ohio, on the expenditures of the General Government, 7b'7. Shorter, E. S., of Ala. Extract from speech of, 604. On the Kansas conference bill, 756. Singleton, Otho R., of Miss. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 731. Slade, William, of Vt. Abolition resolutions of, 551. On abolition petitions. 11. Slavery. Votes relative to, during the first session 31st Congress, 551. Opinions of public men upon, 556. Slave trade, African. Proceedings relative to revival of, 585. Letter of Hon. Howell Cobb on, 593. Smith, Mr., of S. C. On abolition petitions, 6. Smith, Wm., of Va. Upon slavery, 571. Upon alien sutTrage in Minnesota, 42. Smith, S. A., of Tenn. Extract from speech of, 604. Speech of, on the result of the Pre- sidential election, 484. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 732. Soule, Pierre Ostend manifesto, 534. Southern Conventions in 1850. Resolves of, 595. Southern Senators. Protest of, against the admission of California, 605. Southern States. Address to the people of the, 606. South Carolina. Laws relating to foreign convicts, 220. South. Position of. as shown by the sentiments of her public men, 600. Debate on the resources of the North and South, 763. Spaulding, Mr., of 0. On the dissolution of the Union, 28. Squatter sovereignty. (See Nicholson Letter), 609. Stanton, Hon. F. P., of Kansas. Address of, 398. St;it>- laws. Relative position of whites and slaves, 154. States. Reservations of, in their instructions to their Con- tinental delegates, 628. Steele, Mr., of N. C. On abolition petitions, 7. Stephens, A. H., of Ga. Extract from speech of, 603. Report of Com. of Fifteen on Le- compton constitution, 442. Stevenson, John W.. of Ky. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 732. Stewart, Jas A., of Md. Extract from speech of, 602. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 732. Stewart, Chaa E., of Mich. On the admission of Kansa* under the Lecompton constitution, 732. Stone, Michael, Jr. On naturalization, 286. Story, Judge. On fugitive slaves, 239. 240. On a slave case in England, 628. Sumner, Charles. On the dissolution of the Union, 28. Supreme Court. Political power of the, 628. Swanwick, Mr., of Pa. On abolition petitions, 7. TfObct, A. G., of Ky. Extract from speech of, 602. Taney, Chief Justice. On naturalization, 284. Opinion in Dred Scott case, 148. Tappan, M. W., of N. H. On the admission of Kansas un- der the Lecompton constitution, 732. Tariffs. The several, enacted by Congress, 635. Taylor, Geo., of N. Y. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 733. Taylor, Miles, of La. Extract from speech of, 603. On the admission of Kansas under tha Lecompton constitution, 733. Temporal allegiance due the Pope. Declarations of the six principal Universities of Europe upon. 641. Tennessee. History of admission of, 646. Texas. Laws of, relating to foreign paupers, 220. Annexation of, 646. Thompson's claim. Opinion of Attorney-General Black, 649. Thomson, J. R., of N. J. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 733. Tilgbman, Judge. On fugitive slaves, 238. _ Tompkins, Cydner B., of Ohio. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 734. Tonnage duties to make river and harbor improvements, 6ol. Amount of, in the United States from 17S9 to 185i, 787. Toombs, Robert, of Ga. Upon slavery, 5 il. On the Kansas conference bill, 75.. Topeka Convention. Account of, 362. Toucey, Isaac On alien suffrage, 35. Trippe, Robert P., of Ga. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 734. Tucker, Mr., of S. C. On abolition petitions, 6. Union. History of the, 656. Upshur, A. P., of Va. Upon slavery, 5S2. Underwood, W. L., of Ky. On the^admission of Kansas u»- der the Lecompton constitution, 734. Vallandigham. C. L., of Ohio. Opinion of. upon slavery, 583 Van Buren, John, of N. Y. On the admission of Kansa* under the Lecompton constitution, 735. Vermont. Laws of, relating to foreign paupers, 2l0. History of admission of, 664. Virginia. Laws of, relating to foreign convicts, 220. Legislature of, 1798-99. Resolutions in opposition to foreign immigration, 296. Resolutions of 179S, drawn by Mr. Madison, on the unconstitutionality of the Alien and Sedi- Laws, and defining the rights of the states, 664. Address to the people, 665. Answers of the state legislatures, 666. Wade, Benj. P.. of 0. Abolition sentiments of, 29. On the Kansas conference bill. t 59. Waldron, Henry, of Mich. On tbe^admission of Kansas un- der the Lecompton constitution, 735. Walker Amendment, 671. Walker, Percy, of Ala. Extract from speech of, 600. Walker, Robert J. Inaugural address as governor of Kan- sas, 401. On the deposite bill, 142. Upon slavery, 5S2. On the Kansas conference bill, 761. Walworth, Chancellor. On fugitive slaves, 239. Ward, Elijah, of N. Y. On the admission of Kansas under . the Lecompton constitution, 735. 808 INDEX. Warner, Hiram, of Ga. Extract from speech of, 603. Opinion of, upon slavery, 571. Washburne, E. B., of 111. On the admission of Kansas un- der the Lecompton constitution, 735. Washburne, I. Jr., of Me. On the admission of Kansas un- der the Lecompton constitution, 736. Washington, George. Upon slavery. 582. Letters of, 293. Farewell Address of. 672. Washington territory. Permitting alien suffrage, 32. Webb, Jas. Watson. On abolitionism, 29. Webster, Daniel. On the dissolution of the Union, 16. On the distribution of public lands, 501. On the power of Congress over territo- ries, 627. Memorial to Congress on the increase of slavery, prepared by, 678. Views of, on the Eight of Search, 552. Whigs. Address to, of Maryland, 681. Whigs of Louisville. Resolutions of, 682. Whigs. Address of certain representatives against Scott's nomination, 682. Whig platform of 1S52, 685. Whig convention and platform of 1856, 683. Whig members of Congress. Proceedings of meeting of, 6S4. Williams, Capt. James, of Tenn. Speech on the bargain and intrigue slander, 686. Wiimjt proviso, 691. Wilson, Henry, of Mass. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 738w On abolitionism, 29. On the resources of the North and South, 764. Wilson, Jas. of Ind. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 736. Wirt, We, Attorney-General. Opinion of, against negro citizenship, 158. Wisconsin. Laws of, in relation to alien suffrage, 31. History of admission of, 693. Wise, Henry A. On abolition petitions, 12. Letter of, against Know-Nothingism, 693. On the admission of Kansas under the Le- compton constitution, 737. Witte, Wm. H. Anti-secret-political-association resolutions of, 706. Wolcott. Oliver, of Conn. On a religious test, 534. Wood, Mayor, of N.Y. On foreign convicts and paupers, 285. Wortendyke, T. R., of N. J. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, 737. Wright, John V., of Tenn. On the revival of the African slave trade, 591. On the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton conglfc tution, 737. Yancey, W. L., of Ala. On the Kansas conference bill, 781. Zollicoffer, F. K., of Tenn, On the admission of Kansas u» der the Lecompton constitution, 737. THE ENR, INDEX TO THE ADDITIONAL APPENDIX. Bell, John. Letter to Hon. Washington Hunt, accepting the nomination for President, 793. Breckinridge, John C. Letter to Hon. Caleh Cushing, ac- cepting the nomination for President, 800. Chicago Convention. Platform adopted by, 7S9. Constitutional Union Convention at Baltimore. Platform adopted by, 789. Cushing, Caleb. Letter to Hon. John C. Breckinridge, 800. Letter to Hon. Joseph Lane, 802. Democratic Convention at Baltimore. Platform of that por- tion of the Democracy which nominated Douglas and Johnston, 791. Platform of those who nominated Breckinridge and Lane, 971. Douglas, Stephen, A. Letter accepting the nomination for President, 798. Everett, Edward. Letter to Hon. Washington Hunt, accept- ing the nomination for Vice-President, 795. Hamlin, Hannibal. Letter accepting the nomination for Vice-President, 797. Hunt, Washington. Letter to John Bell, 793. Letter to Edward Everett, 794 Johnson, Herschell V. Speech of^at Washington, accepting the nomination for Vice-President. 798. Lane, Joseph. Letter to Hon. Caleb Cushing, accepting the nomination for Vice-President, 802. Lincoln, Abraham. Letter accepting the nomination for President, 797. Platforms of the political parties in I860, 789. Senate Resolutions, with the votes thereon, 792. JAS. B. SMITH & CO'S PUBLICATIONS. THE MOST USEFUL BOOK OF THE AGE. CHAMBERS' INFOKMATION FOR THE PEOPLE, OR POPULAR ENCYCLOPEDIA, Embracing all the Branches of General Knowledge necessary to con- stitute a well informed Man. Complete in two imperial octavo volumes, of 840 pages each, double columns, Illustrated with over Six Hundred Engravings, strongly and neatly bound. PRICE ONLY FIVE DOLLARS. INFORMATION FOR THE PEOPLE Is an Encyclopaedia containing a series of articles on the most important branches of SCIENCE, PHYSICAL, MATHEMATICAL, and MORAL; NATURAL HISTORY, POLI- TICAL HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY, and GENERAL LITERATURE. All is given which, if studied and received into the mind, would make an individual, in the common walks of life, A WELL INFORMED MAN. The ruling objects of the accomplished authors, have been to give what may be expected to prove the means of self-education to the people generally, whether enjoying the means of academic instruction or not. AMONG THE SUBJECTS TREATED ARE: Astronomy, Geography, Geology. Physical History of Man, Aucient History — Egypt, Arabia-Petrsea, History of the Jews — Palestine, History of Greece and Rome, History of the Middle Ages, History of Great Britain and Ireland, Constitution and Re- sources of the British Empire, Description of— England, London, Scotland, Ireland, British America, United States, Australia, Van Diem en's Land, New Zealand, South America, West Indies, East Indies, China and the Tea Trade, Ocean- Maritime discovery, Navigation, The Whale- Whale Fisheries,! Conveyance — Roads, Canals, Railways, Zoology, Aceouut of the Human Body, Vegetable Physiology, Botany, Natu-al Theology, History of the Bible- Christianity, Private Duties of Life, Public and Social Duties of Life, Life and Maxims of Franklin, Preservation of Health Commerce — Money, Banks, History and Nature of Laws, Political Economy, Population, Poor Laws, Life Assurance, Mohammedan and Pagan Religions, Superstitions, Domestic Economy, Cookery, Proverbs and Old Say- .ings, Natural Philosophy, Mechanics, Machinery, Hydrostatics, Hydraulics, Pneumatics, Optics, Light, Acoustics, Chemistry, Chemistry applied to the Arts, Electricity, Galvanism, Electro-Magnetism, Meteorology, The Weather, Phrenology, Principles of Civil Government, Language, English Grammar, Logic, Education, Drawing and Perspective Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry, Popular Statistics, Agriculture Social Economics of the Industrious Orders, Improvement of Wast# Lands, The Kitchen Garden, The Flower Garden, The Fruit Garden, Arboriculture, The Horse, Cattle and Dairy Hat- bandry, Sheep, Goats, Rabbits, Poultry, Cage Birds, Bees, The Dog, Field Sports, Angling, Gymnastic Exercises, In-door Amusements, Chronology, Printing, Engraving, Lithography, Architecture, The Steam Engine, Mining, Metals, Coal, Salt, and a variety ©/ other subjects. The expense of preparing this work has been very heavy, as, in addition to the closely sondensed printed matter, it has been necessary to execute upwards of Seven Hundred Engravings, in order effectually to explain and embellish the various subjects of scientific, historical, aud geographical information which the work fully and concisely embraces; but the publishers confidently rely on the intelligence and liberality of the public for remuneration. This is one of the most useful books published, of which over 100,000 copies have been gold in England. It contains as much for five dollars as can be only had in the ordinary Way of books for a hundred. Price in Sheep, best library style, $5.00 " " Half Turkev Morocco, neat, 7.00 " '* Half Calf Antique, 10.00 $£&* Copies sent free by Mail on receipt of Price in Money or Postagt Stamps. 2 JAS. B. SMITH & CO'S. PUBLICATIONS. GREAT NATIONAL HISTORY. UNIVERSALLY PRONOUNCED TO BE THE GREATEST WORK ON THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION EVER PUBLISHED. PRICE ONLY TWO DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS. BOUND IN AN ELEGANT STYLE. THE "HISTORY j AMERICAN REVOLUTION BY CHARLES J. PETERSON. THE HISTORY OF THE REVOLUTION CONTAINS A COM- PLETE HISTORY OF THE WAR OF 1776, And admirably written BIOGRAPHIES of all the prominent Officers engaged in that great struggle, including George Washington, Joseph Warren, Israel Putnam, Richard Montgomery, Lord Stirling, Ethan Allen, William Moultrie, Hugh Mercer, Arthur St. Clair, Philip Schuyler, • [Charles I,ee, , Othu H. Williams, John Stark, ■ Benjamin Lincoln, Francis Marion, Horatio Gates, Anthony Wayne, Benedict Arnold, Count Pulaski, James Clinton, lEol.ert Kirkwood, John Sullivan, iBarou De Kcll>, Henry Knov, Marquis De Lafayette, baron Sieuhen, Nathaniel Greene, Thomas Sumter, Henry Lee, 1>;< niel Morgan, Thaddeus Kosciusko, Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr. And is splendidly illustrated with NEARLY TWO HUNDRED FINE ENGRAVINGS. THE WARS OF 1812 AND WITH MEXICO! TO MATCH THE HEROES OF THE REVOLUTION. TRICE ONLY TWO DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS. The best History of these Wars ever Published. THE MILITARY HEROES OF THE WAR OF 1812 AND THE WAR WITH MEXICO ; WITH HISTORICAL NARRATIVES OF THOSE WARS. BY CHARLES J. PETERSON. THE MILITARY HEROES OF TFIE WARS OF 1812 AND MEXICO, CONTAIN COM- PLETE HISTORIES OF THOSE WARS: Giving authentic narratives of the causes which gave rise to them, their progress and termination, with vivid descriptions of the CELEBRATED BATTLES OF Tippecanoe, Detroit, Fort Harrison, Queenstoum, bundt/'a Lane. Yorktown, Lake Erie, The names. To. lashatchee, Emuckfaw, Fort Erie, New Orleans, SfC., $-c. Palo Alto, Rcsacn de la Palma, Fort Brown, Monterey, Buena Vista. Puebla de Taos, Los Anqelos Vera Cruz, Cerro Gordo, Cvntreras, Churubusco, Chaj>ultepec, ilolino del Rey. BuamanWa, <$-c, ifc., to tin CAPITULATION OF THE CITY OF MEXICO: Together with IMPARTIAL BIOGE \P1IIER of all the prominent actors encaged in those wars amon ihich will be round William Hull, .lames Winchester, Zehulon M. Pike, Henry Dearborn, James Wil kin- ion, John Armstrong. George Croghan, Win. H. Harrison. Richard M Johnson, Isaac Snelhv Jacob Jrown. h. u . Blpley, James Miller. Nathan Towsou, Thomas S. Jessup. K. P. Gaines. Peter B P r Alexander MaooniD, Samuel Smith, Andrew Jackson. ■„,,.„, \ \v u^ niphan, Samuel H. Walker. Wintield Scott, David B. Twiggs. Robert Patterson, Persifer P. Smith James Shields, James Duncan. Rennet Riley, John A. Quitman, Joseph U , Gideon .1 Pillow, George CaJ «alader, « m. S. Harney, Franklin p.erce, Roger Jones. &c. And is illustrated with 'I \\o UUNDRED FINK EXGKAVINUS. ©g^ Copies of either of the, above neat free by Mail on receipt of Price in Money or Postage Stamps. 3 JAS. B. SMITH & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. Peterson's Histories of the United States Wars. Being a History of the Revolution, the War of 1812, and the "War with Mexico, with Biographical Sketches of all the principal Officers engaged in the three Wars. Illustrated with more than 400 en. Price, handsomely bound in Library style, $3.50. Peterson's History of the United States Navy. From the formation ' of the Navy to the close of the Mexican War. One handsome octavo volume, with more than 250 engravings, em- bracing portraits of all the prominent officers, sketches of naval engagements, &c. Sheep, library style, price $2.50. Scott's Life of Napoleon. The Life of Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of the French, with ? Preliminary View of the French Revolution. By Sir Walter Scot; Complete, 2 vols, in one large 8vo., with numerous engravings Price, $3.00. JOSEPHUS' COMPLETE WORKS FROM NEW STEREOTYPE PLATES. The works of Flavius Josephus, containing Twenty Books of thv Jewish Antiquities, Seven Books of the Jewish War, and the Life of Josephus, written by himself. Translated from the original Greek, according to Havercamp's accurate Edition, together with Explanatory Notes and Observations. By the late William Whis- ton, A.M. Complete in one large octavo volume of 1000 pages, embellished with elegant Engravings. Neatly and strongly bound. Price $2.50. This is an entirely new edition of Josephus, just Stereotyped on Long Primer Type, and is without exception the best edition now published. Copies of either of the above sent free by Mail on receipt of Price 4 JAS. B. SMITH & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. VALUABLE UNIVERSAL HISTORY. Beautifully bound and illustrated with elegant Engravings. PRICE ONLY $2.50,. Edited by John S. Hart, Esq. A HISTORY OF THE WORLD, OX A NEW AND SYSTEMATIC PLAN, FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE TREATY OF VIENNA. TO WHICH IS ADDED A SUMMARY OF LEADING EVENTS FROM THAT PERIOD TO THE YEAR 1821, BY H. WHITE, B. A., TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. WITH A CONTINUATION, GIVING AN ACCOUNT OF THE VARIOUS REVOLUTIONS IN EUROPE AND AMERICA TO THE PRESENT TIME. In one beautiful octavo volume, bound in a durable and handsome style, and illustrated with numerous elegant Engravings. The work is divided into three parts, corresponding with Ancient, Middle, and Modern History ; which parts are again subdivided into centuries, so that the various events are presented in the order of time, while it is so arranged that the annals of each country can be read consecutively, thus combining the advantages of both the plans hitherto pursued in works of this kind. To guide the researches of the reader, there will be found numerous synoptical tables, with remarks and sketches of literature, antiquities, aud manners, at the great chronological epochs. The Author, who has had great experience as a teacher of history, has spent several years in the composition of the work; and every effort has been made to insure its accuracy during its passage through the press. In his l'reface, he remarks that "he has consulted the best works in the English language, and acknowledges his great obligations to several of the more recent French and German writers. The references introduced in the body of the work, serve to indicate the main sources from which his information has been derived ; and it is hoped they will also be serviceable to the student, by directing the course of his further researches, as well as inducing him to continue them In a more extended field." In preparing this edition, the American Editor has paid particular attention to those portions of the work which treat of American History, making them more full, and cor- recting those mistakes which are inevitable in one residing at such a distance from the source of information. NOTICES OF THE PRESS. " Without branching out into unnecessary or minute details, it contains a succinct narrative of the principal events in the world's history, from the earliest ages to the present time, drawn up iu a simph and luminous style.'' — Westminster Review. " This work has been compiled with skill.'''— Atheneum. " The History of the World, from the creatiou down to the present time, has been arranged by Mr. White in such a way as to render the study of his elegant synopsis easy and agreeable."— Neiu World. " The volume here given to the public, has evidently been prepared with much care. It is arr-iuged with great convenience, and the narratives of events are given in a style that will doubtless prove inter- esting to every reader.'' — Saturday Courier. " On the whole, this must be regarded as one of the most compendious and well arranged works that have appeared."— Saturday Post. " Under whatever circumstances persons are led to seek an acquaintance with general history, the work by Mr. White will serve to gratify their longings in this particular, and to aid them in treasuring up a vast amount of well arranged and clearly told historical incidents of the different people who have fl«urbhed In successive ages, from the earliest date down to the present time."— Colonization Herald. Copies of the above scut free by Mail on receipt of Price. JAS. B. SMITH & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. THE BEST HISTORY OF THE INDIAN WARS PUBLISHED Handsomely bound and elegantly illustrated with numerous COLORED AND PLAIN ENGRAVINGS. PRICE ONLY TWO DOLLARS. A HISTORY OF THE INDIAN WARS OP THE UNITED STATES, FROM THE DISCOVERY TO THE PRESENT TIME, WITH ACCOUNTS OF THE ORIGIN, MANNERS, SUPERSTITIONS, ETC., OF THE ABORIGINES. BY WILLIAM V. MOORE. This beautiful and valuable work contains : A General Account of the Indians of North America. Early Indian Wars of Florida. Early Indian Wars of Virginia. Early Indian Relations of New England. The Pequod War. King Philip's War. King William's War. Wars of the Five Nations. Queen Anne's War. Lovewell's War. Last French and Indian War. Pontiac's War. In one handsomely illustrated and beautifully printed octavo Volume. War of the Western Indians. Indian Wars of Carolina, previous to the Revolution. Cresap's War. Indian Wars of the Revolution. North-Western War, (during Geo. Washington's Administration. ) Tippecanoe War. North-Western War, (1812 and 1813.) The Creek War. Black Hawk's War. Seminole War. Copies of the above sent free hy Mail on receipt of Price. 6 JAS. B. SMITH & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. A BOOK FOR EVERY AMERICAN! THE TRUE REPUBLIC AN : CONTAINING THE INAUGURAL ADDRESSES, AND THE FIRST ANNUAL AD- DRESSES AND MESSAGES OF ALL THE PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ; AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, WITn THE AMENDMENTS AND SIGNERS' NAMES. ALSO, THE CONSTITUTIONS OP THE MOST IMPORTANT STATES IN THE UNION, AND THE FAREWELL ADDRESSES OF WASHINGTON AND JACKSON. EMBELLISHED WITH ELEGANT PORTRAITS OF ALL THE PRESIDENTS, Engraved on Steel, as large as tbe size of the page will admit, executed by one of the best Artists in Philadelphia, and a view of THE CAPITOL OF THE UNITED STATES. ** * This Work is well printed, on good paper, and new type, 12mo. size; handsomely bound in muslin and stamped. It contains about 600 pages, besides the Engravings. PRICE ONLY ONE DOLLAR. CONTENTS. Declaration of Independence, Washington's Inaugural Address, Washington's First Annual Message, Washington's Farewell Address, Adams' Inaugural Address, Adams' First Annual Message, Jefferson's Inaugural Address, Jefferson's First Annual Message, Madison's Inaugural Address, Madison's First Annual Message, Monroe's Inaugural Address, Monroe's First Annual Message, J. Q. Adams' Inaugural Address, J. Q. Adams' First Annual Message, Jackson's Inaugural Address, Jackson's First Annual Message, Jackson's Farewell Address, Van P.uren's Inaugural Address, Van liuren's First Aunual Message, Harrison's Inaugural Address, Tyler's Inaugural Address, Tyler's First Annual Message, Polk's Inaugural Address, Polk's First Annual Message, Taylor's Inaugural Address, Fillmore s Inaugural Address, Pierce's Inaugural Address, Buchanan's Inaugural Address, Constitution of the United States, Amendment to the Constitution, Constitution of New York, " Massachusetts, " Pennsylvania, " Virginia, " South Carolina, " Kentucky, " Ohio, " New Jersey. It is confidently believed that the interesting character of this publication will be suffi- cient to recommend it to the favorable notice of an intelligent public ; containing as it does, the leading productions of all our Presidents, and thus placing the knowledge of those principles, which form the substantial foundation of our enviable Republic, within the r«ach of every one of its citizens. jgggT 1 Copies sent free by Mail on receipt of Price. 9 • 1 *' ** It d ■ I 8 3 40 ■ 5 I X 7 X 3 » ^ aios sjkvt^o taiiri tiv i secistq.clh: -f^Ecs: •oxMawvHOvs *&«£ r 90I . OK i iNanni Sna?lsa J-V 'SSIVH AV07 XV iSUHOJ,VAV 3MM '■"•f ■"■Iff ssaujsna ~^cT MAVIS -j MHOP •|9»J>*f 9 KI . OJK °»»w»J«" jnonr , if n e 1 ?'ff qn,Q ^ a H * 0B °P ; j jarf*~— -v vient for the remainder of the term. 1845— James K. Polk and George M. Dallas, beating Henry Clay and Theodore Freelinghuysen. 1849— Zaehary Taylor and Millard Fillmore, beating Lewis Cass and Martin Van Buren for President, and William O. Butler and Charles F. Adams for Vice President. 1853— Franklin Pierce and Wil- liam K. King, beating Winfield Scott and W. A. Graham. 1857 — James Buchanan and John C. Breckinridge, beating John C. Fremont and Millard Fillmore for President, and William L. Dayton and A. J. Donelson for Vice Presi- dent. 1861 — Abraham Lincoln and Han- nibal Hamlin, beating Stephen A. Douglas, John C. Breckinridge and John Bell for President, and Edward Everett, Herschel V.- Johnson and Joseph Lane for Vice President 1865— Abraham Lincoln and An drew Johnson, beating George B McClellan and George H. Pendleton UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. MAYS 135W APR 1 7 RECD MAR2 2!o